The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

LAND TAX.

Dr. BOW RING moved for a return of the amount
paid to the land tax in various townships and places in
the county of Lancaster. exhibiting the whole amount
and the stun paid by each.
Captain JEST moved for leave of absence to Captain
Laynrd till the Ist of May, on account of illness in his

subordinate.—(Hear, hear.) The teaching of morals,
with the sanction of religion, never indisposed any man to
•r the proper performance of his duty.—(Hear, hear.) He
was aware that many persons held the ()pinion
that ignorance was bliss, and that when instruction was
necessary the lower orders had the advantage of the in-
formation of others ; but he would refer to the )taiil
returns lately laid on the table of the Hnitage) which
would afford him a strong argument in favour of instruc-
tion. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the Report
of the Chaplain of the Freston House of Corrtsnion,
which showed that the number of prisoners decreased
in proportion to the amount of instruction
they received. He believed that in France and
elsewhere upon the Continent, the discipline of the
army was maintained without recourse to the sys-
tem of flogging. As an instanm that flogging
was not necessary, for the maintenance of good
discipline, he would state. the instance of the Irish Con-
' stabulary. Sir Hussey Vivian stated that, out of
seven thousand men, the finest on the face
of the earth, he had never seen a drunken police-
man ; and if discipline could be maintained among
such a body of men without the necessity of
flogging, where was the necessity of npplying
that principle to the regular army, The House
would call to mind, that by an order dated
the 24th of February, 1.835., Lord William Bentinck,
abolished 'flogging among the native troops in India,
and he begged of Gentlemen to hear in mind
that he did that in direct opposition to the opi-
nion of a military committee on the subject.
He was unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the time
of the House, but, he could not avoid quoting, in
support of his argument, the minute of Lord William
Bentinck upon this subject. Lord William Bentinck had
said that. with regard to the opinion of military men, it
was the unanimous opinion of all the members of
military committees, that the punishment of
flogging could not be abolished.—(Hear, hear.)
They did not stop to inquire whether any adequate sub-
stitute for flogging could be adopted, but they
at once declared that if the punishment of flogging
were abolished the discipline of the army could
not be maintained. Lord William Bentinck denounced
that opinion of the members of the military committees
as a mere prejudice which was entirely opposed
to reason. At the same time his Lordship said that
he was not at all surprised at the existence
of that prejudice, because he could not forget that he
had for many years entertained the same prejudice, and
it was only by many years of reflection and
calm reasoning, that he had been enabled to over-
come it. No one, however, had hitherto at-
tempted to defend the practice of flogging on
its own merits. He knew that he should be told that
unless be could devise some efficient substitute, it would
be impossible to do away with the punishment of flogging,
while the army was composed of the description of men
who at present generally entered the service.; but he
would ask, did they find the present system of
recruiting so efficient that it was impossible it
could be revised with advantage to the service.
He (Captain Bernal) was anxious to justify hi,
opinion by authorities, and he would first quote
the authority of Mr. Fox, who had given it as his
opinion that the existing practice of recruiting was
not consistent with the British Constitution. Mr.
Wyndham; too, on introducing his Recruiting Bill,
in 1806, had said that he hoped, by introduc-
ing a better sort. of men into the service, they would
be enabled to do away with corporal punishment.
Lord Lynedoch and Mr. Wilberforce had expressed
similar opinions. Major-General Sir Archibald
Campbell had been examined before the Military
Committee on corporal punishment, and had given
it as his opinion, that men enlisted for a
limited period always made the best soldiers, and that
he (Sir A. Campbell) had always endeavoured to
get such men under his command, and to induce
them to re-engage. It might be said, that
the present system of enlistment was perfectly
voluntary. It could hardly be said to be so.
Men were entrapped under the excitement of liquor,
and deceived by tha false pretences of a recruiting serjeant,
to enter the service. Could they wonder that,
when a youth, entrapped in this manner,
and enlisted for an unlimited period, found that,
those representations were false, and that he was at once
subjected to the strict discipline of a regiment, without
hope beyond having a pension of 6d. a day at the end of
30 years if he conducted himself well—for such a person was
only granted a reward for good conduct —could they wonder at a
youth thus situated booming reckless and demoralized? He
believed it was an unuisputed fact, that the proportion of
suicides in the army was much greater than it was in civil life.
He would next draw the attention of the House to the pro-
' priety of limiting the service of these men and increasing the
number of those who rose from the ranks. He felt. justified in
saving, with due deference to the opinion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and the Secretary at War, but at the
same time with all due firmness on his (Mr. Ber.
nays) part, that it was his humble opinion that they
would, by limiting the service of the men and hold-
ing out the hope of ultimate promotion to them, do away With
the necessity of flogging, and elevate the character of the ser-
vice. The clause which he should have the honour of sub-
mitting to the House had for its object the abolition of punish-
ment by flogging, reserving it only in two instances—namely,
offences committed on a line of march, or for theft. He was
induced to retain it in those two instances in deference to the
opinion of those officers who had given evidence on the sob-
ers. They were unanimous in the opinion that it should be
retaked in those two instances, and he was fortified in his pre•
sent view of the matter on referring to the speec% of the Noble
Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandonl, who had been
one of the Commission that sat in 1835 on Military Punish-
ments, and had on that occasion said that he (IA not consider it
practicable to carry on the discipline of the army on foreign
service, without inflicting corporal punishment. With the
exceptions that he had mentioned he thought that flogging
ought to be dispensed with ; he, therefore, certainly concluded
that lie would have the support of the Clerk of the
Ordnance( Capta n Boldero). He would conclude by moving
the insertion of the following clause in the Bill:
" And be it enacted, that it shall net be lawful to inflict cor-
poral punishment, by flogging, during the time of peace, on
any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned offi er, in
the army or militia of the United Kingdom, save fur offences
committed on a line of march, or for theft."

The SPEAKER then put the question, that the clause be
brought up and read a first time.—Agreed to.
On the question that the clause be read a second time,

Captain 'BOLDER° said that he would first advert to the
question put to him the other night by the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Bernal), and he begged to
remind the House what that question was. The Hon. Gentle-
man had asked him (Captain Boldero), whether it was his in-
, tentiou to bring forward his annual motion for the abolition of
corporal punishment in the army? His (Captain Boldero's)
answer was, that he did not mean to do so, but if a motion
to that effect were brought forward, he would give it
his support. The Hon. and Gallant Member committed two
errors ; one, in saying that it was an annual motion, which it
was not; and, in the next place, it was usual in Hon. Members
asking for information from one another, that courtesy required
they should give sortie private information of it. The
Hon. and Gallant Officer had overlooked this, not with any
intention of annoying or embarrassing him, but no doubt for
the good of the service. Now, with regard to its being an
annual motion, how did the matter stand '? In 1836, he voted
' for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Captain BERNAL —Yon seconded the motion.
Captain BOLDERO—He did second the motion, and spoke
on the occasion, and voted for the abolition ; but had he voted
for a similar motion from that time to this? That be distinctly
and totally denied. ( An Hon. Member said " Iu 1837.") He
had stated that he had voted once, and once only, for the abo-
lition of corporal punishment, and if his word was doubted, the
Mirror of Parliament—the record of that House—might be
refereed to. An Hon. and Gallant Friend of hi., who had
made an annual motion on this subject, at last shrunk from
doing it, and moved fur a Committee of Inquiry, in order that
evidence taken before it might support his views; he would
, not trouble Hon. Members for their votes, having done so
FO often unsuccessfully without further evidence. He (Captain
Beldero) voted for him. In 1836, Mr. Lennard, the Hon.
' Member fcr Maldon, gave notice when the Report was brought
) up that courts-martial should not he allowed toinflict corporal
punishment in time of peace. The Report was brought up,
and he ( Captain B.) spoke in favour of the abolition,
and said he considered a great triumph had been obtained in
restricting courts-martial in the number of lashes they could
inflict, but in consequence of the improvement that had taken
place from the system of rewards and solita"y confinement, he
urged his Hon. Friend not to press his motion. Be did bring
it forward, and he (Captain Boldero) left the House and did not
give him his support. In 1838, during the discussion on the
question, he had been much impressed with the observations of
the Hon. Member for Sunderland, who was then Secretary at
War, that, as to abolishing corporal punishments, they had
better disband the army at once. Observations of that nature
was enough to make the boldest it an flinch from pitting his own
opinions in opposition to them. In 1838, also, he brought
forward a motion relative to the Mutiny Act, and
moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the
state of military punishments and rewards then in force in
the British army. On that occasion, he alluded to General
Evans, who had just returned from Spain, and who, notwith-
standing his votes in that House, had been compelled to carry
flogging to a great extent in the British Legion in Spain. He
had not retracted his opinions merely when h had changed aides,
for ewer since the year 1838 he had allowed the Mutiny Bill to
pass unnoticed without his bringing forward any motion. He
confessed that his opinions upon the subject were altered ; but
he would give his vote with perfect confidence that it was one
which no one could disapprove of. He had a right to change
his opinion whenever he might please, and he had changed it
while sitting upon the other side of the House. He denied that
Ile had ever expressed a determination to bring forward an
annual motion for the abolition of corporal punishment ; and
he would confidently leave the House to judge of his conduct.
Mr. J. HOWARD said that in his opinion military courts-
martial ought to be entrusted with the power of awarding
corporal punishment. For his part. he knew of no power less
abused, or more satisfactorily exercised; and if he was asked
by what tribunal he should wish above all others to be tried, he
should certainly choose a court-martial. Notwithstanding the
able speech of the Hon. Member for Chippenhain, the opinions
of the officers high in the service, and amongst others of the
first soldier of his age, the Duke of Wellington, were so en-
tirely in favour of retaining the punishment, that they had
strengthened him in the view which he had hitherto entertained
on this subject, and he must, therefore, vote against the motion.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, having being entrusted
with the cpmmand of her Majesty's forces in foreign stations
for many years, he could not give a silent vote on the subject
brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. His long
experience led him to the sincere and solemn conviction that
this mode of punishment could not be dispensed with with
safety to the British service ; and although he did not
say this without doing great violene to his feelings.
and wishes on this subject, it was very consolatory to
him to know that this obnoxious punishment was by degrees
failing into disuse—( Cheers front the Opposition)—that it was
becoming less and It Ss frequent, and that in proportion as the
moral character of the soldier should be raised, and habits of
providence and sobriety encouraged, was the probability that it
w .uld fall .sntirely into disuse at some future period.—( Hear,
hear.) Looking back to his own career, and remembering the
trightful extent to which this punishment was inflicted in his
early days—a recollection which made him shudder—he could
not reflect upon what had been done, and was still doing, to im-
prove the condition of the soldier, and the abatement which had
taken place in the punishment, as well by restricting it to fewer
eases, as by diminishing the number of lashes, without indulging
ad hope that these converging lines would eventually, and at no
insubordination,punis m ent was
day, be totruhesnedtrutisot medoefetto.—( Hear, hear.) By examining
the
.army regulations, page 252, it would be seen that corporal
duty, theft, disgraceful conduct,the threatening ft)
i!
Tv
lianngg
away with arms and itecoitrern stealing,
iv andse
h•-
nts. only was t o punish
-
language, neglect
neat recrictod to crimes,these
. ,lout the greatest care was taken
to preventthe—• pumshment &Om being inflicted ea-.

cept upon mature delitsatititite. Ms general officer was
permitted tie ti)htrm a punishment tipob the first conviction.
tC tentld safely say for himself that Whenever he had confirmed
the sentence of the eand-inertial, he had done so with great
reluctant*, load • Iltin a conviction that in that case it was tie-
'eetraiy It& the discipline of the service. He would recommend
the House to leave it to the humanity of the fitters, con-
trolled by the admirable reguletitths to which he had referred,
and by the Attempts Which had been made, and were still
makinge--fittempts in which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
kussell) and the late Secretary of War had taken an
active part—( Hear, hear)—to raise the thbeal character of the
soldiers. He thought that the distinction of flogging in peace and
war, and on the life of march, and any other time, was most
dangerous and offensive.... ( Hear, hear.) With regard to the
crime of theft, he begged to ask the Hon. Member, ought
not the soldier to be punished for making away with
arms, accoutrements, and ammunition? What greater crime
could there be than making away with those articles? and
yet nothing but positive theft would be punished by the Hon.
Member. With regard to drunkenness, which the Hon. Mem-
ber had acknowledged to be the parent of all crimes, it was his
opinion, that of all other crimes, it was the one that should be
the least exempt. He should, therefore, give his vote, under
the sincere and honest conviction, that in the present constitu-
tion of the British army, the punishment of flogging cannot
be dispensed with, with safety to its discipline.—( Hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY begged to state briefly the course he
meant to pursue on the present occasion. He might with per-
fect consistency vote for the motion of the Hon. Member, as
the subject of flogging was not brought under discussion during
the time he had the honour of being in office ; but lie thought
it was the duty of persons in opposition to take upon themselves
a share of that unpopularity which may attach to them in con-
sequence of their opinions as to what they deem necessary for
the public service. The inquiry which it was his duty to make
satisfied him, not that flogging was not carried to a frightful
extent in former times, but that they had done away with it as
far as it was safe. 'lnc instances of flogging ought to be very
much within the limits allowed by the law. By the adoption
of such measures as had been alluded to—furnishing the
means of amusement to the men, and giving them opportunities
of intellectual enjoyments—very much might be done to render
flogging unnecessary, but he conceived it would not be safe to
abandon it altogether, or on the ground of a distinction between
peace and war.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he
should vote against the motion; and if it had been brought
forward last year, he should have taken the same course.
During the debate another question had been raised respecting
the consistency of the Hon. Gentleman, arid the line of con-
duct he pursued with regard to the subject upon the former
occasion, and he invited them to look to the Mirror of Par-
liament as to what he said in 1840. He (Mr. Macaulay)
would beg to read a part of what he said. His words, before
the motion for a Select Committee, were—" I call on the
House to abolish this barbarous and brutal torture, and to show
to continental nations that the British soldier can discharge his
duty with equal fidelity under the influence of a noble feeling."
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Macaulay) thought that to call
on the House to abolish " barbarous and brutal torture" was
equivalent to any vote. That was on the 20th of May, 1838,
and he conceived that it had been satisfactorily made out that
between the year 1836 and 1838 a change had taken plane in
the opinions of the Hon. Member.
Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, in reply to the observation of
the Hon. Gentleinan opposite, that no man had ever been re•
claimed by the infliction of corporal punishment, would re-
mark, that there were at present in her Majesty's service four
Colonels who had, while privates, received corporal punishment.
—( Hear.) It had also been attempted to he shown, that because
there was no corporal punishment inflicted in some of the
European armies, we could, therefore, do away with it. Now,
with regard to the French army, he would observe, that in the
course of one year 81 men had been sentenced to death, and
that the sentence had actually been carried into execution in
one-half of the cases. Now, if that had been the case in the
British service, what would the Hon. Member for Wycombe
have said ?—( Hear, hear.) Again, it was said that as there
was no flogging in the Irish police, they could do away with
flogging in the British army. '1 he Irish police was constie
tuted of a better class of men.—(Opposition cheers.) If they
would give the British soldier the same pay they did the Irish po-
lice, a better class of men would enter the army, and they might
be enabled to do away with corporal punishment.—(Opposition
cheers.) The pay of the British soldier was eighteen pounds
a year, and the pay of the Irish policeman was thirty-
two pounds a year without any deduction, while from the
pay of the British soldier considerable deductions were made.
He (Lord A. Lennox) had been in the service twenty years.
He, in common with all who had witnessed the infliction of
corporal punishment, considered it a brutal and disgusting ex-
hibition, but it was his deliberate opinion that it could not be
done away with. He had endeavoured, whenever he had had
the power, to diminish its infliction as much as possible; and
he was happy to say, that during the last four years, he had
only had occasion to order the infliction of corporal punish-
ment twice.—(Hear, hear.) He acknowledged that corporal
punishment was a great evil, but he was afraid that, at present,
it would not be safe to abolish it altogether.
Mr. 0. STANLEY said that his experience in the army
had been but slight, but he could not avoid giving utterance to
his opinion, that the infliction of corporal punishment in time of
peace was unnecessary. If that were the case, nothing could
be a greater disgrace to the army, than to allow the practice of
inflicting cerporal punishment to exist. A better class of men
would enlist, did they not fear that they should subject them-
selves to the liability of undergoing a punishment which they
considered a degradation. That it might be neces-
sary in time of ear, was no argument for retaining it
in time of peace. It could only be justified by necessity.
By subjecting soldiers to corporal punishment they were
establishing :distinction between them and all other classes.
He was sure that if the punishment were done away with
some other effectual means would be found of insuring the
discipline of an army. He did not see why soldiers should
be subjected to a different treatment from other men. In
India the native soldiers were not liable to be flogged, and he
believed they were not deficient in discipline. He was glad to
find that althotigh the motion might not be carried, the subject
had been brought under the consideration of the House, as he
felt that its discussion would be attended with advantage.
Mr. VIVIAN said, he regretted that a subject which
had already been so fully discussed had again been brought
before the House, especially at the period when it was found
necessary to melte a large increase in our army. He did
not think it would be desirable that military commanders
should be deprived altogether of the power of inflicting
corporal punishment. it should be remembered that
that punishment was inflicted in extreme cases only.
He must say the synipathy of Hon. Gentlemen was rather
thrown away when it e as extended towards a class of men who
were void of those better feelings and principles of which the
British soldier ought to boast, because the punishment of flog-
ging was inflicted rather as an example, and upon men on whom
all other kinds of punishment had been tried without effect.
His (Mr. Vivian's) idea of the punishment was, that it was
more essential in cases of insubordination than on the line of
march, or in case of theft, and then as an examele to deter others.
As to the punishment of drill, it ought, in his opinion, to be
resorted to as little as possible. Then with respect to solitary
confinement, there was a class of men in the army who cared
not if they were confined ten days nut of every month or fort-
night. Besides, the effect of the infliction of that
punishment would be, that all the well-conducted men
would have to do the duty of those whose
ill-
conduct got them confined. Then, again, it was re-
commended to confine offenders in the hulks. Now, in any
place out of the British dominions, as, for instance, in China,
at the present time, the punishment of the hulks could not be
inflicted. Allusion had been made to the efficient state of the
Irish police, in which the punishment of flogging was unknown.
But it must be borne in mind that the men chosen for that
service were selected for their good character, of which they
should exhibit a testimonial before they were received. He
was not one of those who wished to see this punishment carried
into effect in the army. He should rejoice in nothing more
than to see the army brought to such a state when such a
punishment need no longer be held in terrorem over the head
of the soldier. But as no officer now could abuse the power,
on the contrary, as every Gentleman who had spoken had ad-
mitted that every commanding officer did his best to dispense
with it as much as possible, he could not but express his regret
that the Hmi. Gentleman had chosen this particular time to
bring the subject under discussion.
Captain HOWARD having claimed the indulgence of the
House fur addressing it, said he had expected to hear the same
arguments adduced in the present, that they had heard tin
former occasions, and that he should have met with similar
appeals to the sympathies of the country • but yet, where
instances of individual hardship were considered, they should
bear in mind that the legislation of that House had generally
been conducted on more broad and comprehensive principles.—
( Cries of " Divide, divide.") He wished to quote the opinion
of Sir J. Mackintosh, who he knew was considered a high
authority on both sides of the House. With regard to the dis-
cipline of an army, he says," A prompt and active obedience
to authority is the first principle that hold armies together, and
is more necessary in ass army than in any other body of men,
and without it they will speedily degenerate into a ferocious
mob. One of the greatest and wisest men had concentrated
into one sentence the description of an army, in saying that an
armed and disciplined body may be dangerous to liberty, but
an armed undisciplined body was dangerous to society." The
lion. Member concluded by stating that in 1836 the opinion of
the Judges of the land was against the abolition of corporal
punishment.
Dr. NICHOLL said, as he had never expressed his opinion
in that House on the subject under consideration, he trusted he
might be allowed to make one or two remarks. It was the
opinion of all the highest authorities, military and civil, that
it was not possible to maintain the discipline of the army with-
out retaining the power of inflicting corporal punishments,
though it was extremely desirable to restrain the exercises of
that power within the narrowest possible limits. He would state
to the House the number of soldiers who wire imprisoned, and the
number who had received corporal punishment, in the years
1831 and 1838. In 1831, the number imprisoned was
3,671, the number who received corporal punishment,
1,462 ; in 1838, the number imprisoned amounted to
7,170, while the number upon whom corporal punishment was
inflicted, was reduced to 850. His object in referring to
that was to show that the military authorities were determined
to keep within the narrowest limits this severe but necessary
punishment--(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.") He had in-
tended to make some further remarks, but as Hon. Gentlemen
were impatient for a division, he would not trespass any longer
upon the attention of the House.
Colonel RA WDON said, notwithstanding the impatience of
the House, he could not allow himself to give a silent vote on
that occasion. His belief was, that if the motion of the Hon.
Member for Wycombe were carried, it would be destructive
to the discipline of the army, and therefore prejudicial to the
interests of the country ; and he would consider his conduct
unmanly if he did not boldly express that conviction.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) He must say that he could not at all ap-
prove of that question being brought forward year after
year. A few years back a Commission was issued
in perfect good faith with a view of finding if possible a substi-
tute for corporal punishment. That Commission was com-
posed of four civilians anti three military men, so that however
it might be said that military men were biased in their judg-
ment, in this case the preeonderence was on the other side.
The report of that Commission stated that it was the opinion of
almost every witness called that the substitution of other
punishments in time of active service would be impossible with-
out injury to the discipline of the army. hat was the
opinion of the Duke of Wellington—a name which in the
House of Commons and on military subjects would elways com-
mand respect ?—Hear, hear.) The Duke was asked, " While
your Grace commanded the army, was it your wish, and (lid
you endeavour to diminish the frequency of corporal
punishments as much as you could ?" His Grace's
reply was, " 'that he had done so himself as far
as possible, and that he had found the same endeavour on the
part of every commanding officer who knew his duty." \\ hen
asked to slate whether he knew of any efficient substitute for
corporal punishmeut, his Grace said that he had turned the
subject over in' his mind, and he was of opinion that they
theyaiwould w
could not maintain the army in an efficient state without re-
taining that punishment. The punishment of imprisonment
wouldbe
u fr as regarded
be
diminishing theconducted
theirondnct force,edmen and By im-
prisonment the
well-conducted men would have to do the work of the man
imprisoned.—( Hear, hear.) He would be glad to do
away with corporal punishment, but they ought to pause
before adopting such a course. He (Col. Rawdon) had acted
as president of a court-martial which had sentenced a soldier
in the Tower, in 1840, to receive 150 lashes. He
would not shrink from the responsibility that might attach to
him for his share in passing that sentence. The man had at-
tempted to fire at his comrades through a partition, and for
that he had been punished. The great object of punishment
was to deter others from the commission of- crime by the force
of ezausplu. • Now itnprisontaent did not operate as an cz-

amply: Th& stildieks rata the crime and the criminal if they
did not see the punishment inflicted.
Captain POLHILL, as an old officer, felt it was his duty to
state briefly his reason§ for opposing the motion of the Hon.
Member for Wycombe. He thought it was desirable that the
power of inflicting corporal punishment should be left in the
hands of commanding officers, although he admitted that the
less it was found necessary to use it the better.
Captain BERNAL, in reply, stated, that however
humble an individual he might be comsidered,
he was somewhat surprised that after the motion had been
brought forward, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at
War had not addressed the House upon the subject. He did
think that some respect was due to public opinion out of doors.
—( Cries of " Order," and " Chair.'
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member was not en-
titli,d to reply.
Captain BERNAL said he wished to explain what had been
said b the Hon..3lembr r for Liverpool.—(Loud cries of "Order,
order," " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said,that if the Hon. Member had been mis-
'understood he might explain, but he could not introduce any
new matter into the debate.
Captain BERNAL said that his whole argument was misun-
derstood and unanswered.—( L aughter.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
157
Majority...
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.

This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES ('VEST INDIAN AND NORTH
AMERICAN COLONIES).
On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the House resolved
itself into Committee to consider of preliminary resolutions on
Customs' duties ( \Vest Indian and North American colonies).
Mr. LA BOUCHEHE said that he apprehended that this
was the time when it was his duty to bring before the Commit-
tee the point of which he had given notice. He deeply regret-
ted that in a Bill of which he approved, and which he would,
therefore support, that he should find a proposal which was
highly objectionable, and altogether at variance, as it appeared
to him, with the general purport of the Bill, and which he
should, therefore, think it his duty to resist by every means in
his power. He alluded to the proposal on the part of the Go-
vernment to alter the existing law which allowed the free im-
portation from the United States of America into Canada of a
great variety of articles, and to impose a duty upon some of the
moat important of those articles. It was necessary that he should
state to the House what the present system was. Flour, wheat,
cured meat, and such articles, we e at present allowed to cross
the border from the United States to Canada without any
duty whatever. 1 hat principle had been adopted by the House
on full consideration, in the year 1.8.31, and the consequence
was, that a Bill bad been brought into the House by his late la-
mented friend, Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Pouleti Thompson,
who was the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Previous
to that time there was a duty upon w: eat flour brought from
the United States into Canada of ss. per quarter.
Alr. Thompson, in proposing to do away with those duties, had
stated to the House that, as tar as he could perceive, there were
no British interests which could be promoted by interfering
with the free passage of those articles, namely, flour and silted
provisions, from the United States into Canada. That measure
of Lord Sydenham, had trot been opposed in the House, and he
( Mr. Labouchere) would remind the Committee of the grounds
en which Lord Sydenham had proposed that measure. He
held it as a general principle that in all cases, unless where the
great interests of the empire were concerned, they ought to
abstain from all interference of this kind with the colonies.
hat was indeed the principle on which the Hon. Gentleman
opposite had framed the rest of the Bill, and the present case
was the only instance in which he had departed from that
principle. Jr. every other instance the Bill had been
constructed upon a principle of relaxation, in that part of the
Bill alone had they adopted the principle of increased restric-
tion. Lord Sydenham had said that by taking off these duties
we should make the St. Lawrence the great outlet of the Ame-
rican States, and destroy the whole range of custom- houses
along the St. Lawrence. Now it was of the utmost importance
to make the new American States dependent upon us for their
great outlet, and by removing tnoseduties the St Lawrence would
become the great outlet of the States of Oh o, Indiana, Michi-
gan, counties rapidly improving in prosperity, fertility, and po-
pulation. 'the St. Lawrence was the natural outlet of those
States. The employment it gave to the shipping of this country
coining down the St. Lawrence was better than any advantage
that could be derived from a paltry duty on American wheat
and flour crossing the border. It was satisfactory to him (air.
L.) to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, say a few nights since, that he did not pro-
pose this duty in connexion with the present Corn-law, or for
the benefit of the English landowner, while he also said it was
not for the benefit of the Canadian farmer or miller, who, be
admitted with him (Mr. L. ), might appeal to the Canadian
Legislature for redress, if they wished to retaliate upon the
Americans for the duty they imposed upon Canadian
wheat or flour crossing the frontier of the United States.
All he meant to say was, that if any Canadian interest was in-
volved in the measure, that was no question for the House. But
if it was not airy British interest or Canadian interest, he
would ask what interest was involved in the subject ? He had
not,
_he 'confessed, received a satisfactory answer upon that
point. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that it was an
inter-colonial interest that was involved in the case ; but he
was certainly at a loss to conceive how that answer applied.
lie was opposed to the proposed duty upon meat; he was op-
posed to the duty upon wheat ; and he could not approve of
many parts of' the measure of the Government. The dispute
between him and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, how-
ever, was practmally confined to the questions of meat and
wheat. American flour was now imported into this country
through Canada, but he believed the practice was carried on to
a very limited extent ; and he thought that it would be very
unreasonable to entertain any exaggerated fears upon that sub-
ject. He believed that the importation of flour from the United
States to Canada was attended with great advantage to both
countries. The greater the facilities we could give for the
importation of American corn, as compared with the corn grown
nil the shores of the Baltic, the more would we remedy
one of the great evils of our present system of Corn-laws.
He must say, that unless they should hear in the course of
these debates some arguments more strung and conclusive than
they had yet heard, and than he expected to near, he hoped
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of
withdrawing this proposition ; or if he would not consent to
that, he holed that the Committee would do its duty and refuse
to sanction it. This was a proposition which would destroy
British trade, and to which no advantage had been assigned
which would bear a moment's discussion or investigation.—
(Heat.) He begged to move that after the words " wheat
flour," be inserted except in Canada."
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he concurred in all the gene-
ral principles which he had heard from the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. (The Right lion. Gentleman spoke in so low a tcne of
voice, as to render it almost impossible for us to catch a sr n-
tenee. ) He thought the time had not yet arrived for the estab-
lishment of the Right hon. Gentleman's propositions with
regard to Canada. If certain improvements could be effected,
and they were to wish to establish a system of free trade, his
(Mr. Gladstone) should say that that was a proposition which
they were perfectly free to grant; but he did not think that
Canada 6i any colony ought to claim the benefits of our colonial
system, and at. the same time be relieved from prohibition and
restriction. He (Mr. Gladstone) said that there was no such
object as protection of Canadian interests and protection of
Ilritish interests in this proposition. Of what possible avail
could it be to lay a duty of 2s. on American flour to prevent
it from being shipped into this country, when all they would
have to do would be to carry it across the lake, by which means
it would be rendered perfectly nugatory and perfectly useless?
But the Right Hon. Gentleman put the question, For whose ad-
vantage was the charge made? and followed the question, by
saying that it was not for the benefit of the consumers in Ca-
nada. It was not ; but to benefit the consumers in those colo-
nies which were not exporters of grain, but importers.—
,Hear, hear.) Canada, with respect to corn, was an export-
ing, and not an importing colony ; and .the only way this tax
could operate to their disadvantage, was only by preventing
them from making great gains at the expeese of those colo-
nies which, under the pi cent system, received from Canada
American grain as Canadian. This was the case with New-
foundland. Suppsse thet Newfoundland wants 50,000 barrels
of flour, and there is a duty of 2s on foreign flour, and that
colonial flour be admitted free; now, if the Canadians be al-
lowed to import American flour free, they would import 1:10,000
barrels from America for their own use, and would send the
same quantity to Newfoundland, and the Canadian merchant
would put in his pocket the 2s. which, according to the plan
before the House, would be paid as duty on the American flour
in Newfoundland, in relief of the taxa ion of that colony.
Air. ROEBUCK said that the object of his question was to
ascertain what particular class of persons in Canada it was in-
tended to benefit. The Right Hon. Gentleman had been used
as an instrument, not knowing what he was about. lie (Mr.
Roebuck) believed what the Hon. Gentleman had stated, that
no advantage was attempted to be taken for any persons. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had so stated, and he (Mr. Roebuck)
was therefore bound to believe him. In this country they
sought to promote the benefit of the landlord by the monopoly
in the growth of corn. He (Mr. Roebuck) could understand
that. Self-interest wag always intelligible. Then to smoothen
the difficulties which lay in the path of the Right Hon. Baro-
net—difficulties which he (Mr. I{.) understood, which he could
appreciate, and which he (Mr. IL) was glad to say the Bight
lion. Baronet had not shrunk from facing—nevertheless, now to
smooth those difficulties, and to hold out some ground of hope
to the agricultural classes of the country, they said they were
going to render impossible the importation of American flour.
He ( Mr. Roebuck) did not mean to put a questi, n on this
subject without touching t, on a point which the House ought
to understand—namely, whether they were now in a condition
to impose any duty such as that he alluded to for the benefit of
the landlord ? But he would come to that point presently. He
would now endeavour to explicate theratiocination of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that he
did not intend to benefit any interest in the Canadas, nor any
interest of the producers anywhere else, and that his abject was
to benefit the consumer. Was it, he (Mr. Roebuck) wanted
to know, to benefit the consumers of Canada? He certainly
would be benefited in his (Mr. Roebuck's) opinion by cheap
corn. But they did not cheapen the price of corn by
iisposing an. additional duty of 2s. per quarter; therefore it
was not the consumer in Canada that would be benefited. The
Right Hon. Gentleman said certainly not; that it was the
consumer in Newfoundland that would be benefited. But
was he to have his corn cheaper by the imposition of an ad-
ditional duty of2s per quarter ? He (Mr. Roebuck) always
found that the half-physician, the half-theologian used terms
that were not intelligible, and the man who thoroughly under-
stood the subject of which he treated used plain words, and
such as were easily understood. He certainly presumed that
the Right Hon. Gentleman understood the present subject. but
he could not but regret that he had used such words as " dif-
ferential duties." He (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know hew
the imposition of 2s. additiopal duty upon the barrel of corn
would lessen the price of it to any person, or how it
would enable them to import corn into Newfoundland
cheaper than the American merchant? The American
corn, he knew by experience, to be better than
the Canadian corn, and that therefore it would find its way into
Newfoundland whether they imposed a duty or not. The fact
was, the Right Hon. Gentleman was in a maze on the matter.
It was clear as possible that he wanted to make out a case. He
s' as like a man who advocated a bad cause. He had talked
round this subject, and about it and about, but. be never ex.-
plained it ; and now the real
question was simply—as the Go-
eminent itself declared that it had no object in view as re-
spected Canada—was the House prepared in explanation of
the Right Hon. Gentleman to put a duty upon foreign corn
for the benefit of the consumer of Newfoundland—were they
to interfere with the great principles of our colonial power for
the purposes laid down by the Right lion. Gentleman ? He
(Mr. R.) had always believed that the rule laid down since
the disaswious war with America, was net to interfere with the
legislation of our colonies, except as regarded .he matter
of trade.—(Hear, from the Ministerial benches.) lie took the
Right Hon. Gentleman at his word. It was to matters
of trade he referred. He (Mr. Roebuck) had told them that
he had a Constitutional objection to the imposition of a tax of
this description for the benefit of anybody in this country not
connected with our trade. Did they impose it for the benefit
of the landlord? Then,-if they did, they brOke through the
Act of George 111. referring to the matter. , The Right Hon.
Gentleman said it was not intended for the benefit of the land-
lord, nor for the merchant of Canada ; neither was it for the
thatben it w
elit ofa-sthient-tided for
Canadian ptriloudribeer;etiorr
.conf the consumer in-New-
nsumer, but it seemed
fvundland. ..'that was e 11..,• It ,was reduced to that single item.
Mr. GLADSTONE—The West Indies.
Mr. ROLBUCK--The West ladies I How could the West

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 16, iKv2

Indies be tenefited by their putting 2s. a barrel on Ame rican
gour?...(Hear, hear,) New, it was upon this point that they
were about to legislate ft* Canada. They had broken
up its Administration. They had crammed the Eng-
I
lishman and the Frenchman into the Same hull, and
now they were about to violate the Act which. Great
Britain had patied, after she had been taught wisdom, by which
she declared that we would not interfere with such matters.
It was a serious step which they were asked to take. What
was it which commenced the riot in Do§ttm ? An impost upon
tea. And why should ill-blood again be excited, when the
Catiaslians saw this impost inflicted upon them for the benefit
of the latidlords? They would compare Upper Canada to' New
York and to Aliclegan, to that vast wilderness, whose city,
after city, metropolis after metropolis, railroad after railroad,
was continually springing up. He would ask the House if they
were prepared to add this to the existing causes of disaffection ?
Importation from Amei lea to Canada was easy, almost beyond
conception ; it did not depend upon any impediment from the
River St. Lawrence—corn floated down from Kingston in
twelve hours--a thousand years hence the importation would
nut be more easy. Why should they interfere? There was a
mischievous spirit besetting them all ; they did not know how to
govern the country, but they must show their authority by this
petty interference. Let the people govern themselves. There
was not a merchant in London who did not know what was the
effect of imposing 2s. a barrel on American flour. He would not
leave this question without making a slight mention of the law
of the case. The proposition which he laid down was, first,
that good policy would teach them riot to interfere with the
internal regulations of their colonies without some special
ground made of benefit to the whole community; and, se-
condly, that the mode in which that benefit was to be derived
was specially pointed out by the Declaratory Act of 1778.
That Act bound them not to interfere with the trade of the
colony for the purpose of the revenue of the colony. The only
case in which they were at liberty to interfere was, where it
was necessary, for the benefit of the great leading intei ests of
this mighty empire. Now, he asked what those interests were
which needed it ? First, the agricultural interest did not need it;
the mercantile interest did not need it; the people who were
about to be taxed did not need it ; but, said the Right Hon.
Gentleman. there are certain people somewhere, he (Mr.
Roebuck) did not exactly know where, who might derive a
benefit by the imposition of this duty. The Right Hon.
Gentleman distinctly stated, and was particular in making the
statement, that it would not benefit the growers of corn. Now
he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask, would it benefit the consumers?
Hear, hear.) The growers of cern might be benefited ay
keeping up high prices, but the consumers of corn can only be
benefited by low prices; and the onus rested on the Right
Honourable Gentleman of showing how the consumer could
be benefited, and how American flour could be made
cheaper in the market by the imposition of a duty of two
shillings. The ,imposition of this duty, moreover, was con-
trary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. In the
'year 1771, just before England was compelled to acknow-
ledge the independence of the Mitericau States, an attempt
was made to conciliate the colonies by passing a Declaratory
Act. That Act declared that the King and Parliament of
Great Britain should nut impose any duty on tea for the pur-
pose of raising any revenue in any colony ; that they should not
impose arsy duty except for the regulation of commerce ; and
that the produce of such duty should be applied exclusively to
colonial uses. Now, with the Act before them, the onus lay
upon them of showing that the imposition of this duty was ne-
cessary fur the benefit of the general commerce of the United
Kingdom. It was not sttfficient to show that. some tine parti-
cular individual might by chance derive a lenefit of 20. from
this duty ; but they were bound to show that the imposition
of this duty was necessary for the benefit of the whole commer-
cial interests of the kingdom. He asked the Right Hon Gen-
tleman to show him that, and he thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman would have great difficulty in showing how any in-
terest could be benefit d by raising the price of corn and flour
by the imposition of this duty.
Lord STANLEY thought that the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's fears that the agricultural interest would be benefited
by the adoption of the proposed measures might have been
considerably allayed if he (Mr. Roebuck) had taken the
trouble to observe the thin attendance of agricultural Members
at the discussion.—(Hear.) Although the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had attacked his Right Hon.. Friend as being igno-
rant both of geography and of political economy, he (Lord
Stanley) did not think his Right Hon. Friend stood in need of
any defence. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had through-
out misrepresented his Right Hon. Friend. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had aecusi d his Right Hon. Friend of
saying that the St. Lawrence was not the great outlet for the
produce of the Canadas and of a portion of the United States.
His Right Hon. Friend said nothing of the sort, andhe (Lord S. )
could not believe that there was a Member of the House, nay
scarcely a person in England, who was so grossly ignorant.
The real state of the case was this. The Hon. Member for
Taunton had said, that all the corn and flour exported from
America, by way of the St. Lawrence, was paid for directly in
. British manufacture; and, therefore, it was of the utmost im-
portance to encourage this trade for the benefit of those en-
gaged in British manufactures. In reply to that, his Right
Hon. Friend, had said that he (Mr. Gladstone) was afraid that
li
the Hon. Member for Taunton was taking too sanguine a view
of the subject, because, although the navigation down the St.
Lawence was easy, yet the navigation up the St. Lawrence
was attended with so many difficulties, that he doubted whether
the increased state of British manufacture would take place to
the extent contemplated by the Hon. Member tor Taunton.
That. was the argument of which his Right Hon. Friend had
made use, and which the Hon. Gentleman misrepresented.
He (Mr. Roebuck) could tint understand how the -imposition of
• 2s. a barrel upon flour couli make corn either cheaper or
dearer. Hie Honourable Friend never contended that corn
in Newfoundland would' be received cheaper, by his pro-
position, than it as at present, but he contended that
whereas Canada possessed an. opportunity in the first
instance of importing into the provinces of the British
empire cheaper than it could be obtained elsewhere, the result
would be, not to relieve the consumer of Newfoundland from
the payment of additional price, but that the additional price
would go into the pocket of the merchant in Canada. Let
them take the case of 2,000 barrels of flour to be exported
from the United States and from Canada, supposing
a duty of two shillings to be paid on all flour from
the United States, and that the Canadian flour paid no
duty. The Canadian flour coming into competition with the
United States flour, the corn frcm the United States would re-
gulate the price of the Canadian flour ; and the iesult would be
that 2,000 barrels coming into Newfoundland from the United
States paying 2o duty, and another 2,000 from Canada, and
paying no duty, the price would not be diminished to the con-
. sumer in Newfoundland, and the revenue would lose the
amount which would result from the tax which they would
have received from the United States' flour. He had risen
merely for the purpose of endeavouring to show in what re-
spects the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had misunderstood his
Hon. Friend's argument. He was not aware, whether he had
made the ease clear to him ; but the propotitien which his
Hon. Friend had put forward was purely one of equity.
There were no interests in Canada, no interests in this country,
neither had agricultural interests, anything to do with tins
question ; it was a mere question of inter-colonial policy, a
question, in his mind, of very small importance, and which. he
was sure, would not raise in Canada those hostile feelings which
some Gentlemen had supposed.
Strangers were then oidered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
For the amendment
Majority for Ministers
On re• entei ing the gallery we found Lord J. RUSSELL on
his legs, who was discussing the next clause in the Bill. He
said that without any practical evil arising from the present
law, which had lssted for eleven years, the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman came with his abstract principle and said, that because
the revenue of Newfoundland might be injured, he would come
and interrupt that which was good and useful to commerce, and
put a stop to their advantage." He (Lord John Russell) never
knew anyihing so wanton, so unnecessary in his life.—( Hear.)
If it were for the benefit of some gnat English interest, if it
were for the benefit of the landed interest, or of any material
interest, he might say that the principle was injurious and
vicious, but he should say that sonic interest was concerned,
and that tome great matter might be obtained by ihe legisla-
tion ; but when no benefit could arise to any interest
or the revenue, he must say he thought it most uneccessary.—
( Cheers. ) No benefit could accrue to the consumer, fur he
understood the Noble Lord to say that the Canadian
rehant end importer, being able to send those goods to
Newfoundland and other colonies, would have an advantage
over the United States merchant, and that he, not paying any
duty would go into the market at Newfoundland, aria sell his
proportion at the same price as the United states merchant
sold his, and would thereby derive an advantage. By that,
however, he made out that the consumer received no benefit.

They only said that the Canat'ian merchant might receive
some advantage from this legislation. Was this a reason to
interfere with that which had been established for eleven
years, which was working for , good, and might produce very
great advantages? Because he would say that there could be
no greater advantage than to have a free communication be-
tween Canada and the United States, because it would bring
ho•h to the colonies and to this country great importations
. from the Western States of North America. In the case of the
East India rum he could understand not a principle; but in this
case it was a pure evil—they were interfering with the pros-
perity of Canada, arid they had no reason for it, but that such
a principle had been in force before. He hoped those who
had decided in favour of this principle in the case of wheat
flour, would negative the proposition now before the House,
and that the House would mark its set.se of disapprobation at
this petty. meddling legislation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, after the tempered speech of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, he certainly was sorry
' to hear so sharp and so unjustifiably worded a speech from the
Noble Lord as that which had just fallen from him. The
Noble Lord had alluded to this measure as if it were intended
to obstruct the.commerce between the United States and this
country and Canada, and had stated that reducing the duties on
the articles contained in the resolutions would have that effect.
Now he (Mr. G.) must say, that instances could mu hare
been selected calculated more to support the resolutions. He
(Mr. P.,) ventured to say, that it was almost impossible for
Americitto send her salted meat into Canada to be transmitted
into this country for this plain and simple reason, that America
would send from her own ports her salted meat to this
country, where it would be taken fur our shipping without pay-
ment of any duty whatever.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That was not my argument.
My argument was that the increase in the duty would not tend
to promote commerce.
Mr, LABOUCHERE must admit that when he addressed
the House last night, he thought it was impossible for the
Right Hon. Gentleman to bring forward the slightest argu-
ment that would bear upon this subject, but he (..11r. L.)
must admit that he had discovered something more plausible
than he anticipated.—Olear, hear, and a laugh.) But
at the same time he must say, that never was a question pro-
posed to that House by any Government supported by such
slender arguments as those used on that occasion. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had said
that they (the Opposition) had reduced the duty on salt meat
so much, that there would be no difficulty in the importation of
American meat, but they must remember that the St. Law-
rence was the outlet of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, and all the
North-western portion of America. Now cured meat from
that part of the country would naturally conic down from the
St. Lawrence if they did not interrupt it by imposing a duty.
He confessed he had heard with considerable regret the argu-
ment of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, on
that occasion, because he was a member of that Government
which decided upon the measure brought forward by Mr. Pow lett
Thompson in the Howe of Commons, which established the
system he was now seeking to alter. He really did not think
the Noble Lord had staled to the House any substantial reason
for departing from that policy which he had recommended, anti
which had existed for eleven years without injury to anybody.
He could not agree, however, with the Hon. Member for Bath,
who stated that the course proposed by her Majesty's Govern.•
merit was a violation of the Declaratory Act. lie felt bound to
say he could not agree with the Hon. Member in that objec-
tion to the measure.
Mr. ROI:BUCK had taken the trouble to ascertain the
consequences of this measure to Canada and Newfoundland.
Whest imported from Canada into Newfoundland would
be got at 205., and if they put a duty upon flour imported
from America into Canada of 25., that would make it 2:N..
therefore Newfoundland wold have to ply a tax of 25., which
would be reaped in Canada.
Lord HO WICK certainly concurred with the Hon. Gen-
tlem-n that the measure would be an advantage,. but
en,ittle.a
politic one. 'the arguments us-d by the Right Hon. Gentle.
man opposite was precisely the same as that used by th.ein
that side of the House withrespect to East India tooacct!.
The revenue of both countries v, ould increase witbeuthenefi,-
ing the consumer. He entirely concurred with the Hon.