Star.
London, England, 1821-05-23 00:00:00

the importation from North America of a yell bad
article, which could answer no useful purpose; and
,thus the country suffered materially in its commerce
'with the North of Europe, limn whence the best.
Timber could be obtained. As a proof of the bad
quality of the North American Timber, he quoted
the authority of Sir Robert Seppings, who 'stated,
that ships built of American fir did not last half so
long as those built of Norway fir ; and besides, they
were generally seized with the dry rot. When their
Loidships Committee was considering this subject,
one witness declared, in answer to a question put by
him (Lord Lauderdale) that he could not in his con-
science recommend to any man to purchase a house
built of American Timber. He said he considered it
as errant a Colonial job as ever came before Parlia-
ment, and one that would materially injure the trade
and prosperity of the country. The Noble Lord now
referred to the Report of the Committee, whose de-
cided opinicin was, that Timber ought to be had of
the best quality, and at the cheapest price. He con-
tended, that if the restrictive law were carried into
effect, it would discourage the recommendation of
those liberal principles of commerce which were laid
down in the Report of the Committee. He concluded
with moving that this Bill be read a second time this
day six months.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH contended that this Bill
would not serve the interests of the Proprietors of
Canada. but of those who were engaged in the trade
of carrying the Timber to this country, and who
were, for the most part, not subjects of his Majesty,
but of the United States. This was, in fact, a Bill
for introducing the dry rot into every building of this
country. _ If he should ever attend a Committee of
this House again on the subject of trade, he confessed
he should do so without the slightest hope of doing
good, seeing that so little attention was given to the
principles which the Committee on the subject of
Timber had, alter so much inquiry, established, as
he thought, successfully ; yet there was some little
good in the Bill, and he would therefore vote for it.
Lord KING concurred with the Noble Lord in
regretting that the principles recommended by the
Committee were treated with so much indifference.
They Earl of LIVERPOOL contended that the Bill
placed the trade on a more advantageous footing
than it was before. It reduced the Duty on Baltic
Timber: whether they ought to go further was ano-
ther question, which might deserve consideration at
another time. With respect to the transports em-
ployed in this trade, to whomsoever they belonged,
they were manned with British seamen. It was the
practice of this country to give protection to its Co-
lonial industry. This was, at least, an intelligible
principle. But the principle which he could not un-
derstand was, that of giving protection to the in-
dustry of a foreign country—( Hear, hear).—He
would not say that this Bill was not partly founded
on erroneous principles, but it certainly placed the
trade on better grounds than it was on berme. Upon
the principle of the common proverb, that half a loaf
was better than no bread, he could not see why their
Lordships should not pass this Bill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN regretted to hear
the Noble Earl say that a Bill ought to be passed
which he confessed was founded on erroneous prin-
ciples. If Parliament were to legislate in this man-
ner, be despaired of seeing any free principles of
commerce ever adopted in this country. He felt a
deep despondency at the failure of the principles laid
down by the Committee on this subject. If, however,
Parliament should hereafter revise this law, he hoped
that at least it should be now understood that no pro-
mise—no engagement was given to capitalists, that
this was to be a permanent system.
Earl BATHURST said that he had already stated,
and it was also stated elsewhere, that Government
had given no pledge of that kind, but that, on the
contrary, it was clearly understood that it was per-
fectly competent to the Legislature to revise this Bill
whenever it was thought necessary.
The question was then put, the Amendment was
negatived, the Bill was committed, and ordered to
be read a third time to-morrow.

Lord LAUDERDALE said, that this Bill doubled
the duty on cedar. Persons had gone out for timber
of that description before this Bill was introduced
into the Legislature, and they were expected to re-
turn in three weeks. He thought it would be hard
that, under such circumstances, they should be com-
pelled to pay the double duty.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that such cases
certainly deserved consideration.—Adjourned.