duction, and attempted to extend the foreign trade of the country at the expense of the home consumer and of the Colonies.

Lord G. Bentinck then, by leave of the House, withdrew his amendment; and the Bill was read a third time, and passed.

The Customs Duties Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords, on the 4th of June, on the motion of the Earl of Dalhousie. In his speech the noble lord showed that this measure was merely a following up of that ameliorative course of commercial policy adopted by successive Governments, and particularly by the present Government.

In 1819 considerable reductions were made in the import duties, between 1819 and 1826 still greater changes were made, and from 1842 to 1845 the system underwent the greatest change of all. This policy was adopted in the firm belief that the removal of the duties on the raw material of manufactures, and the reduction of duties on manufactured goods, while beneficial to the consumer, would also give a stimulus to trade, which would tend directly to the benefit of commerce, and in the end leave the revenue very little, if at all, a sufferer by the change. He showed, by details similar to those adduced by Ministers in the Commons, that these hopes had been completely realized. The present measure was merely an extension of the policy which had been in operation for many years, and which had proved its soundness by results that could not be mistaken. The revenue had increased; the consumption of those articles which had been relieved of import duties in whole or in part had been

largely augmented, and the exports had gone on increasing.

After explaining the leading changes to be effected by the present Bill, Lord Dalhousie disclaimed its title to the character of a free-trade measure; its principle was simply, as stated to their lordships in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, the removal of prohibitory and the reduction of protective duties.

The Duke of Richmond moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord Dalhousie had spoken of the measure as recommended by the Crown; it was the measure of the Crown's Ministers, and theirs was the recommendation. It was unconstitutional, and contrary to their lordships' privileges, that Her Majesty's name should be used as in favour of or against any measure before their lordships.

The Earl of Dalhousie explained, that if he used the word " recommended," he did not mean to imply the existence of any opinion on the part of the Crown, but simply that it had been suggested by the Ministers of the Crown that the matter should be mentioned in the Queen's Speech on opening the Session.

The Duke of Richmond was glad of this disclaimer: he then proceeded with his objections.

He objected to the reduction of the duty on butter and cheese, a proposal which he attributed to hostility to the agricultural interest. He thought the retention of the duty on manufactured cottons unfair, and a great hardship to the Manchester manufacturers, who professed that they required no protection at all; they, forsooth, were anxious to get rid

of it-they would make up for the withdrawal of protection by their skill, industry, energy, and Heaven knows what! He could not see why the farmers' and labourers' wives should not be allowed to purchase cotton gowns as cheaply as they could, when foreign corn was admitted into this country at a reduced rate of duty. Lord Dalhousie had vindicated the retention of duties on certain articles, on the ground that they were luxuries. But was not a carriage a luxury? was not silk a luxury? He complained that the proposers of these free-trade measures did not carry out their principles; they reduced the duty on luxuries, that the Minister's wife might go to court in a very fine gown and in an elegant carriage, while they retained the duty on other luxuries. His real objection to all these free-trade measures was, that they must have the effect of reducing the wages of our own artizans and labourers. The duke concluded by remarking, that after the decision their lordships had come to the other evening, he felt it was of very little use to trouble them at any length upon this question, for he well knew what their decision would be.

some

The Earl of Wicklow thought the whole proceedings of the Government, with regard not only to this measure but to others, had been characterized by injustice, which ought not to be borne.

Earl Grey was of opinion, on looking at the measure, that there was no distinct principle fairly and clearly carried out by it. After the admission which had been made that protective duties were unsound, the most proper

and reasonable course for Government to adopt would be to get rid of those duties altogether. He believed that if the Duke of Richmond's principle of protecting every article of home production were carried out, we should soon have no trade at all. On the other hand, he believed that the utmost possible freedom of exchange among nations added to their mutual wealth and to the comfort and enjoyment of their people. He considered that nothing could be more injurious to existing interests than the adoption of a principle which, while it partially kept up the protective duties, would ultimately lead to their entire abolition. He looked on the Bill, however, as a most important step in the right direction. accepted it-not as carrying into effect, as they ought to be carried out, the principles for which he contended, but as a valuable instalment of what those who concurred with him in opinion might expect.

He

Lord Ashburton objected to the Bill, deeming it most injurious to the industrious classes. His surprise was, that the energies of the country had enabled it to bear up against the constant tampering and meddling with its commerce which had lately been pursued. pursued. He defied the Government to show that the prosperity enjoyed by the country was owing to the new tariff. This country

had attained to an extraordinary degree of prosperity under a system of protection, and that man must be rash indeed who would make that prosperity an excuse for the present measure. At present there was no surplus in the exchequer worth speaking of; and

if a reaction came, as in the course of events must naturally happen, having exhausted our fiscal resources, he did not know how we should meet the deficit, after the reductions proposed to be made by the measure before the House.

Lord Monteagle considered that the liberal commercial measures of the present Government were one of the main elements of our recent prosperity.

He objected to the needless sacrifice of duty in the case of colonial timber, by which the consumer had derived no advantage. With respect to the duties upon sugar, the course taken by the Government was so unexampled and without precedent that he could not believe they would adhere to the principle upon which Parliament was last Session called upon to legislate. An importation of 70,000 tons of high-priced sugar had been calculated upon, which would have yielded a revenue of about 1,400,000l. But these figures had been so far from being realized that only 1,500 tons had really been imported, and in place of a revenue of 1,500,000l. only 24,000l. had been received. Then a reduction of 11s. 2d. per cwt. had taken place in the duty upon West India sugar, which had entailed upon the country an enormous sacrifice of revenue without a corresponding benefit to the consumer. The revenue lost about 1,500,000l., being 11s. 2d. per cwt., and the consumer had only gained 9d. per cwt. in the price. Who, then, had benefited by the reduction? Public attention ought to be called to this point.

The finances of the country were in a satisfactory state at the present moment, but that arose from

the 5,000,000l. derived from the Income Tax. He thought the wiser policy for the Government would have been to have made that tax permanent, till they were able to remove it. Under present circumstances a renewal could not be asked for, without an inducement being held out in the removal of some unpopular indirect tax. A Property Tax, for a short period, subject to renewal, had a tendency to create a system of direct instead of indirect taxation, than which a more dangerous course could not be entered on by any country, particularly one burdened as this was with debt.

The Bill was read a second time, no division taking place. The discussions on the subsequent stages were brief, but marked by unabated hostility on the part of the opponents. The Duke of Richmond, previous to the House going into committee on the Bill, on the 22nd of June, presented petitions from certain silkweavers at Macclesfield and from Spitalfields, praying to be heard by counsel against the clause by which their interests were affected. The petitioners undertook to prove that the proposed duty on foreign silks, so far from being equal to 15 per cent., did not, on many descriptions, exceed 9 per cent.

The Earl of Dalhousie opposed the motion, alleging, that by the rule of the House counsel were not to be heard on a general measure of Customs, but only on a measure affecting a particular trade or a particular locality.

motion.

Lord Brougham supported the There was a great pcculiarity in the case; and being anxious for information on the facts alleged in the petitions, he

would not tie down the petitioners to a speech of counsel on their behalf, but would be ready to hear witnesses, provided the production of evidence was not resorted to for the purpose of mere delay. He complimented the Protectionist lords on the fair and candid manner in which they had conducted their opposition to the Government measures. They had not availed themselves of the opportunities for delay which had occurred, nor had they awaited to see what might turn up elsewhere to affect the decision of the House.

Lord Ellenborough and the Duke of Wellington opposed the motion as inconsistent with Parliamentary usage. The latter observed, that they could not make any alteration in the details of the Bill without an infraction of the settled rules of proceeding, which had existed for more than 200 years as between the two Houses. In considering the Corn Bill their lordships had kept these rules in view. The consequence of making alterations in committee in the money clauses of Bills of Supply and of Customs had invariably been, not only the loss of the Bills, but afterwards, in point of fact, entirely to paralyze the proceedings of Parliament. It was useless to allow counsel to come forward and make statements, while their lordships knew that the arguments could be of no avail in inducing them to alter the details.

The Duke of Richmond controverted this doctrine with some warmth. If such was to be the constitution of Parliament, it was a mere farce to ask their lordships to consider a Bill, while at the same time they were told that they could not alter it. Better would it be to alter the Standing

Lord Stanley then delivered a speech in opposition to the Bill on general grounds of principle. This measure was inconsistent with the principle of free trade, as acted upon in the Corn Bill. In that Bill all protection was taken away from agriculture, but in the Customs Bill a certain system of protective duties was laid down. But it was because he found the principle of protection recognised in that Bill that he was able to consent to its principle and to agree to its going into committee. Free traders had asserted that if once the Corn Laws were swept away, the agricultural interest would soon lend its aid in doing away with all other monopolies and protections. He hoped that experience would falsify the prediction, and that the

agricultural interest would not stultify the cause in which they were engaged, and in which they would continue to be engaged, by so acting. He should be much mistaken if many years elapsed before their lordships would find the manufacturing interest sensible of the mistake they had committed, and desiring for themselves that protection which they had so earnestly requested might be taken away from others. Lord Stanley proceeded at some length to show the inexpediency of abolishing certain duties and of reducing others. It was an axiom in finance that those duties should not be interfered with which were increasing in productiveness; and he applied the axiom to the case of butter and cheese, live animals, silk, timber, boots and shoes, and some other articles, all of which were increasing in value to the revenue. Before consenting to repeal or reduce the duties on these articles the House should have an explanation of the principle upon which Ministers were proceeding.

The Earl of Dalhousie gave the required explanation. He had frequently explained that the measure was not offered as one of free trade. What Ministers desired was, to remove the duties upon articles of necessary clothing. Beyond this, the object of the Government had been in revising the tariff to act according to the system which had been pursued of late years, and reduce the duties on articles of manufacture, and on articles partially manufactured, so as to leave an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. on all such articles of importation as nearly as possible. As to the revenue, Government, looking at the past, had a perfect right to expect that the loss would be

made up. Lord Dalhousie gave a number of explanatory details in connection with the statements adduced by Lord Stanley.

The first clause having been agreed to, the second, relating to the duties on timber, was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved its omission. This amendment was negatived by 54 to 52.

Lord Hardwicke moved the omission of the clause relating to butter and cheese: the amendment was supported by Lord Stanley, but rejected on a division by 75 to 50.

Earl Stanhope objected to the reduction of the duty on lace, but did not press his motion to a division.

The Duke of Richmond moved the omission of the clause relating to silk duties.

The Earl of Dalhousie defended the clause, and went at some length into the state of the silk trade. He thought the conclusion was inevitable, of the perfect capacity of the trade to compete with the foreigner in thrown silk, as well as in the fabrics of silk. With respect to the parties engaged in the trade under this system, he had taken every pains to obtain information from all parts of the country; and he could assert, that in every part of the country there never was a time when, taken as a whole, the trade was in a greater state of prosperity and more full employment, notwithstanding the admission of foreign thrown silk and the foreign manufactured article. Why, on the very evening that his noble friend was originally to have brought forward this petition, about a fortnight ago, a meeting of the velvet-weavers (who constituted the greater portion of the silk-weavers of Spitalfields) was held to consider whether they should not demand