20s.; and on the 5th of April, 1848, from 20s. to 15s.; leaving colonial timber as it stood, at a nominal duty of 1s. These were the principal articles to which he felt bound to direct their Lordships' attention as regarded the details of the measure proposed for their consideration; but he wished also to direct it for a moment to the principles involved in the Bill. It had been stated by a noble Lord on the first reading of the Bill that it left many things undone; and that it was, as a measure of Simultaneously, too, with the increase in the consumption of foreign timber there had been a large increase in the consump-free trade, therefore inconsistent. Now, tion of colonial timber. It ranged on Jan. 6, 1846, from 41. 7s. 6d. to 41. 12s. 6d. The Paper from which he quoted was, "Return of the House of Commons," No. 175, for this year; and it completely bore him out in the statement which he had made, that the benefit of the reduction was felt by the consumer during the greater part of that period. Since last year, however, that benefit was not so apparent, because the enormous demand for timber, colonial and foreign, for railways and public edifices, prevented the decline in prices. On these grounds it was that Her Majesty's Ministers proposed further to reduce the duty on foreign timber by a gradual process-namely, on the 5th of April, 1847, from its present figure 25s. to he (the Earl of Dalhousie) altogether and totally denied and disclaimed the character thus attempted to be given to the measure. Its principle was not free trade, but the reduction of protecting duties and the removal of those which were prohibitory. He did not attempt to deny that there were many anomalous parts in the Bill; but he submitted it solely as a measure for the reduction of protection and the removal of prohibition, not as a free-trade measure. The Government, of course, reserved to themselves the right of carrying on still further the reduction which they proposed in protective duties; but, at the same done cautiously, tenderly, and not without time, he was bound to add, it would be reference to the interests which had grown up under protection in particular cases, and, above all, not without reference to considerations of the revenue of the country. He, therefore, commended the measure to their Lordships, not under the nickname which had been bestowed upon it—namely, a free-trade measure, but as what it really and truly was, a measure for the removal of prohibitory and the reduction of protective duties; and he saw no reason whatever why, in that character, it should not receive their Lordships' sanction and support. The DUKE of RICHMOND moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, upon the very ground upon which it had been recommended to their Lordships' noticenamely the removal of protective duties. In the first place, however, he should complain of the course taken by his noble Friend in proposing it to their Lordships. His noble Friend stated that the measure he proposed came before them recommended by the Crown. He denied that, and said 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 Queen's Speech re- | his noble Friend tell them what the effect commended this measure, but that was the of this measure had already been on the Speech of the Ministers. wages of the paper-stainers? Their Lordships were aware that foreign paper could now come in in anticipation of the passing of this measure. He understood that before this measure was proposed the paperstainers were earning about 21. 10s. per week, which was not too high, considering the rent they had to pay, and the price they had to give for water and other necessaries which they required quite as much as cheap bread; for while there was much talk about "cheap bread," the labourers and workmen in our large towns were greatly in want of cheap water; and monstrous good care was taken by levying an excise duty upon malt, that they did not get anything better. The EARL of DALHOUSIE said, he did not make use of the words "recommended by the Crown," in his address to their Lordships; and he begged of the noble Duke not to misapprehend his statements. What he did say was, that, acting on their experience of the past, the responsible advisers of the Crown had recommended Her Majesty to suggest the measure in the Speech from the Throne. He had never said anything which could be construed into a statement that such was the opinion of the Crown; only that it had been recommended by Her Majesty's Ministers. The The DUKE of RICHMOND was glad to hear his noble Friend's explanation, and to find that he agreed with him that no mea-paper-stainers, while receiving the wages sure ought to be urged on the adoption of Parliament, simply on the ground that it had been recommended by the Crown. But he wished also to observe that his noble Friend, in laying before them the returns of exports and imports, had omitted to tell them, as he did in 1842, the value of the articles at the present moment on which he proposed to reduce the duty. He saw that by this Bill they were going to reduce the duty on butter and cheese. He had always thought it was a principle with Chancellors of the Exchequer not to reduce duties which were increasing duties. Now he believed it would be found that both these duties were increasing; and it appeared to him, therefore, there could be no reason whatever for reducing them, except hostility to the agricultural interests. His noble Friend told them that he retained the duty on manufactured cotton goods. Now, he must say, that this was treating the cotton manufacturers extremely ill. Their Lordships would remember that within the last fortnight his noble Friend had told them that the manufacturers required no protection at all—that they could make up any disadvantage by their industry, skill, and Heaven knew what besides; and that they were anxious to be rid of all protection. He (the Duke of Richmond) could not see why cotton dresses should not be imported free into this country as well as corn, and why the farmer's and labourer's wife should not have a cheap dress as well as the manufacturer and the operative cheap corn. But his objection for taking off protective duties was, that they would thereby substitute foreign labour for their own. Would he had mentioned, worked only four days in the week; but since the proposition to reduce the duty on foreign paper, they had been compelled to work six days a week, while their wages had been reduced to 30s. a week. His real objection to all these free-trade measures was, that they must have this effect-to reduce the wages of our own artisans and labourers. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had characterized damask and some other articles as luxuries, and had said that on that account it was not deemed advisable to reduce the duties upon them. He (the Duke of Richmond) had not the least wish to lower these protective duties; he was for keeping up every one of them. He wished the cotton manufacturing labourers to be protected as well as the farmers. But, as his noble Friend had characterized the articles to which he referred as luxuries, he (the Duke of Richmond) must beg to ask why the duty upon carriages had been reduced? 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 some 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. He believed that the persons employed by the coach-manufacturers of this country would suffer very materially from the reduction of duty on foreign carriages. Again, his noble Friend was going to reduce the duties on spirits. Now his noble Friend had attempted to show, with respect to all other articles, that a reduction of duties had been compensated for by increased consumption; but when he came alluded to the reduction of duty on linen, as to spirits he stood steady, and said the re-affording some compensation; but his noble duction of duty on spirits would not in- Friend must have forgotten that if this crease the consumption. He was sorry would not prejudicially affect the English the right rev. prelate (the Bishop of Nor- agriculturist, it would very seriously affect wich), who had presented so many peti- the agricultural population in the most tions against the consumption of spirits on prosperous and peaceable part of Ireland. the Sabbath, was not then present, that Believing, therefore, that the application he might protest against the increased fa- of the principles of the Government in this cilities which this Bill would give to spirit- measure were unequal and unjust, he felt drinking. As to the plea of preventing it his duty to protest against it. smuggling, he was convinced that if the Custom-house officers did their duty, they were well able to prevent smuggling; and it would be readily admitted that there was much less smuggling in this country now than formerly. He would not say whether a great quantity of silks might not have been smuggled by some large houses in the metropolis; but, as a resident in a maritime county, he would venture to say that smuggling was not now carried on to onequarter the extent it was thirty years ago. After the decision their Lordships had come to the other evening, he (the Duke of Richmond) 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. He would, however, move, that this Bill be read a second time that day six months; and he protested against it, as having a tendency to decrease the wages of employment of the working classes of this country. The EARL of WICKLOW said, he thought there was great injustice in the anomalous and inconsistent manner in which the Government were attempting to carry out their principles in this measure. If the Government had proposed a measure of this kind which put all classes on an equality, he would have been one of the first to support it; but he thought in the whole course of their proceedings in this as well as in the great measure they discussed the other night, they had acted on a system of injustice which ought not to be allowed in this country. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) said, that he expected a great increase of revenue from the reduction of duties, and this might be a very good reason for reducing duties; but his noble Friend was going by his Bill to abolish several duties, by which means he must abolish the revenue derived from them altogether. In glancing over the Tariff he found there were forty-eight articles on which the duties were abolished altogether, and he found that twenty-two of these were duties in favour of agriculture. His noble Friend had EARL GREY said, that to a considerable extent he concurred in the opinions just expressed by his noble Friend (Earl of Wicklow). He was bound to say that, looking at the Bill, he could not see any distinct principle fairly and fully carried out. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) told them that the principle on which the Government proceeded had been to get rid of prohibitory duties, and to reduce protective duties, and at the same time he told them they considered protective duties to be unsound in principle. Now if this were so, it seemed to him that the proper course for the Government to adopt would be to get rid of them altogether. At least, they should act on one plan or the other. He could understand his noble Friend on the cross benches, who thought everything should be protected, although he (Earl Grey) believed this would soon deprive them of all trade; and, on the other haud, he could understand and agree with those who thought protective duties were altogether wrong; and in that opinion he entirely concurred, for 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; but he could not understand this half measure of the Government, which was partly in favour of protection and partly against it. The noble Lord had said, however, that the Government reserved to themselves the right of applying this principle gradually, and with due regard to the welfare of existing interests, which had sprung up under the protective system. He (Earl Grey) considered that nothing could be more mischievous and injurious to those interests than the laying down a principle which would ultimately lead to the entire abolition of all protective duties, and yet partially retaining them. Such a system would occasion constant ̧ uncertainty and changes. What had been its effect already? They commenced the reduction of duties in 1842, when the Government declared that 20 per cent should be the maximum amount of our protective | rash measure, but at length the elasticity duties. In three years afterwards they of the commerce and industry of this counfound this would not do, and they came down to 15 and 10 per cent; and if the Government continued in office a few years longer they would say 10 per cent was too much. These constant alterations were most pernicious to commerce and trade. He looked on this Bill, however, as a most important step in the right direction. He 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 to gain; and with this view he would give the measure his hearty support. LORD ASHBURTON was understood to say that he objected to this Bill as an unnecessary sacrifice of the revenue and industry of this country. He believed its effect would be to lower wages and to reduce the labourer to a lower scale of life, and that it was a measure founded altogether on mistake and delusion. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey), that these perpetual changes were pernicious, and all that surprised him was that the energies of this country could survive being thus perpetually tampered with. The cry was one day "protection," and another "free trade;” and no one knew what was next to happen, or what crotchet would next enter the minds of persons at the head of the Government. He totally dissented from the opinion which seemed to be taken up by the Government, that the present prosperous condition of the country was the result of their commercial policy. It was true there was great prosperity at present, and that it had lasted some time; but he defied any man by any process of reasoning to make out that it was at all connected with the alterations we had made in our Tariff, or with the reduction of our duties. Any person acquainted with the course of things in this country for as many years as he had been, must know that the succession of favourable and unfavourable periods had been constant at distinct periods, and he considered that those variations were clearly and distinctly traceable to obvious causes. He would just mention some of them by way of example. The first great distress which he remembered as coming upon the country, was produced by the sudden return to cash payments, which, as they all knew, had been attended with great injustice and suffering. Several years of severe distress followed this try overcame it. Hardly, however, had we done so, before we were again plunged into the severest distress by the proceedings of the year 1825, known as the bubble year. At length the country recovered from this also; but in 1837 it was thrown back into the same condition by the state of our commercial relations with America. The same result followed, and the greatest possible distress continued to prevail till 1841, when the change of Administration took place. The years 1841 and 1842 were also periods of distress; but this country, like all others possessing its vigour, skill, and industry, then began to recover, and in 1843 those great improvements took place which had continued down to the present time. If their Lordships looked at the evidence before the Committee which sat to inquire into the burdens on agriculture, they would see this course of events distinctly explained. The Government, however, asserted that the singular prosperity of the country had been occasioned by the alterations and reductions they had made in the Tariff; and they said that this result encouraged them to go still further in the same direction. He (Lord Ashburton) would venture to say that no one, substantially acquainted with the great industrial interests of the country, would support that view. 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. He thought the financial bearing of this measure an important consideration. 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. At the present moment, when we were sending out our squadrons, our financial condition was well deserving of attention. He believed that the measures of the Government would be followed by a deterioration in the condition of the labourer, and he therefore disapproved of the present Bill. LORD MONTEAGLE said, the noble Lord who had just sat down had blamed the adoption of free-trade measures by the Government; but he (Lord Monteagle) remembered when the noble Lord in the other House had shown himself a strenuous | did not benefit the consumers. One word in defence of the principles of freedom of commerce. When Her Majesty's Government stated on a former occasion that the principles of free trade were the principles of common sense, and that" to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market" was the rule which ought to be pursued by nations as well as by individuals, he hailed the declaration with considerable satisfaction; for he felt it to be impossible that such a declaration could be made without being followed by great and useful results. The measures which the Government had introduced were founded upon these principles, which were those which had been advocated by some of the best and wisest of statesmen in former times-men who were venerated by their Lordships and the whole civilized world. Mr. Pitt had declared that they were the most applicable to countries which, like ours, exchanged their manufactured produce for the raw materials of others. In 1820 the famous London petition in favour of free trade was presented by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashburton), and that petition laid down the doctrines of freedom of trade much more absolutely than they were laid down in the Bill before their Lordships' House-nay, as absolutely and boldly as the gentlemen who were considered philosophical writers, and whom noble Lords opposite designated" rash theorists," had laid them down; and his noble Friend, when he presented that petition, supported the doctrines and principles laid down in it. He (Lord Monteagle) did not think that, if this Bill passed, there would be any surplus revenue: exclude the Sycee silver received for the ransom of Canton, and the most they could expect was that the revenue and expenditure should meet. He admitted that the finances of the country were at the present moment on a good footing; but there was no great mystery about that, if they took an income tax of five millions a year, and added it to the ordinary revenue. The change that had taken place was solely attributable to that. In his opinion, it would have been a much wiser measure on the part of the Government if they had made their property tax a perpetual tax, intending to repeal it as soon as the circumstances of the country would enable them to do so, than to have made it only a temporary law, renewing it from time to time; because every time time that they called on Parliament to renew the income tax, they were |