conduct which had been shown towards that individual more blameable than the policy which dictated his original detention. He thought there had been a degree of severity exercised towards him which the House would never sanction.

Mr. Hutchinson expressed his decided disapprobation of the detention of Buonaparté. It was disgraceful to this country, that she should be made the gaoler of the allied powers; not for any object having the security of the state in view, but evidently in furtherance of those despotic principles which were avowed by the Holy -Alliance.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Abercromby regretted that the hon. baronet had not been in his place upon a former night; for in that case he would have heard a succession of Irish members bearing testimony to the general satisfaction which the measure gave to the loyal and intelligent Irish Catholics. It no doubt would give dissatisfaction to others; for it would reduce some who possessed an unworthy desire of power to a state of deserved insignificance.

Mr. Martin, of Galway, said, he had several letters from leading Catholics, expressing themselves satisfied with whatever the House should agree to on this subject; and also their confidence that the clergy would be finally reconciled to it. He understood that Mr. O'Connell, who wished to get up an aggregate meeting in Dublin, could not get nine persons to sign the requisition. Mr. O'Connell might naturally regard the measure with no particular anxiety, as he might feel convinced that if it rained offices as thick as hail, one would never fall on his head.

The report having been read,

Mr. Croker rose to propose a clause to which he had already called the attention of the House, with regard to a provision for the Catholic clergy. From the manner in which this proposition was received,

when he first mentioned it, he was led to conclude that its principle was generally approved by the House. That it was a measure of vital importance, could not be rationally denied. He had not, indeed, conversed with any one, either within or without that House, who objected to the principle of his proposition. His right hon. friend who had brought forward the bill, had, no doubt, objected to his proposition, not upon the ground of principle, but of time and expediency. Therefore, he was induced to wave his purpose until the present moment. On the ground of expediency, it was urged by the learned proposer of this bill, that a measure of this nature should proceed from the government. But to such an opinion he could by no means subscribe; for by what constitutional rule could it be maintained that a grant of money should originate any where but in that House, or be voted by any other power than that of the parliament? But, to what government was it meant to refer for such a grant? Why, to a government divided against itself; scarcely two members of which were ad idem upon this point respecting the Catholics. That it would belong to government to consider the extent and apportion the distribution of the money to which his motion referred, he was ready to admit; but although it would be for government to execute, it was not for government to begin such a measure. Again, it was urged, upon the score of expediency, that before a measure of this nature was submitted to the House, it would be right to consult the Catholic clergy of Ireland, whether they were willing to accept such an allowance. But, if the clergy should express a wish for the proposed grant, what must be the consequence to the peace of Ireland, should their hopes be dashed by the dissent of parliament from the proposition? He was convinced that the most important good could be done at a paltry expense. The details which he had collected, he had embodied into a bill. Another objection to his proposition was, that the adoption of it might endanger the success of this bill. But, was danger to be apprehended from the clamour of Dr. Milner, or those who co-operated with him? How strange, that those who assumed the attitude of wise statesmen, should deprecate the measure he proposed, although convinced of its justice, merely from an apprehension that its

adoption might excite the clamour of individuals. His right hon. friend had described the present measure as one which was to put an end to the dissentions which had distracted Ireland. And how was the House going to make this final compact? Why, by leaving one of the most important subjects out of the treaty. By such a proceeding, dissention would be kept alive; and when they considered themselves safe in port, they would be once more obliged to put to sea. If he were asked to state the quarter from which danger had always been most apprehended, the Statute Book would answer for him. The very first penal statute for suppressing disloyalty was levelled, not at the laity, but at the Catholic clergy of Ireland. He should have considered himself guilty of a neglect of duty, if he had not endeavoured to procure the assent of the House to the principle of making an adequate provision for the Catholic clergy. With regard to the extent of that provision, he thought it should enable them to maintain themselves with a suitable degree of respectability. At the same time, it ought not to be so large as to render them wholly independent of their flocks. He concluded by moving a clause, recognising the expediency of the principle of making a provision for the Catholic priesthood.

Lord Castlereagh rose to express a strong doubt as to the propriety of the course which his hon. friend was pursuing. No individual could feel more deeply than himself the expediency of following up the bills before the House, by some such measure as that which his hon. friend was desirous of effecting; but the question was, whether this was the proper moment for proposing it? He had no doubt that, if the subject were brought forward at the seasonable moment, it would meet with that general concurrence, which would afford the best pledge to the Catholic clergy of the desire of parliament to contribute to their comfort. The motion was inadequate to its object; for it could only be rendered effective through a recommendation from the Crown. If the clause proposed to be brought up were now agreed to, the measure could not be final; for they would still have to determine the scale of expenditure. So far from forwarding the object in view, the proposition would have the effect of placing the measure in a retrograde position. Besides, it would

come more properly as a mark of grace and favour from the Crown. Under these circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would consent to leave the question in a state of amicable repose. If it were agreed to at this time, it might be considered as a sort of bribe held out to the Catholic clergy; and he owed it to that respectable body, to declare, that when he was authorized, under lord Sidmouth's administration, in 1805, to communicate to them that it was in the contemplation of government to make a similar proposition in their behalf to parliament, they stated, in the most respectful and disinterested manner, that they could not, consistently with-duty and honour, receive such a mark of grace and favour at that moment.

Mr. Hutchinson deprecated the introduction of the measure at any time, without a perfect understanding between the Catholic clergy and the government.

Mr. Croker said, that his object was, in a great measure, gained, by the admission of the principle which he proposed; and therefore, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw it.

The clause was then withdrawn, and the report agreed to.

TIMBER DUTIES.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Timber Duties acts,

Mr. Wallace called its attention to the report of the committee on the Timber Duties, and said he had now to propose such resolutions as from that report the commercial interests of the country appeared to require. It was known to the House, that previously to 1809, a supply of timber was obtained almost exclusively from the north of Europe. Subsequently the supply was partly obtained from the north of Europe, and partly from our North American colonies. It was impossible to look at this subject without perceiving, that in the course of no very long time, if the present system was continued, one of the two must become predominant, and the other completely annihilated. The annual importation of timber, from 1803 to 1806 from the north of Europe, was as follows:-Fir timber 218,857 loads; deals 45,938. From 1816 to 1819, there had been a great diminution in the annual imports from the North. Their amount was-Fir timber 93,659 loads; deals 21,824. On both, it would be seen that the reduction considerably

of the number of our seamen, there was no ground for it; we had now 50,000 more employed than were employed in 1793. He could never believe that the country was to be served by sacrificing one interest to another. The only means of recovering our commercial greatness was by the opening of new channels for trade; but these could not be created unless we laid aside all narrow and restrictive policy with regard to our intercourse with foreign nations, and acted on the liberal principle of mutual encouragement, and reciprocal advantage. He denied that there was any ground for the allegation, that if the trade with the northern nations was increased, we should not come in for our full share. He likewise showed the decrease which had taken place in the exports of our ma nufactures to the Baltic, since the imposition of the heavy duties on timber, while the increase to the colonies had been very slight. He then moved, "That the several Duties of Customs payable on the Importation into Great Britain of Timber and certain articles of Wood, do cease and determine, and the several and respective Duties and Drawbacks following be paid in lieu thereof."

Lord Althorp contended, that the Canada trade, was an immense tax upon this country, and seemed to be kept up for the purpose of working ships which were unfit for any other service. The policy pursued was quite at variance with true commercial principles. The fair course would be, to lay a duty of 50s. upon Baltic timber, and 10s. on Canada. He also suggested whether it would not be proper to fix a duty on deals by cubic measurement, instead of the present way. Mr. Marryat said:-I cannot agree to the resolutions proposed, and still less to the improvements upon them suggested by the noble lord; because one of them, so far from being founded on the evidence given before the committee, is in direct opposition to that evidence. Another objection which weighs very strongly on - my mind, as well against the resolutions as some passages of the report itself, is, that both of them betray too great a leaning to the principles laid down in the petition of certain merchants of this metropolis, presented last session, which called upon this House to take off "all duties merely protective against foreign competition." In conformity to this doctrine, it is now proposed to diminish the protection hitherto given to our colonies

and our ship-owners, in a degree that will prove highly injurious to both, and give a monopoly of the timber trade to foreigners. If we comply, in this instance, with the request of the disciples of the new school of political economy, and establish what they term "a sound principle, a standard to be referred to in all subsequent arrangements," we must follow it up in every other case, and shall soon ruin every class of the community.-If we had a new order of things to establish, an unrestricted intercourse between all nations would be the most beneficial system; but we are in an artificial state of society. We have an immense national debt, and the taxation we bear to provide for the interest of it, enters into the price of labour, and every thing that is the produce of labour, and makes it impossible for us to maintain an equal competition with foreign nations. We have returned to a state of peace, loaded with a debt of 800 millions, instead of 200, which was the amount before the war, and therefore are less capable than ever of bearing that foreign competition with which we are again brought into contact. We are pursuing a wrong course, in attempting to increase the sale of our manufactures among the European powers. Most of them manufacture for themselves; and use every practical means to secure their own consumption to the industry of their own subjects. Those who do not, will only take from us what we can supply them with cheaper than their other neighbours. Our home consumption, and our colonies and dependencies, take off 6-7ths of all our manufactures; and our only reasonable expectation of extending their consumption, is among distant nations, who do not manufacture for themselves, and who will take our goods in exchange for their productions. The obvious tendency of a free trade is to make rich countries poor, and poor countries rich; because poor countries, where articles are cheap, will undersell rich countries where they are dear, until the inequality between them ceases. This, therefore, is a very proper system for those who are poor to recommend, but not for those who are rich to adopt.-My objections to taking this fresh step in the new career recommended to us, of abolishing all restric tions on foreign competition, are not only the injury that would be done to our ship owners and colonists, by what the

report terms "a recurrence to those sound principles by which all commerce ought to be regulated;" but the consequences that must ensue to all the other great interests of the country. My impressions on this point are confirmed by the testimony of a most intelligent witness, examined before the committee, who declared, that our prohibitory duties on foreign linens are considered in a more invidious light than our high duties on their timber; that our prohibition of their corn, under the present corn laws, is very obnoxious to Russia and Prussia; and who being asked whether the reduction of our duty on their timber would remove the unfavourable disposition they entertain against us, unless followed by the removal of the restrictions on the other articles, he answered, "It would contribute to such an effect, chiefly, as an earnest of a more liberal system." Justice and reciprocity, not liberality, ought to be the basis of our intercourse with foreign powers; but, if we open to them those great sources of consumption which furnish employment for our own domestic industry, in the expectation of deriving correspondent advantages from them in return, I fear we shall be grievously disappointed. While I contend that protection against foreign competition is absolutely necessary, I beg leave to distinguish between protection and monopoly; and to observe that it should be bounded by such limits, as the interest of the community at large require. If any class attempt to carry it farther, the foreign competitor ought to be let in, and prevent an undue advantage being taken of the public. Under such limitations, protection is necessary to almost every class of the community. When I have brought up petitions from the British ship-owners, and the British colonists, praying for protection against foreign competition, they have sometimes been treated with asperity, and the petitioners represented as selfish and unreasonable; and this, too, by landholders and gentlemen of the sister kingdom, who might be expected to consider with indulgence the claims of others to the same protection as they receive themselves. As to the landholders, the protection against foreign competition given to them by the corn laws, amounts to not less than thirty millions per annum, which the British consumers pay them for the produce of their land, more than they would VOL. IV.

pay for it, if it could be imported without restrictions on foreign competition. Wheat would then be sold here at 40s. per quarter; land would not pay the expense of cultivation, and be of as little value as the wildernesses in the British provinces in North America, where the timber grows, the duties on which we are now regulating. Ireland enjoys the same protection for her agriculture as Great Britain; and her staple manufac ture, linen, is protected from foreign competition, by duties on foreign linens, amounting to from 50 to 90 per cent; and still farther, by a bounty on the exportation of Irish linen, of 1 d. per yard; which, on the coarser qualities, amounts to about 17 per cent more. Nay, so great is the horror of foreign linens, entertained by the gentlemen of the sister kingdom, that they have extorted from government the continuance of a transit duty of 15s. per cent on its being warehoused here for exportation; under an erroneous prejudice, which is injurious even to themselves, and highly so to the best interests of Great Britain. Let them read the memorial lately presented to the Russian government by the sugar refiners at St. Petersburgh, and they will find that the transit duty on foreign linens is made the ground of retaliatory measures of a most severe nature. During the late war, the numerous expeditions fitted out from this country required a great number of transports. The ship owners met the demand, built an additional number of vessels, and supplied the exigencies of the public service. At the close of the war, government having no longer occasion for them, these transports were discharged; and, at the same time, many of the colonies captured from the enemy having been restored, the ships engaged in bring ing their produce to Great Britain were also thrown upon the hands of their owners; the remaining branches of our commerce being insufficient to give them employment, the value of shipping depreciated more than 50 per cent, and freights were so reduced, that those ships which found employment, instead of giving any profit, were navigated at a loss to their owners. Under these circumstances, al the protection the ship-owners ask is, that you will not alter the existing duties on timber, and transfer that trade to foreigners, which is at present carried on by them from the British colonies. If you do this, you deprive them of their only

5 D