afford them, forfeit the respect and esteem of large classes of their fellow-subjects, and place in jeopardy the great social and political position that, though accident has conferred it upon them, it is yet in their power by their conduct to confirm and maintain. I must say that if after all that has been said on this subject, and after all the important consequences that have been traced to these Laws, the land-owners should now refuse to consider them, they will be taking a step the importance and responsibility of which they cannot appreciate.

I conclude by moving: That the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, regulating the importation of foreign grain.

IV.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 9, 1839.

On account of the mischievous effects of the Protective Duties on foreign timber, Mr. Villiers, July 9, 1839, presented a petition from Wolverhampton for their repeal, and moved for a Committee of the whole House to consider the duties levied on foreign and colonial timber. Mr. Poulett Thompson, then President of the Board of Trade, said that, 'looking over the whole customs of the country-or, indeed, of any country-he did not believe that any other article would be found to which such an exaggerated Protection was applied as that applied to timber;' he concurred generally in the opinions and statements of Mr. Villiers, expressed his sense of the necessity of drawing public attention to the very important subject, and his special satisfaction that Mr. Villiers had brought it under the consideration of the House; and then dwelling with regret on the apathy of Parliament to questions of the kind, he stated his belief that so long as such apathy existed it would be idle for him to introduce a measure dealing with them, and that under existing circumstances it would be useless to press the Motion to a division. After a short debate Mr. Villiers, in replyhaving stated that had he considered the taste and feeling of the House to be identified with the interests and wishes of the country, he should not have obtruded his Motion on their attention, and that he brought it forward for discussion believing that by repeated discussion only the country would be brought to see the great interest it had in the alteration of the existing system-said that in the present state of the House he did not think it advisable to press his Motion to a division.

IN seeking to draw the attention of the House to the subject on which I have given notice of a Motion, I am aware of the disadvantages under which I labour. I know the distaste that the House has for matters of this nature; and I know how difficult it is at the present season to win serious attention to any question of public importance.

Still, as the subject is a momentous one, and as I

am constantly reminded by those who placed me here of the mischievous effects of restrictions upon industry and commerce, I feel it a duty to submit it to the attention of this Parliament.

And, moreover, I must claim for it some degree of opportuneness, since not only are we at this moment about to review the relations in which we stand to those provinces in America that are connected with the trade in timber-in the hope of placing them upon a footing more suited to the true interests of both countries than that which they now stand on, but we are also fresh from hearing a statement from the Financial Minister by which it appears that we are in a course of expenditure in excess of our income; and the case that I have to submit to this House is one in which the resources of the country are, perhaps, more prodigally, uselessly, and mischievously wasted than in any other with which a parallel can be instituted. I believe that as regards the correctness of this view, there is more unanimity of opinion than in any other in which particular interests are opposed to public good.

Indeed, the question of the policy of these duties has been decided. They have been condemned by every Administration that this country has had for twelve years past; they have been pointed at by every independent politician; and even that last expedient has been resorted to with regard to them by those who are beaten in fact and argument: namely, a Select Committee to inquire into facts already known, which has been attended with

the usual result of eliciting further facts in confirmation of the mischiefs alleged.

The story of these duties was told in this House about eight years since. It is fortunately a short one, and I will now only repeat it with the utmost brevity.

I need not, perhaps, tell the House that this article of necessary consumption is not produced in the United Kingdom in quantities sufficient for the demand, and that the deficiency equals about 1,200,000 loads of timber annually. The countries that supply us with timber are those in the North of Europe and those in the North of America; but whilst the wood imported from the North of Europe is good and cheap, that from the North of America is inferior and dear.

The House has now to learn in what proportions the timber so characterized is imported into this country. It is as follows: three-fifths of the timber are from the country where it is bad and dear; and two-fifths, or somewhat less, from the country where it is good and cheap.

A stranger to our policy, it seems to me, would naturally ask by what contrivance it is that we are induced to act in a manner so opposed to the usual dealings of sane men. The answer to such a question is that the Legislature causes a duty of 55s. a load to be laid upon the good timber and one of only 10s. upon the bad.

I believe that I am safe in making this statement respecting the character of the wood that is imported into this country; for those who would maintain

the duties do not, if I understand them, dispute it ; they do not contend that the community is as well supplied from Canada as from Europe; but they say: 'Do not alter the duties, lest every consumer of timber in England should resort to the European market, where he would get the article the cheapest and the best.' But, not to allow anything to depend upon bare assertion, I will read a short extract from the Report of the House of Lords on the subject, which, I presume, will be received as an authority. The Report says:

North American timber is more soft, less durable, and every description of it more liable to the dry rot, than timber from the North of Europe. Red pine, however, which bears a small proportion to the other description of timber, and the greater part of which, though imported from Canada, is the produce of the United States, is distinguished from the white pine by greater durability. On the whole, it is stated by one of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Navy most distinguished for practical knowledge, experience, and skill, that the Canada timber, both oak and fir, does not possess, for the purpose of ship-building, more than half the durability of wood of the same description, the produce of the North of Europe.

Mr. Copeland, the most extensive builder and timber merchant in London, also said in evidence before that Committee that 'the timber from the Baltic in general,' speaking of Norwegian, Russian, Prussian, and Swedish, is of a very superior quality to that imported from America, the bulk of which is very inferior in quality, much softer in its nature, not so durable, and very liable to dry rot.'

This evidence respecting timber, given nearly twenty years since, was confirmed in every particular