wished, as all must wish, to put down slavery; but the way to put it down was by public opinion, not by prohibiting commerce with the Brazils, and proclaiming that you could not trust to the efficacy of free labour against the labour of slaves.

Mr. G. Berkeley stated it to be impossible that, at the present high wages of colonial labour, the estates could continue to be worked. Let immigration be fairly allowed, and the West Indians would not fear their competitors: but until that should be given, let not the subsisting protection be with

drawn.

The Committee then dividedFor the equalization of duties, 50; Against it, 135: Majority against it, 85.

Mr. Hawes then rose. He said he should not have been content to at once abolish all difference between colonial and foreign duties; but he would propose that, at least, the House should cease to maintain an impost which was equivalent to total prohibition, and should lower the duty to 34s. He did not believe that such a reduction would at all encourage slavery, or the slave trade. It was a measure not sudden or extreme, but one which would prepare the colonists for further steps in the same direction. It would cause some increase both in consumption and in revenue.

Mr. Gladstone did not object, upon general grounds, to the principle of this Motion-nay, but for the peculiar circumstances of the sugar trade, he should gladly have included sugar in the tariff of last year. But he was not prepared to concur in Mr. Hawes's proposal. He did not think it likely to add

being too small to induce an abatement upon the retail price. If, then, no sensible relief would be given to the consumer, it was not desirable to disturb the scale of duties in so important a matter. The sugars of the present day, from the employment of machinery, and from other improvements, were of much better quality than the sugars of the same denomination and price had been a few years ago. He denied that foreigners were so besotted in prejudice as not to see that England, far from being a hypocrite upon the slavery question, had made great sacrifices of her own interests for the sake of abolition. He demonstrated that the reduction of duty on Brazilian sugar must have the effect of encouraging slavery, by stimulating production.

Mr. Labouchere thought the time was come, when sugar ought to be put upon the same footing with other articles of commerce. Mr. Gladstone had not argued that this proposal would be objectionable on commercial or on financial grounds; he had rested his opposition to it solely on its tendency to encourage slavery; the answer to that argument was, that England had already a large trade with the Brazils, consisting mainly in the produce of this very labour. The step now proposed would be beneficial to our own colonists, by substituting for monopoly, with its gambling consequences, a free and wholesome competition. He intimated a wish to know the turn of the negotiations between England and Brazil.

Sir Robert Peel said, that it had been proposed to the government of Brazil to treat for the ad

condition that the Brazilian government would take measures for gradually ameliorating the condition of the slaves in that country, with a view to the final abolition of slavery there; but the Brazilian government had made demands, which precluded such a negotiation; and he lamented to say, that the disposition of that government, and of its people, was not such as to leave much hope of any present advance on the side of emancipation. He denied that the compensation for the slaves had been an equivalent for the whole deterioration of the West Indian properties. He exemplified the general loss from facts relating to particular estates. The silence of the Ministers on Mr. Ewart's Motion had been owing only to a belief on their part, that it would be more convenient for them to make their explanations on the Motion of Mr. Hawes, which involved much the same considerations.

The Committee then divided: for the 34s. duty, 122; against it, 203 majority against it, 81.

The subject of the duties upon another important article of traffic, wool, was brought under discussion on the 17th July, when Mr. Charles Wood moved as an Amendment on the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply-"That the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider so much of the Act 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47 (Customs Act), as relates to the duties on the importation of foreign sheep and lamb's wool." The trade has been declining for a number of years, going back even before 1819. While the export of British wool has increased from 278,000 pounds in 1827, to 8,578,000 pounds in

yarns (made of a wool not subject to duty) has increased from 2,300,000 pounds in 1835, to 5,700,000 pounds in 1842, the export of woollen cloths of all sorts has fallen from 392,000 in 1839, to 166,000 in 1842. He believed that the country could not be mentioned to which our exports of woollen goods had not decreased. The import of wool at the high duty of 1d. the pound has fallen from 32,000,000 pounds in 1838, to 17,000,000 pounds in 1842. The trade of countries competing with us has increased nearly in the same proportion. The import of colonial wool, not subjected to duty, has increased from 10,000,000 pounds in 1838, to 18,360,000 pounds in 1842. The produce of theld.duty has fallen from 135,000l. in 1838, to 76,000l. in 1842. The depressed state of Leeds is illustrated by the facts, that of 665 gigs, machines used in finishing cloth, last year, 381 were absolutely standing still, and 254 were working short time; and that the amount of wages paid last year in the woollen trade was less than usual by 434,000l.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the Motion. He disputed the value of the statistics quoted by Mr. Wood, alleging that in no other trade was the importation so uncertain. The diminished import of foreign wool was balanced by the importation of colonial wool; and the diminished export of woollen goods, by the increased export of mixed woollen and cotton fabrics.

Sir Robert Peel admitted the force of the argument for reducing the duty; but contended, that the financial state of the country made it impossible to give up

The Amendment was supported by Mr. William Williams, Mr. G. W. Wood, Mr. B. Denison, and Mr. W. R. Stansfield. On a division, it was rejected by 142 to 70.

Among the steps in the direction of commercial relaxation, to which the present Session gave rise, may be enumerated the repeal, at the instance of Government, of the restrictions on the exportation of machinery, imposed by an Act of King William the Fourth. The President of the Board of Trade brought in a Bill for this purpose, the objects of which he explained, on moving the second reading in the House of Commons. The prohibition to The prohibition to export machinery originated in the belief, that if machinery were detained at home, the goods to be made by it would be produced in this country, and thus trade would be increased. But, in fact, the law is nugatory; and the authorities of the Customs, ever since 1824, have pronounced such a law to be impracticable; so easy is it to export machinery in parts, or under cover of the coasting trade. The effect of the law has been simply to enhance the cost of British machinery to the foreign purchaser; and the consequence is that, to a great extent, the trade has passed from us to Bel. gium, where there is an increas ing trade.

It is one almost indigenous with us, meriting as much encouragement as other manufactures; and its export is opposed by no arguments that will not equally apply, for in. stance, to the export of yarns. Mr. Gladstone quoted authorities in favour of removing the pro hibition; and mentioned the case

it had deprived of extensive orders for Sardinia, which had been transferred to Belgium. Another effect of the present law is, to drive the inventor-and the Americans have obtained a name for invention-from resorting to this countey, where they could get their work best executed.

Mr. Hindley professed his as sent to the free-trade principle of the Bill; but, with some sarcastic remarks upon the Ministers who had proposed it, after turning their predecessors out of office, for their adherence to similar principles. He objected also to obliging the British manufacturer, with the millstone of the Corn-laws round his neck, to contend against the unfettered foreigner. He moved as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the laws relating to the exportation of machinery.

Mr. Stuart Wortley expressed some suspicion of the Bill, but ended by saying, he should vote for it, as gradual relaxations of the law had left very little protection to fight for. Mr. Labouchere rejoiced in assisting at the removal of the last prohibition that disfigured the Statute Book, Mr. Cobden supported the Bill, on the broad ground that it did away with one of the monopolies. It received a similar support from Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Ross, Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncan, and Dr. Bowring. Mr. W. Williams doubted its policy; and Sir Robert Ferguson opposed it altogether.

Sir Robert Peel read some extracts from a letter of Mr. Hirdman, of Belfast, showing that the new French tariff had driven France from competition in foreign markets with our linens,

French consumer; and the new restriction of Belgium on our yarns, had had the effect of losing that country every market but France; so, there was a prospect, that experience and self-interest would cause a revision of hostile tariffs. On a division, 96 voted for the second reading, and 18 against it.

The Bill, which after meeting with some opposition from Earl Stanhope, was carried in the House of Lords, was subsequently incorporated into an Act for Amending the Customs, which received the Royal Assent before the close of the Session.

The Amendment was supported by Mr. William Williams, Mr. G. W. Wood, Mr. B. Denison, and Mr. W. R. Stansfield. On a division, it was rejected by 142 to 70.

Among the steps in the direction of commercial relaxation, to which the present Session gave rise, may be enumerated the repeal, at the instance of Government, of the restrictions on the exportation of machinery, imposed by an Act of King William the Fourth. The President of the Board of Trade brought in a Bill for this purpose, the objects of which he explained, on moving the second reading in the House of Commons. The prohibition to export machinery originated in the belief, that if machinery were detained at home, the goods to be made by it would be produced in this country, and thus trade would be increased. But, in fact, the law is nugatory; and the authorities of the Customs, ever since 1824, have pronounced such a law to be impracticable; so easy is it to export machinery in parts, or under cover of the coasting trade. The effect of the law has been simply to enhance the cost of British machinery to the foreign purchaser; and the consequence is that, to a great extent, the trade has passed from us to Belgium, where there is an increas ing trade. It is one almost indigenous with us, meriting as much encouragement as other manufactures; and its export is opposed by no arguments that will not equally apply, for in. stance, to the export of yarns. Mr. Gladstone quoted authorities in favour of removing the pro. hibition; and mentioned the case

it had deprived of extensive orders for Sardinia, which had been transferred to Belgium. Another effect of the present law is, to drive the inventor-and the Americans have obtained a name for invention-from resorting to this countey, where they could get their work best executed.

Mr. Hindley professed his assent to the free-trade principle of the Bill; but, with some sarcastic remarks upon the Ministers who had proposed it, after turning their predecessors out of office, for their adherence to similar principles. He objected also to obliging the British manufacturer, with the millstone of the Corn-laws round his neck, to contend against the unfettered foreigner. He moved as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the laws relating to the exportation of machinery.

Mr. Stuart Wortley expressed some suspicion of the Bill, but ended by saying, he should vote for it, as gradual relaxations of the law had left very little protection to fight for. Mr. Labouchere rejoiced in assisting at the removal of the last prohibition that disfigured the Statute Book, Mr. Cobden supported the Bill, on the broad ground that it did away with one of the monopolies. It received a similar support from Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Ross, Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncan, and Dr. Bowring, Mr. W. Williams doubted its policy; and Sir Robert Ferguson opposed it altogether.

Sir Robert Peel read some extracts from a letter of Mr. Hirdman, of Belfast, showing that the new French tariff had driven France from competition in foreign markets with our linens,