revenue; why, so far from the landed produce of this country being protected exclusively from foreign competition, there is so much of foreign butter and cheese introduced, that the revenue collected upon those two articles alone amounts to 200,0007.-to more than is collected on the import of the whole foreign silk manufactures.

Mr. Hume: It is not denied, that a considerable sum is raised upon the importation of foreign cheese and butter, but that the duty on these and other commodities raises the price without any benefit to the State.

Sir Robert Peel: And is not the effect of the duties on foreign silk precisely the same? What I am now maintaining is, that the landlords do not enjoy an exclusive monopoly. Let the silk manufacturer propose an abolition of the duty on foreign silks, and then he may, with some better show of reason, at least, complain of the Corn-laws. Recollect, too, that the landholder has to pay the Land-tax, and the Malt-tax, and the Tithes.-[Mr. Hume: It is the consumer who pays the Malt-tax.] -Yes; but the consumer will consume more malt, if you repeal the tax. The tax, though paid directly by the consumer, operates as a discouragement on the growth of barley. The member for Bolton must think with me, that the Malt-tax is a burthen on the land; for he gave notice the other night, that, if the hon. member for Oldham had succeeded

clusive protection ?-that the landholder is subject to no tax imposed for the purpose of securing monopoly, or giving protection to the manufacturer? It is true, that this petition applies generally for the establishment of free trade. I can well understand that the great export merchants of Liverpool are desirous for a free trade in corn, and in all manufactured articles also; but do the manufacturers of the large towns, and throughout the country, join in such a demand? There is a great misconception on this head. The manufacturers seem to think that restrictions on the import of foreign corn are open to some special and peculiar objection in principle, to which restrictions on the import of foreign manufactured goods are not liable. This Liverpool petition speaks of restrictions on the corn-trade as at variance with the rights and privileges of free-born Englishmen. This is mere nonsense. Such restrictions are no more at variance with any right of the subject than restrictions on the import of foreign silk handkerchiefs. The objection to the restrictions on foreign corn is this, that they give an undue encouragement to the application of capital to the production of corn, and that, therefore, by the diversion of capital, they diminish the sum of the national profits. Precisely the same objection applies, and with equal force, to every restriction on foreign manufactures, operating as a bounty on our own. There is no difference in the characters of the two monopolies. I will refer to any writer on the sub-in abolishing the Malt-tax, he should move ject-I will ask the hon. member for Bolton, whose works I have read with great pleasure, as they are distinguished by very great clearness and ability, whether there is any argument which can be urged against the protection of the landholder which is not equally applicable to the protection afforded to the manufacturer? I do not think the manufacturers clearly understand, that the abolition of the restrictions on foreign corn must be instantly followed by the removal of every impediment to the import of foreign manufactures. And are there no such impediments? I have before me pages upon pages of duties on foreign manufacture, beginning with letter A, and ending with letter Z.-[Mr. Hume: These are collected for the revenue.]-No; nine out of ten of them are imposed, not for revenue, but for the purposes of prohibition or protection. The hon. Gentleman speaks of

for the repeal of the duty on foreign barley. I should like to know what single article of manufacture this landholder-this great monopolist-can consume, without paying a tax. What step can he takewhich way can he look-what is the single action of his life that is not taxed for the protection of the manufacturer ? The manufacturer claims a right to eat foreign corn without paying a duty-can the farmer wear a foreign dress without paying one? Can he look out of his window -can he build his house-can he dress himself-can he eat his meals--can he enjoy any amusement in doors or out-without encountering a tax, levied, in addition to the original cost, on every article of foreign manufacture? Let us begin with the first act of the day. He dresses himself. If he wishes to wear foreign boots, he must pay at the rate of 27. 14s. per dozen pair; for his foreign hat, he must

pay 10s. 6d.; for his shirt, forty per | twenty-five; if he uses a foreign carriage, cent; if he indulges in foreign woollens, thirty; if he shoots with a foreign gun, he he must pay twenty per cent; but, if he must pay twenty per cent; and foreign should fancy a foreign silk hat, how much gunpowder he cannot buy. If he plays do you think he will have to pay? No less on a foreign fiddle or a foreign flute, or than a duty of 17. 5s. for the single hat; any foreign instrument, the duty will be and if his wife should covet a silk gown of twenty per cent; but if he plays with foreign manufacture, she must pay a duty foreign cards, he incurs the moderate of 21. 10s. So much for the farmer's dress. charge of about 7s. per pack duty, for Now take his meals. Upon foreign porce- what, probably, costs 1s. Have not I, lain, he must pay twenty per cent; upon then, established my position-that there his glass, twenty per cent. If he uses is scarcely one act of a farmer's life for an article of foreign silver plate, he must which he is not subject to a tax; and that pay 6s. 4d. per oz.; if of gold plate, tax imposed for the protection of some 31. 16s. 2d. per oz. His very walking- domestic manufacture? Nay, taxation stick is taxed. [An Hon. Member: No; does not end with his life-it visits him the taxes on foreign canes are abolished.] even in the grave; for if he should desire I beg your pardon; they are no such to lie under foreign marble, he must pay thing; so far from it, there is more inge- 2s. 6d. per square foot for his tombstone. nuity shown in imposing discriminating Now, what does all this show? That the duties upon foreign walking-sticks, than restrictions on the import of foreign corn on all the other articles put together. I are part of a whole system of restrictions am speaking with the book before me. If devised and continued for the purpose of I walk with a bamboo-cane, I pay at the encouraging both domestic produce and rate of 5s. the 1,000; if with a rattan, not domestic manufacture; that the grower of ground, 5s. the 1,000; if with a whangee, corn is no more a monopolist, no more a or a jumboo, or a dragon's blood, still 5s. gainer by protection, than is the watchthe 1,000; but, if I aspire higher, if I maker, the hatmaker, the shoemaker, the take pleasure in a walking-cane or stick glover, the manufacturer of paper, of silk, that is either mounted or painted, or other- of brass-work, of woollen, of cotton, of wise ornamented—that is, if there is the porcelaine, of carriages,-of everything. slightest competition with domestic labour Destroy the whole system of protection -then I must pay twenty per cent duty and prohibition, and even then you will on the value of my ornamented stick. have to consider whether the burthens [Mr. Hume: These duties are absurdities.] upon the land are not unfairly laid-wheSo they are; but, therefore, they prove ther the produce of the land, malt, for more strongly the animus-they prove instance, is not taxed in a degree, which, more strongly, that protection is the although the tax may be paid by the conruling principle. Now, these are some sumer, unduly encourages the consumpof the items-a very small part-but tion of other articles, to which, but for the some of the items of that Bill which the tax, malt would be preferred. You will right hon. Gentleman, the President of have, also, to consider whether it is just the Board of Trade, the other night, that the land should bear so large a procalled upon the agriculturist to furnish. portion of the expense of maintaining the He said, "Bring in your bill, and I will roads and of administering criminal juspay it." Why, we cannot make out the tice, when the large towns-the congrebill without a tax on every article we use gation of great masses in manufactures— in making it out: for our pens we must contribute so much more than the land pay thirty per cent; for our pencils thirty; towards the production of crime. [Mr. for the paper on which we write, 9d. Roebuck: That is not the case.] I differ per lb. If we send the Bill to the right from the hon. Gentleman, but I will not hon. Gentleman in an envelope sealed insist upon the point; but, still, suppose with wax, we must pay thirty per cent; the extent of crime to be equal in the two if we use wafers, 1s. 3d. per lb. It is the classes, the manufacturing and agriculsame with every foreign article necessary tural, can he deny this-that the expense for the convenience or the amusement of of punishing crime falls disproportionately this supposed monopolist-the farmer. If upon the land? Here, Sir, I must, on he rings a foreign bell, the charge is thirty account of the hour, conclude. It was per cent; if he wears a foreign watch, not my purpose to enter into the general

and apply the same rule to each borough | present such a petition, they were perhaps where corruption was established. The in the same situation as the man in the boroughs of Stafford, Warwick, and Hert-fable who prayed for death, and when he ford were already before the House, and he saw no reason why one rule should be applied to Warwick and another to Stafford. To Warwick, Leamington had been added, and the constituency of Stafford, ought, on the same principle, to be increased and purified, by communicating the franchise to Stone and Eccleshall. He could bear witness to the purity of the freeholders of Stone and Eccleshall, having for some years represented the county indeed, he knew of no corruption among the freeholders of any part of Staffordshire, and did not believe, that it existed.

to considerations of mere expediency. Founding his argument upon the Report of the Committee, and upon the preamble of the Bill, he would attempt to show, that there would remain within the existing limits of the borough of Hertford, a constituency numerous, respectable, and above all suspicion; and that the House

Sir Robert Peel rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which would be, if adopted by that House, to leave the Bill in this state, that the elective franchise of that portion of the constituency which had been declared corrupt by the Report of the Committee, would be forfeited, but the existing limits of the borough-the extended limits as laid down-acting in its judicial capacity-enterby the Boundary Bill-would be still maintained, and the elective franchise would be preserved to those constituents who had been declared by the Report of the Committee to have remained pure and untainted by the corrupt practices which disgraced others. He conceived it to be unnecessary to give an assurance that he was ready to acquiesce in any measure which should have the effect of punishing proved corruption. With great reluctance, and with great violence to his own feelings, by the last vote which he gave, he consented to forfeit the franchise of that town which was the capital of the county in which he resided. He deeply regretted it; but he thought the proof of the general corruption prevalent in Stafford was so strong, that, whatever be the reluctance with which he gave such a vote, he was bound to overcome it, and to consent to make that borough a public example. For this same reason he would consent to the passing of the first clause of the present Bill, by which the guilty would be punished. But he should maintain, on grounds which appeared to him to be immovable, that they were called upon to preserve to the remaining portion of the inhabitants of the borough, the franchise they now possessed, and which they had exercised with proved integrity. There were in this case, as in almost every question, considerations both of expediency and of justice. Of the impolicy of making a large rural district into a borough, and of giving it the privilege of returning Members to Parliament, instead of retaining that privilege to the town,-of the objections to giving, as this Bill would give, in point of fact, two additional Members to the county of Hertford-being five in the whole, he had before spoken. He would not, on the present occasion, advert to any considerations of expediency; he addressed himself to the House sitting in its judicial rather than in its political capacity; and he felt the considerations of justice to be so powerful, that he would not consent to weaken their force by any reference

taining a desire to make a just discrimination between the guilty and the innocentprepared to inflict punishment where punishment was due-but to protect innocence from that measure of punishment which guilt only should incur, he should attempt to show, that the House was bound to preserve to the honest possessors of the franchise their entire rights. In the preamble of this Bill, he entirely concurred; thinking that bribery and treating prevailed previously to, and during the last election of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Hertford, and thinking it was expedient that means should be taken to prevent the future return of Members to serve in Parliament for the said borough being influenced by corrupt and illegal practices; but he would undertake to prove, that if the House continued the privilege of voting to the 107. constituency and the freemen, it would fulfil the object contemplated by the preamble of the Bill, and would effectually prevent the existence of corruption for the future. Out of deference to the Report of the Committee, he consented to disfranchise the old constituency. That Committee formally examined the whole case, and inquired into the manner in which the election had been conducted; and although he thought the proof of actual corruption not very strong, yet still, on a view of the whole circumstances attending the election,-the extent to which treating prevailed, the distribution of tickets, if not amounting to bribery, were very nearly akin to it, and would afford, if the practice were unchecked, a ready means of bribery. Combining with these considerations the deference due to the Report of the Committee, which heard the whole of the evidence, he should not object to the disfranchisement of that part of the constituency which was considered by the Committee to be corrupt. The next question for the House to determine was, whether or no there would remain within the existing limits of the town of Hertford a constituency sufficiently