away; the restrictions which had operated upon the West India islands, and which did not affect the Mauritius, had been removed; and both interests being now, as regarded commercial advantage, on a footing, a new ground of objection must be taken to the reduction of the Mauritius duty. Accordingly, the opposition at present made to this reduction was of a different description: it was alleged that the colony of the Mauritius, contrary to the law of Great Britain, had carried on, and did still carry on, more or less, an illicit commerce in slaves. But this allegation-as it applied to any trade existing-was not supported by fact. Prior to the year 1820, some smuggling of slaves had taken place; but, according to the best evidence before the house, that practice continued no longer. Then the Mauritius must be judged, not according to what it had been, but according to what it was. If it was to be laid down as a general principle that every colony possessing slaves, and not entirely adapting itself to the wishes of parliament with respect to them, was to be visited with a heavier tax, let that principle be sustained and applied universally. He decidedly supported the present measure, and thought that the West India interest was wrong in opposing it. The small quantity of sugar which came from the Mauritius-say 12,000 hogsheads a-year-would make little difference to the West India produce; and even if it did not come direct into this country, its operation in the West Indies would be the same, for it must of necessity be sold somewhere, and would in fact go to to meet their surplus supply

(and reduce its price) in the general market of Europe. The right hon. gentleman sat down by assuring those gentlemen who opposed the bill, that this must be the case so long as the West Indies produced more sugar than could be consumed in Great Britain; and as soon as our consumption began to be at all equal to the supply, this fact the West India merchants might be sure of-they would hold their present monopoly no longer.

Mr. Bright said, that there was one fact which proved that a slave importation must be going on in the Mauritius. The colony since its capture, from being commercial, had become altogether agricultural. Within the last few years, its production of sugar had increased from 4,000 hogsheads to 12,000. Now he should like to ask how that increase was possible, unless slaves, and in large numbers, had been imported?

Sir R. Farquhar said, that the house would excuse him from pressing himself at that moment upon its notice, as he naturally felt a strong interest for a colony which he had himself so long administered. In 1810, he was present at the conquest of the Isle of Bourbon, to which he was accompanied by that meritorious officer, Captain Willoughby, who had distributed to the inhabitants proclamations which promised to them not only the advantages they enjoyed under France, but the preeminent advantages of the British colonies. The promises held out to them were free trade and the fullest protection to the produce of the island in the mother country. But how had those promises been fulfilled? They had

lost

lost the extensive trade they formerly possessed, and their produce met with no protection. The order of council issued in the year 1816, giving to those colonies a free trade, was accompanied with so many restrictions, that, coupled with the prohibitions which were placed on it in the ports of France, it was a perfect nullity. The fluctuations which followed there from destroyed all the confidence of the merchants; and the inhabitants, being thus deprived of the benefits of free trade, naturally became agriculturists; and, owing to the hurricanes, which destroyed the other plantations of the country, cultivators of sugar. Bourbon, being separated from the Mauritius, enjoyed all her ancient advantages, and the contrast of such prosperity with the depression of the Mauritius naturally tended to excite discontent and alienate the affections of the people of that country. The Mauritius now stood in the anomalous situation of being a sacrifice to European and Indian policy, whilst, on the ground of interest, expediency, and justice, it ought to enjoy all the advantages of the British sugar colonies. He contended that no slave-trade existed at present in the Mauritius, and that the slave-trade which had prevailed there some four or five years ago had been carried on by some rene→ gadoes, who had lived by privateering during the war, and not by the respectable inhabitants of the colony. He showed, by reference to different abstracts of the slave population, that it had not increased during the conquest of the island, and inferred, from all these reasons, that there was no ground, save that of sic volo, 1825.

sic jubeo, for opposing the propo sition now suggested in favour of the trade of the Mauritius. 7

Mr. B. Gordon would have no objection to vote for the bill, if it were postponed till the year 1828, in order that it might be seen in the interim how far it would affect West Indian interests.

Mr. Plummer moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read this day six months.

Mr. Hume trusted that the house, now that it was only doing an act of justice to the Mauritius, would also take into its consideration the state of the West India colonies.

Mr. W. Smith said, that his conviction was, that until the West Indies rendered their population independent of foreign import for subsistence, they would not be in that situation in which they ought to stand. As to the present bill, he was rather disposed to favour it, from a desire to try the effect of the encouragement of such a measure in an island situated like that which was the object of it.

Mr. Trant supported the bill, and the house divided. For the bill, 37; against it. 14: majo ity, 23.-Adjourned.

House of Lords, June 6.-The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for committing the Canada corn bill.

Lord King would vote for this bill going into the committee, on the ground that he hoped it would be the forerunner of a better next year. He thought that there was some good seed sown in the cabinet, which would, perhaps, spring well up in due time. But there were some rank Irish weeds, some no less rank Scotch, and he

was afraid not a few rank English weeds, constantly springing up, which might choke the seed, and disappoint the harvest. Situated as the cabinet was, he wondered how this bill was brought in, and doubted whether some persons gave a sincere vote for it. Ministers must doubtless have great difficulty in keeping their landed friends in order on the present occasion. They paid, it was true, much deference to the consul over the way (Lord Liverpool), but they felt that a more perfect obedience was due to Cæsar-to the great dictator on the woolsack. If, however, he were prime minister, he would lower their tone-by putting the laws among them-by asking them why their rents should always be high? He would speak the plain truth to them, and tell them that the interests of all the other classes of society were not to be sacrificed to theirs. He was yesterday reading a book- -a very good book, written by a divine-in which it was stated that hell was paved with good intentions. He supposed the treasury was also paved with good intentions, though, like those of the other place, they were very slow in coming to perfection. For instance, the present corn-bill had been passed many years ago, when we were said to be in a trans. ition from war to peace. transition, however, had lasted long, and 17,000,000l. of taxes had been reduced without any al

teration in the corn laws.

The

The bill was then committed. The Earl of Lauderdale made a few observations on the first clause of the bill, which he considered hastily and inaccurately drawn up, but did not oppose it.

The Earl of Malmesbury moved that the clause be omitted.

The Earl of Liverpool could not allow the motion to go to a vote without stating the grounds on which he supported the clause. The subject was one of the most important, in his opinion, which could be discussed in that house. He would not, at present, say one word on the general question of a free corn trade; but even those who most strenuously argued the expediency of such a system, never laid it down without reserving some protection for the agriculturists. He contended, however, that a liberal system was attended with no danger whatever from America; the waters of the Atlantic were a sufficient security against that. The danger, if any there was (and he did not here say that there was or was not any), arose from the European market. No danger could possibly arise from the states of America generally, and particularly from our own American colonies. The real question was, the good or evil which might result from this measure 20 years hence. The average importation from Canada was 16,000 quarters annually; the largest quantity that had been imported from thence in any one year, was 47,000 quarters: if this bill were to pass, many years must elapse before 100,000 quarters could be imported. It had various difficulties to contend with; the duty was 5s., and the insurance and freight were 12s. 6d., besides which, the trade was shut up for six months in the year, and confined exclusively to British ships. So far from being injurious in its consequences to agriculture, he

maintained

maintained that this measure would be beneficial to it, and therefore it was most extraordinary to him that any prejudice should exist against it. But, on the other hand, had any noble lord reflected on the immense importance of Canada to this country? The mercantile navigation of this country amounted to 1,700,000 tons, and of that, between a fourth and fifth was employed by Canada; in addition to which our trade with that country was one of the main props of our navy, for from it were taken all the best and hardiest of our seamen. But by a narrow and contracted policy towards Canada (it was a different thing with respect to the Baltic), their lordships would throw all that navigation into the United States. Canada was not poor; she prospered, she throve; and he trusted she would continue to prosper and thrive, but he wanted to make her feel that she prospered and throve by her connexion with Great Britain; and at the same time, he wished to make their lordships feel the importance of not throwing away the advantages which she afforded to this country. The noble earl, after replying to some of the objections of the noble lord who had spoken last, said he was satisfied to alter the duration of the clause to three years, which would afford them an opportunity of judging of the objections to it; for he confessed that nothing could cause him more severe disappointment than their rejection of this measure. He objected to its being limited to one year, although he hoped that all the corn laws would undergo revision next year; but this, he contended, ought to

be taken separately from the others, for Canada stood on distinct grounds. Let the general corn laws be taken upon their own merits; but this measure, he was satisfied, was right and expedient.

The Earl of Lauderdale argued against the clause.

Lord Dacre objected to the clause-first, in the absence of sufficient information; and next, on the ground of such information as he had received, He contended that in enacting this clause, they were legislating not for Canada, but for the United States; for the United States would have no dif ficulty in smuggling their corn into Canada along the lakes. The house was therefore enacting that the whole produce of the United States might be imported, at an inadequate duty, into this country for three years to come. hoped, therefore, their lordships would pause before they passed a measure that might be followed by the destruction of agriculture.

He

Earl Bathurst combated the objection to the clause founded on insufficient information. They could not ground any just calcu lations on the present price of wheat in Canada, because if the ports were thrown open it would immediately advance; but three years' experience would enable them to form the best judgment upon the subject. He denied that there was a great facility for smuggling from the United States into Canada; the Canadians knew it was their interest to oppose it, and they did so effectually.

Lord Malmesbury withdrew his motion for the omission of the clause.

The Earl of Lauderdale then moved

112

moved that the certificate, which was required by the bill as to the corn being the produce of Canada, should be given by the grower and owner of the grain, instead of the shipper.

The other clauses were then agreed to without objection.-Adjourned.

House of Commons, June 6.— Mr. Calcraft moved the order of the day for the second reading of St. Clave (Hart-street) tithe-bill. The hon. member observed, that it was a bill to settle the disputes, which had so frequently occurred in the parish, with respect to the amount of the tithe. When the present incumbent came to the living, the tithes did not exceed 2501. They had since been gradually raised until they amounted to the enormous sum of 2,2001. By the present bill it now proposed to settle a fixed sum of 1,820. a-year on the incumbent now in possession, and with such provision he was satisfied. The patrons and parishioners were satisfied; but a difference had arisen as to what should be the sum to be paid to the future incumbent. The parishioners agreed to give him 1,200l. a-year, but the bishop of London wished to have it fixed at 1,350. Now, when it was considered that the parish consisted of only 175 dwelling houses, and that the chief duty was performed by a curate at a salary of 100l., he thought 1,2001. a-year a very liberal allowance. However, if the bill were allowed to go to a committee, he thought that some satisfactory arrangement might be made on that subjest. The hon. member then went on to contend at some length that the sum of

2s. 9d. in the pound was much too great to be demanded for tithe, and particularly objected to it on the ground that the decree under which it was claimed had never been enrolled, and therefore was not valid in law.

Dr. Phillimore objected to the bill, on the ground that under the name of a private bill it was a direct spoliation of private property. The decree under which this tithe was claimed had, he contended, been enrolled and acted upon in many instances, and was binding, as it was meant to be, on all those parishes to which it stated itself to apply. He moved as an amendment that the bill be rejected.

Mr. Denman supported the bill, and contended at considerable length that the decree of Henry VIII.had never been enrolled-that in the commissions and arbitrations under Edward VI. and James and Charles II. for regulating the tithe in several parishes in London, the decree was not even mentioned, which it undoubtedly would have been if it were considered to be in force at the time.

Mr. Sergeant Onslow opposed the bill, because it interfered with the vested interests of the church.

Mr. Baring supported the bill, because it did not interfere with vested rights, and because it was calculated to put an end to all discussions between the incumbent of the parish and his parishioners.

Mr. Wynn supported the amendment, contending that if the house interfered on this occasion between the clergyman and his parishioners, it would be called upon to interfere in all future cases where a clergyman and his flock quarrelled about tithes.

Mr.