on the ground that it would be injurious in its effects in many instances, and inap→ plicable in others. He hoped, therefore, the hon. gentleman would consent to withdraw it.

Sir E. Knatchbull denied that the business in committees up stairs was carried on in a corrupt or partial manner. If any instances of abuse occurred, what was there to hinder the parties aggrieved from appealing to the House for protection? And he begged to ask, whether any case was known in which such appeal was made without effect?

its principle, and against which he had ever opposed himself. Asto the proposition of the hon. baronet, he did not see how it would remedy any of the evils complained of. The House should deal with each case that might come before it; but he thought it would be somewhat absurd to request members not to do that which was at the same time declared to be highly improper. If he were to point out any measure to the House on this question, it would be to appoint a select committee, to inquire what precedents there were on their Journals for the principle of disqualification, with the view of their being expunged. When he said this, he begged he might not be understood as denying the abuse which existed in committees up stairs. He did not mean to say that these arose from corrupt motives. They rather, in most cases, arose from an obliging disposition, which one individual was inclined to exercise towards another; but, the mischief of it was, that this was exercised, in many instances, without the consideration, that in obliging a friend, they adopted measures highly injurious to the interests of many individuals. It was not at all an uncommon thing-but in this he spoke more from the reports of others than his own personal observation to hear members, when in committees up stairs, ask each other, "Which party do you support? For whom do you come here to vote?" Now, this was a practice to which he should wish to see the whole weight of public opinion directed; but he thought public opinion alone could put it down.

Mr. Stuart Wortley fully concurred in the remarks which had just fallen from his hon. and learned friend, and agreed, that instead of adopting the motion, they ought to appoint a committee, to inquire what precedents of disqualification existed on their Journals, for the purpose of expunging them. He admitted that great abuses existed in the present system of soliciting for votes in committees. This was the main evil; and it ought to be corrected: but he agreed, that public opinion would be found its best corrective. To disqualify a man from voting who had a personal interest in a measure, would disqualify many persons who were the most active and efficient on committees: for, he presumed, if they were disqualified in the House, they would be also disqualified up stairs.

Mr. Lockhart objected to the motion,

Mr. Robertson supported the motion. When it was well known, that in most of the speculations now afloat in the city, some thousand shares were reserved for the use of members of parliament, he thought it was high time that the subject should be taken into consideration. The fact was, that some of the wildest specu lations were encouraged by the expected support of some members of that House.

Mr. Hume, in reply, said, that if he was before impressed with the necessity of the measure which he proposed to the House, he was still more convinced of it, after what he had heard in the course of this discussion. It was stated by one right hon. gentleman, that the law of parliament on the question of members being disqualified from voting where they had a direct pecuniary interest, was clear and positive; and this was doubted by another right hon. gentleman. Now, he wished to have the matter set at rest, by the declaration which he proposed. It was not he who violated any constitutional principle in this motion, but those who opposed it. It was admitted, as a constitutional principle, in all our courts, that no man could be received as an evidence, in cases where he had a direct personal interest; and he thought it a violation of that principle that the House of Commons should be made an exception to it. However the motion might be disposed of, his object was, in a great degree gained; for no member had attempted to impugn the general principle for which he contended.

The previous question being put, Mr. Hume's motion was negatived, without a division.

REDUCTION OF DUTIES ON FOREIGN SPIRITS, TOBACCO, AND TEA.] Colonel Davies rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for a committee to inquire how far the duties on several articles of foreign

produce might be reduced, without detriment to the revenue. He trusted that if he proved to the chancellor of the Exchequer that, by the reduction of duties on the several articles he should name, the revenue would be increased by the increased consumption, the right hon. gentleman would not object to his motion. The right hon. gentleman had already proposed certain reductions on wine and other articles, for which the country were indebted to him; but, if one great object in some of those reductions was the prevention of smuggling, he thought it would be effected to a much greater extent by the reduction of the duty on tobacco than of that on wine. It was lamentable to perceive the extent to which smuggling had been carried on our coasts, and the evils which had flowed from it. Bloodshed, fraud, and perjury, were in its train; and they would continue to mark its progress, as long as it held out such temptations of large profits as it at present afforded. To prove this assertion, he referred to a correspondence which he had recently had with a magistrate of Sussex, on the fatal effects of smuggling, and also to various sanguinary affrays which had lately taken place in that district. He contended that the greatest revenue which could be procured would be no compensation for the dreadful price at which it was now collected; and that the only way of remedying the mischief was, by repealing the enormous duties which gave rise to it. If the duties on the importation of foreign spirits were lowered, they would not only get rid of this evil, but also of the expense of the preventive service, which amounted to 322,000l. a year, and of several vessels of war which were kept on the look-out at sea. He really believed that the revenue would be increased by such a reduction; and he founded that belief on certain parliamentary returns, which showed that, as the duties had been increased, the revenue derived from them had progressively fallen off. The hon. member here read a detail of figures to prove the position be had advanced, and showed from it that at this time, when the duties were higher than they were in 1805, the revenue derived from them did not amount to the same sum. He would not pretend to say what amount of reduction ought to be fixed on, but he thought that the golden mean would be found somewhere about the amount of duty existing in 1805; a year which had been more propitious than any

other to this department of the public revenue. He likewise complained that smuggling was much encouraged by the enormous duties levied on tobacco, which amounted to full 100 per cent on its intrinsic value. Though the population had much increased since 1801, the consump tion of tobacco did not exeed the consump tion of it at that time. In Ireland the case was still worse. The population had increased, within that period, from four millions and a half to seven millions; but though the population had increased onehalf, the revenue derived from tobacco had decreased one-half. The commissioners of Inquiry had recommended the reduction of the high duties in Ireland. Smuggling was so much encouraged by them, that during their continuance nothing would put an end to it but hermetically sealing the coast. He then went into a history of the tea duties; stated the amount of revenue which they had produced, both when they were high and when they were low; showed that the consumption had regularly increased as they had been diminished, and diminished as they had been increased; described the effect of returning to lower duties; and contended, that it would be in every respect advantageous to the country. He calculated that the augmentation in the consumption of the three articles which he had mentioned, and the diminution of the expense of collecting the revenue upon them, which would ensue from a reduction of the duties, would produce a saving of 400,000l. ; but even if they produced no saving, it would be right to make them, since they would put an end to smuggling, and thereby produce good order and tranquillity in the country. With these impressions, he should move, "That a select committee be appointed, to inquire how far the duties on the importation of foreign spirits, tobacco, and tea, may be reduced without injury to the revenue."

Mr. Curteis seconded the motion, because he wished to see an effectual check given to smuggling, which had produced much slaughter and bloodshed in the county in which he resided.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he differed in principle from the hon. member, or if he disputed the substance of the propositions which he had advanced, he should address the House at greater length than he now intended to do. The hon. member had done him no

more than justice, when he described him to be most anxious to alleviate the evils arising from smuggling. He thought that the measures which he had introduced into parliament this session would go along way to produce that effect; and he therefore could not consent to allow them to be taken out of the hands of government, and to be transferred to the management of a committee. He agreed with the hon. gentleman, that when the duty imposed on an article bore no proportion to its intrinsic value, the reduction of it did not injure the revenue to the degree which might a priori be expected, in consequence of the large increased consumption which it occasioned. He had admit ted that principle in the reductions which he had proposed on the duties on silk last year, and in those which he had proposed on the duties on wine this year. He considered that he had driven the smuggler from a strong outwork, when he had obtained the reduction of the silk duties; and he thought that he was attacking him in his strongest fortress, when he proposed a reduction in the duties on foreign spirits. Some smaller redoubts would be carried in a few days by certain minor propositions which his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Huskisson) intended to introduce; and he had no doubt that government would, in a short time, be able to introduce such a change into our fiscal regulations, as would greatly diminish the propensity to smuggling. As the government had taken up this subject, and as no reason had been shown why it should be withdrawn from their investigation, he thought he should best discharge his duty by objecting to the motion.

Mr. Bright agreed in most of the propositions which had been laid down by the right hon. gentleman; but he thought he might carry his reductions still further than he proposed to do, without inflicting any injury upon the revenue. For instance, why not reduce the duties on tobacco? They were so high as to afford an absolute encouragement to smuggling. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the redoubts and fortresses of the smuggler. Was he aware, that tobacco was his very citadel? In Ireland, these duties had led to smuggling in the most open and extensive manner, as was proved by the 10th report of the commissioners of Inquiry into the abuses of that country. He entreated the right hon. gentleman to attend to the recommendation it con

tained, and to reduce the high duties now imposed on the importation of tobacco.

Mr. Hume considered, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen short of his own principles, in not reducing the duties on tobacco, in which such extensive smuggling prevailed. Ministers, by not interfering, incurred a great responsibility.

Mr. Hart Davis said, that if the duty on tobacco was lowered to 2s., the revenue would be doubled in England: while in Ireland, it would be fourfold. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would make tobacco the very next article for reduction. With reference to the fair trader, the right hon. gentleman must see, that there was no choice left between the ruin of his character and the ruin of his family.

Alderman Bridges said, that smugglers made their calculations as accurately as any merchants. He did hope that the right hon. gentleman would turn his attention to those duties which now served as bounties to the contraband traders.

Mr. Trant approved of the cautious course taken by the chancellor of the Exchequer in the repeal of the taxes.

Mr. Hobhouse strongly recommended the immediate reduction of the duties on tobacco, and on the other articles to which his hon. friend had adverted. He was exceedingly desirous that the subject should be investigated by a committee; because it was well known, that in cases connected with the revenue, evidence came out before a committee which might be withheld from a chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Huskisson felt it his duty to oppose the motion. As to the prevention of smuggling, he was persuaded that that object would be more forwarded by the reduction of the duties on spirits, than by the reduction of the duty on tobacco.

The motion was negatived without a divison.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, March 11.

ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS BILL.] Mr. C. Calvert moved, "That all persons who came to the Committee on this bill have voices."

Mr. Grenfell deprecated the motion for an open, after the House had appointed a select, committee. From what he had seen of the practice of gentlemen in committees, coming in at the close of the day

and voting on matters which they had never heard discussed, he thought that the interests of any bill would be better attended to by a select than an open committee. This he considered a very 'unfair attempt, and he would make a stand against it.

Mr. Hume thought, that, after a select committee had been appointed on a bill, it was not quite fair to move that it be an open one, without giving a notice of such motion.

Mr. Calvert was anxious to have this an open committee, as all others upon which opinions were much divided. It would tend to put an end to the system of canvassing for votes, which had already been carried to such a height. For his own part, he had never canvassed for a vote in those committees. He wished other members could say as much.

Mr. Sumner said, that the members already appointed were quite sufficient.

Lord Folkestone said, that as to the objection of several members coming in and voting at the close of the day without having heard the evidence, he did not see how that could be remedied, unless by some law of the House, which would oblige all members to hear every thing which was said upon a question before they voted on it. This, perhaps, would not be found very convenient in the House itself; where large bodies of the members were seen coming down at a late hour to vote on a question, of the arguments on which they had heard not a word. He could not see why an opposition should be made to having this an open committee.

Mr. Alderman Heygate complained, that none but those known to be favourable to the bill were selected upon it, while not a single member representing places whose interests were hostile to it was named. He therefore would vote, that the committee should be an open one. Indeed, he should wish to see all committees on private bills open, or appointed by the House itself; and not by the members interested in the bill.

Mr. Huskisson expressed himself favourable to the bill, as he thought the accommodations which those docks would afford were required by the commercial interests of London and the ports; but, as those interests were very general, he would not wish to limit the number on the committee. He therefore would support the motion, that all who came have voices.

At the same time he could not but depre. cate those daily discussions, in which mo. tives were attributed to hon. members, while acting in the discharge of duties imposed upon them by others. The motion was agreed to.

METROPOLITAN WATER-WORKS COMPANY.] The Sheriffs of London presented a petition of the corporation against this bill."

Mr. Alderman Wood thought the House was not aware of the manner in which this new company proposed to furnish the water. It was intended to dig wells throughout the metropolis, by which means every private pump would be deprived of water. This fact only came to the knowledge of the corporation recently, and they thought it right to oppose the measure, for the interests of the public at large.

Mr. Calvert expressed his apprehensions that these wells, or pits, would be ineffectual, as a means of supplying water, and that, at the same time, they would be injurious, by destroying the supply of water from springs, to several public establishments.

Mr. M. A. Taylor observed, that the House might judge of the manner in which some of those new speculations were got up, when he informed them, that the very first intimation he ever received of the existence of this water-company, was his having seen it in a newspaper, where it was ushered to the world, as being under his special sanction. It was true, a gentleman called on him some time before, and, to his great surprise, asked for his opinion about all the water-works and wells in London. He told him what he knew on the subject, and the gentleman immediately observed, that he had a plan for procuring from wells sunk in the city and its vicinity, water of the very purest quality, inferior only to claret as a beverage. He then showed him some plans, by which it was proposed to sink those wells. He asked the gentleman, whether he had considered the depths to which he might have to sink, and the difficulties attending the undertaking? To which he replied, that he had, but he was certain, that with his assistance, they should get through. He then advised the gentleman to take a walk in St. George'sfields, as he was of opinion there was a building in that vicinity well adapted to his frame of mind. Notwithstanding all