as such, is, that they have adhered steadfastly to the faith of their ancestors. 4thly, Because experience has proved, that however desirable the conversion of the Roman Catholics to the Established Church may be, yet this object has not been promoted by the continuance of the disabilities to which the Roman Catholics are by law subjected. 5thly, Because the happiest effects have resulted from the admission of the Roman Catholics to those privileges which they at present enjoy by virtue of different statutes passed during the reign of his late Majesty. 6thly, Because the disability to sit in Parliament was applied to the Roman Catholics at the time when the members of both Houses of Parliament were almost universally deceived by the impostures and false evidence of Titus Oates, who was a few years afterwards judicially convicted of perjury. Richard Barrè Dunning, Lord Ashburton. William Wentworth Fitzwilliam, Earl Fitzwilliam. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth reasons. Charles Grey, Earl Grey. For all the reasons but the first. Henry Richard Fox Vassall, Lord Holland. DXCIII. MAY 14, 1821. By 1 and 2 George IV, cap. 47, the borough of Grampound was disfranchised and two additional knights of the shire were given to the county of York. The Bill was introduced in the Lower House by Lord John Russell. The plea for disfranchisement was the corruption which prevailed in the borough, practised there by Sir Manasseh Massey Lopes, who was fined and imprisoned for the offence at the Assizes in Cornwall, Michaelmas Term, 1819. The bribes paid to the electors ranged from £35 to £80,-see Lords' Journals, vol. liv, p. 324. The Commons gave the franchise to Leeds, but the Lords altered it to Yorkshire. The Bill was passed on the 24th of May, and the Commons agreed to the alteration on the 30th of May. The following protest was entered by Lord Lauderdale, his motion for a committee of enquiry into the borough being rejected. 1st, Because, by rejecting this motion, this House appears to me to avow its intention of punishing, by an ex post facto law, the innocent, however numerous, on the sole ground that some of their fellow freemen have given their votes from corrupt motives. 2ndly, Because I cannot conceive a proceeding which exhibits a greater and more unprincipled disregard of justice, than that of disqualifying the innocent as well as the guilty by an ex post facto law. To me it has always appeared, that the great object of punishment is to secure, by example, against the future commission of crime; but this Bill, if passed into a law, must infallibly tend to encourage and increase corruption amongst the electors of all the smaller boroughs in the Kingdom, for it proclaims to them, that the only difference betwixt giving their votes from pure and from corrupt motives is, that the corrupt will be punished under the existing laws, and the innocent by an ex post facto law, without any regard to the comparative number of those who are pure and those who are guilty. 3rdly, Because, after the doctrines recently held in this House, on the danger with which the Constitution of the country was threatened by an ex post facto law, in the shape of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, it is with the deepest regret I have seen this Bill receive the support with which it has been countenanced. It is true it is said that the right of voting is not private property, but a privilege vested for the benefit of the community, and that this Bill cannot therefore be called a Bill of Pains and Penalties ; to me, however, it appears equally true, that privileges vested even in the highest in rank and station cannot be considered as private property, these too involving concomitant duties to the community; and the attempt to make such a distinction leads me seriously to dread the people at large will conceive that, contrary to all principles of British justice, a proceeding in this House is deemed to be wise and constitutional, when directed against the innocent poor, which is held to be dangerous and unconstitutional in the case of those whose station in life is high and elevated. James Maitland, Lord Lauderdale (Earl of Lauderdale). DXCIV. MARCH 22, 1821. The Timber Duties Bill, 1 and 2 George IV, cap. 37, was intended to stimulate the trade in colonial timber, and therefore imposed differential duties on foreign produce. It was attacked by Lord Lauderdale (who moved that the Bill be read that day six months) as a colonial job; by Lord King and Lord Lansdowne, and even by Lord Ellenborough, who supported the Government generally. Lord Lauderdale's motion was negatived without a division, and the following protest was entered. 1st, Because, whilst the speeches in this House and the reports of our committees display to the public an enthusiastic admiration of the most sound and liberal principles of commercial legislation, it is with feelings of the deepest regret that I have seen this House agree to the commitment of a Bill, which, instead of shewing any disposition to liberality in our future commercial intercourse with foreign nations, will, if recorded in our statute books, exhibit a specimen of our predilection for that illiberal, artificial, and restrictive system of regulation, which has long disgraced our commercial code, under all the circumstances of the case more disgusting than the arrangement it is intended to correct. It is true the duties on timber and deals, as arranged by the 49 George III, cap. 98, 51 George III, cap. 43, 51 George III, cap. 93, and 53 of George III, cap. 33, had become highly oppressive; but it is equally true, that the hardship arising from an alteration in the circumstances of the country could not be apparent to the Legislature at the time of passing these Acts. In this situation the timber trade, which is stated in the Commons report to be open to any modification in respect of the rate of duty, or mode of levying it, that Parliament might deem prudent,' naturally attracted the attention of the committees of both Houses of Parliament appointed to consider of the means of improving foreign trade; and in proportion as the merchants and manufacturers of this country must have read with satisfaction the reports of these committees, stating it to be the duty of the Legislature to mark their desire to foreign nations of adopting more liberal principles of commercial intercourse,' their disappointment must have been great, when they saw the provisions of this Bill openly sanction the hardship to which time and inadvertency had given rise. Under the arrangements of these Acts, consolidated by the 59th of the late King, American timber was admitted duty free, whilst Baltic timber was subjected to a duty of £3 58. per load; but in the year 1812, when this system was adopted, £3 5s. did not compensate the difference of freight betwixt an American and Baltic voyage, which then amounted to £3 108.; and yet by this Bill, introduced for the avowed purpose of marking our desire to adopt more liberal principles, the relative state of the American and Baltic timber trade will be arranged as follows: Proposed duty on Baltic timber, per load of fifty cubic feet Deduct duty to be imposed on American timber. Deduct difference of freight on American timber Remains the bounty which under the proposed regulalations our colonies will enjoy . 1 5 0 IO O Thus, instead of imposing a duty, as in 1812, amounting to 58. per load less than the difference of freight, the Legislature is called upon to prove its liberality to foreign nations, by giving a bounty to our colonies, over and above full compensation for the difference of freight, of no less than £1 per load. Neither is this all; for the following calculations will shew, 1. That the duties imposed on deals from our colonies, when 3. when compared with the duties on deals from Russia and Prussia, must be ruinous to the Norwegian trade. 4. That, contrary to principle and to all former practice, a bounty is given to the foreign manufacturer of deals, which must annihilate the branch of industry in this country. IST. Comparative Amount of Duties on Deal, from our Colonies, and from Russia and Prussia, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 cubic feet; and shewing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber under the present arrangement. (1) 120 deals, 16 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 8 loads 40 feet cubic measure; and as 120 deals, 16 feet in length, are taxed at £19, this will amount, per load, to a duty of 120 American deals, of the same dimensions, are Difference of duty per load Deduct difference of freight, as above, betwixt America and the Baltic (2) 120 deals, 21 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 120 American deals of the same dimensions, are Difference of duty, per load, which forms a £ s. d. 23 2 4 6/ 1 18 71 5 O 0 13 7 . 1 18 I 0 4 2 11 13 10 |
