mark upon what was technically called its snout he put it in a place where A. B. was known to cast for fish. The next morniing, among others, he took this identical salmon, which being found in his possession, he was tried, and transported for the offence; the judges being of opinion, that the salmon, having been in the market, could no longer be ranked among bona vacantia [a laugh]. This, however, was probably a solitary case. The principle of the present bill ought, in his opinion, to be wholesomely applied; and he could not help thinking, that if the noble lord who was the author of it, and the noble lord near him (lord Redesdale), were to lay their heads together, and make a bill, it would be better than pushing the present bill any further.

Lord Wharncliffe shortly replied. He had not, he said, by this bill taken away any old rights, and he had created no new ones, except that of allowing every one to kill game on his own land; and that he believed to be a right which every one ought to exercise. It had been errogeously stated, that, by the law of Scotland, no person could kill game on his own land without a qualification; there were many decisions upon this point, which put beyond a doubt the right of every body in this particular. By the law of Scotland, qualifications were only necessary upon another person's land. A noble baron opposite had descanted upon the many absurdities contained in the bill; but when it came before a committee, he should endeavour to convince that noble baron, that he had talked many more absurdities than he had ever accused him of writing. He begged their lordships to believe that he was not so fond of his own child as to regret its loss, simply because it was his; and if any other and better measure were submitted to their lordships, he would cheerfully relinquish his. At the same time, he was convinced that many years could not pass over with the present absurd, oppressive, and unjust laws in force.

The House divided: Contents 38; Not-Contents 17: Majority 21.

2

Wool. Two of the returns were similar to what had before been moved for by a noble lord; but the other was not comprehended among those that had been laid upon their lordships' table. In making this motion he wished to say a few words. Their lordships were aware, that a great deal of distress existed at present among the wool-growers, the accumulation of whose stock, for the last three years, remained on their hands, the value of which had sunk from 16d. to 8d. per pound. Perhaps their lordships might not be equally aware of the cause of this distress. One cause, he thought, was the reduction of the duty on the importation of foreign wool. At the time that reduction took place, it was generally considered to be a financial duty, and not a protecting one. But, if their lordships looked to the quantity of wool introduced into this this country during the five years, from April, 1819, to September, 1824, they would find, that the quantity of foreign wool imported amounted, on the average, to twenty-one millions, at a duty of 6d. Since the year 1824, at which period the duty was reduced from 6d. to a half-penny-a reduction at once of 11-12ths-the increase in the importation of wool amounted to seven or eight million pounds. Such being the case, it was impossible not to see the cause which produced the distress among the wool-growers. But the interest of the wool-growers was not a particular one; or one which was confined to themselves. Wool and corn were connected together; one depended upon the other. and fertile districts depended entirely upon the subsistence of the farmers flocks. He hoped that when their lordships took into consideration the measure which had been proposed upon the Corn-laws, they would also take into consideration the distressed state of the agriculturists, with respect to the wool-trade. Their lordships might form a just opinion, from seeing what had been the result of a foreign competition in the article of wool what was likely to be the result of the same competition in the corn trade. So long as the duty on wool continued to be 6d. the growers found a market for their wool; but as soon as that duty was reduced, the greatest distress followed. The glut produced by the importation of foreign wool had been so great, as to produce an accumulation of two or three years' growth of wool in the

Large

hands of individuals. With this before their eyes, he trusted their lordships would hesitate before they adopted the resolutions on the Corn-laws, and allowed the foreigner to come into competition with the British farmer in the corn-trade, as had been done in the wooltrade. He considered the wool-grower as much a manufacturer as the clothier. He must find capital, and the means of subsistence. On looking at the Consolidated Customs act, he found that as long as wool should be at the price of 1s., the duty on the importation of foreign wool should not exceed a half-penny, which gave a protection to the British grower of about four per cent. Wool in a manufactured state, however, he found to be protected by a duty of fifteen per cent. It certainly did seem, from that difference, that the clothier must have some stronger claims to protection than the wool-grower; but upon looking to the returns on the subject of the poor-rates for the years 1825 and 1826, he found that the poor-rates levied upon landlords amounted to 4,892,000l. while the amount of poor-rates levied on manufacturers was only 259,000l. So that it was clear that 241. out of 251. was paid by the landed interest. Looking at those returns, he could not find in them a reason for the disproportion of the duties upon wool in its simple state, and wool when manufactured. It appeared to him, that the disproportion ought to be in the inverse ratio to what it was; and that the man who bore the greatest burthens ought not to be the worst protected. It was a most unjust principle, as it operated on the one and the other. Perhaps their lordships were not aware of the extraordinary rate of the increase of the importation of wool, since the reduction of the duty. The importation of wool amounted, in the year 1824, to 19,378,000 pounds; in 1825 to 22,558,000 pounds; and in the year 1826 to 43,795,000. From that period he might say the wool-trade had been completely ruined; and if such had been the case with respect to wool, which formed only a portion of the farmer's profit, any similar measure, with respect to the Corn-laws must necessarily cause universal ruin. In Mr. Jacob's Report it was stated, that great exertions were making in Germany, with a view of raising wool and that prodigious increase in the quantity of wool had taken place in that tcountry. If that was the case, it

could only end, in his opinion, in putting a termination to the cultivation of short wool in this country. At the time the duty on wool was lowered from 6d. to: one halfpenny, it was stated that, in consideration of the reduction, a bounty should be given to the landlords. And, what was this great bounty, did their lords ships suppose? It was, that the farmers should be allowed to export long wool, the amount of which did not exceed 90 tods. That was the only bounty which had been given, in return for the reduction of the duty on the importation of wool. He had no wish to injure the manufacturer. He was aware that the manufacturer could not continue to work wool without a mixture of foreign wool. He was ready to give a full proportion of foreign wool to the manufacturer for that purpose; and even to give him protection against the intro duction of worked wool; but he wished thes protection to be equal, and perhaps the noble lord opposite (Bexley) would tell him the reason why the protection was not better proportioned. It was n singular fact, that with this great increase! in the importation of wool, there had not been an accompanying increase in the exportation of manufactured wool.ds So that, instead of the foreigner taking manufactures from this country in ex change for this produce he took nothing) but money. So great had been the inst crease of the quantity of wool in the home market, that the landlords had got las: much as three years produce on their hands; and it was a great hardship on the farmer, having so much wool of his own, to look at his coat, and think that it was made of foreign wool. He apologized to their lordships for having taken up so much of their time, and he now begged leave to move for the returns he wished to be laid upon the table. Two of these! returns had been moved for before in point of fact, but not in point of time those on the table only going back to 1814, while those which he wished to move for went back to 1800. The noble lord then moved for a "Return of the quantity of sheep and lamb's wool im ported into this country since the year 1800 to 1824 inclusive; distinguishing the quantities of each year, and othe countries from which wool was imported. That motion came up to the time when the duty was lowered. The next return he should move for was, to show theins

read a

lordships whether the British consumer[ was benefitted by the new principles of free trade, as applicable to the woollentrade. He should therefore move, for "An account of the official and declared value of woollen manufactures from 1810 to 1826." The next return he should move for was, 66 an account of the quantity of foreign wool exported since the year 1821 to 1826, distinguishing each year." Lord Bexley said, that the noble lord appeared to him to be greatly deceived in one respect. The noble lord seemed to argue upon this question as if it was one which was founded on a new principle, and as if the encouragement of the importation of foreign wool was a novel system in this country. In the time of our ancestors that encouragement had been carried to a much greater extent than it was at present; we were only returning, ther therefore, to the system that formerly prevailed. The present system he believed would be found much more advantageous to the growers of wool, than that which existed immediately previous to it; and he must bring to the recollection of the noble lord, that the change took place in consequence of applications and petitions on the subject from the wool-growers themselves, who were allowed by it to export their long wool. The manufactyrers, the believed, had nothing to fear from the exportation of wool. England was still by far the best market for wool, and not only kept at home its own produce, but attracted to its market a large proportion of the produce of other countries.

9

The Duke of Richmond felt himself bound to say a few words on this subject, upon which he had presented a number of petitions from the county of Sussex. As to the observation that had been made, that wool had been left on the hands of the grower, from the permission to import for the good of the manufacturers, he could only say, that that was one of the experiments of the free-trade gentlemen. It had, however, failed; and now they attempted to put a gloss over it. He hoped and trusted that the noble earl who had moved for these returns, would call the attention of the House to this important subject. He could not believe that it was beneficial to this country to allow a foreign grower to send us his produce. He thought it would be best for this country to go back to its former system.

Lord King stated, that the noble mover had made out what he thought a very strong case against free trade. He had expected to have heard the noble lord (Bexley)—if he was a friend to the general interests of the country, and a real friend to free trade-observe, that though there might have been some distress among the agriculturists, there had been great distress among the manufacturers; and that a higher duty, preventing the importation. of wool, would not have diminished the distress of the agriculturists, but would have added greatly to the distress of the manufacturers. It had been stated, that some of the wool remained on the hands of the growers. Perhaps that might be the case; but then the noble lord on the ministerial bench might have asked, whe ther the importation of wool continued? seeing that, if it did, it was because the wool was worked up. He had expected the noble lord, if he was a friend to the general interests of the country, to have made use of those arguments.If ministers did not defend the manufacturers, their interest would assuredly be neglected.sofw

The Earl of Darnley was for giving protection both to the growers of corn and wool. The growers of wool laboured under grievous hardships. They had two years of their stock on hand. Now, such a state of things ought not to exist. It was a gross injustice to that class of the community, and no adequate advantage to the manufacturers.

The Marquis of Salisbury said, he had not intended to trouble their lordships with any observations on the subject, if a noble baron had not attempted to set in opposition the agricultural and manufac turing interests, by stating, that the one was sacrificed for the sake of the other. ["No," from lord King.] If the noble lord thought that the two interests were connected, he was sorry he had mistaken him. With respect to the question before their lordships, he must say, that when the farmers had two years produce in hand, and were unable to sell, except at a ruinous price, and when the foreigner was pouring his produce into this country, and taking nothing in return but money he must say, that if such a state of things was prosperous to the country, then was the present period most prosperous.

The Duke of Buckingham said, he should go to a different part of the ques tion; namely, the proposed alteration im