Star. — London, England, 1828-06-18 00:00:00

doutst,_ or Inc as rearm which be held in his hand would fully jos.' tify. In fact, the law complained of had existed in the. Provinces, and was found necessary to be ex tended to. the Presidencies. The object of this Go vernment wet to do all they could to promote the interests of the natives of India, though at the pre sent period they could not elevate them to the level of Europeans. In place of the commercial men of Cal cutta complaining of the cost of pilotage and moorage, it appeared that the Government expended above six lacs of rupees more than they bad charged ; nor could the charge be considered as a direct tax. The tolls on canals were most complained of, but without any colour or reason to support it. In India there was no duty upon wills, or probates, or other transactions under five pounds. The Hon. Member then went through a va riety of items, and said,. that though public meetings were prohibited in the Town Halls, that that was not :he case at the Exchange and other places. In other aspects the people of India were particularly favoured its the duties on spirits, wine, and other articles. Tax ation never was the great object of the British Govern ment in India; as stated by the HonourableMember for Montrose. The Stamp Tax was only laid on in place of other taxes, and other taxes were altogether reduced. At one period there were no less than 572 species of articles taxed, and all these were since either done away, modified, or applied to improvements in the country.— Looking at the real condition of the people of Calcutta, he thought that they enjoyed such inestimable advan tage', that there could be no necessity for the proposed Committee. Mr. TRANT opposed the motion for a Committee, but admitted the advancing intelligence and informa tion 'of the natives of India, as well as the progressive ;rapt orement of the state of society there. Mr. ASTELL was decidedly opposed to the motion of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He thought that. many of the complaints put forth by those who styled themselies'the advocates of India were extremely ill founded. He contended for the legality of the im post which had been petitioned against, and vindicated generally the Government of the East India Company. There was no real impediment, he observed, to British settlers going out to India, for none able and willing to he of oseahere were refused the facilities of going out. The Honourable Member then proceeded to notice the demand for a free press, which he strenuously com batted. and concluded by expreising his determination to resist to the utmost the motion then before the House. Mr BROUGHAM said, he was favourable to the appointment of a Committee, and if the motion were prci'ed he - would vote for it. He thought they should sot put off to a Late period the consideration of the state of India as to her laws and polity ; on the contrary, he thought the sooner the attention of the public and of Parliament was called to these matters, the more at tentiire consideration would they receive. If the im position of a Stamp Duty in India were illegal, there was a tribunal to decide it ; if any doubt, existed upon it, then it might be a fit subject for the consideration of Parliament—but not till then, and theft only. Acts of Parliament were net generally very deer, and be did not think that in the case of the Stamp Act,it was quite so clear as was imagined by his Hon. set - Learned Friend (64. J. Macintosh). With respect to alive pees, in 'lndia he did not think it a panacea for all evils, but he did think it would greatly tend to mitigate them. Public meetings also might be safely permitted in India. liable. however, to such regulations as might becolsittlerul necessary. He thought, how ever, that it would be better to delay the further con iderati..n of the subject till the nett Session. Mr. T. P. COURTENAY said he had no doubt that it was intended to give to the Supreme Presidency the fidipower. of imposing taxes is, India, by the clause of the Act to Which so 'much. reference had been made. Hkineent, bosieier, e r e deal with this subject in the most librrat meaner Healey Inv). - - Mr. R. GRANT said be was not called upon to give anYopiniesifits the desultory subjects which had just bete hrhugbt . berore the notice of the House. But as tea/re:Pickle/4 the premises were clear, and the con ehisient itizr.• If the illegality of the law pererdbilleful, thrCofoniitiee cot not alter it. ' t4,-401:CANTOteli, reply. •ftiereao4li the Nelda lared4Leed Allsleylon the liberalipini* which krtsd.wileellAexpressed ; and generally he fit happy at the, tone and spit it which this discussion had *Ai %led: Arifatir;proo to him that the affairs' of India . • would hencelinth be snore liberally regarded, end that free institutions would at length be permitted to prevail. in-India. Under such circumstances, and with the as.: stance of support whiehhe received of taking up the' satopet essly next Scission, be would withdraw his Mo. neetestilheßatitioe was then ordered to be printed. • . 1 : : • 011prill tHIPPINCI. NtIeTII I GASCO . E wished to call the attention of theilouse to. what the real nature of his motion was, bottom it had hero, much misunderstood, both in that Nose . ' and nut of it. With 'that view he must begin tOafate whit the taature of it was not. It was not a pineal inquiry into the state of trade; nor did he mean to aliplit it AI 1 . c;ommercial, question, but as an ab whet , nave? queotion. He should do so, not because he thought that 'those whose cause he bad advocated hq year were less deserving of relief, but because,' twill failed last year, he would not presume to bag- forward t he same question so soon after having bast defeated. He was confident that the distress of spite intetent vihich -he had then advocated was as great now as men, and that if there was any difference apmt, it outs that their distress was greater than belie*. Me 'meld maintain that opinion, notwitin, neittling the cheers of those who held the contrary, - fee' ews:thoroughly satisfied that if the case was inquired laws would be found that in the time which had tine* elapsed, their =condition had been aggravated, not, *ovate* The principal argument against him was,, 'hit there bad been a redundancy of ',hipping, ' which he.to great speculation, and the speculation to great Tboseitreveitt least she arguments which had mo=t effect. Now, if he could prove to-night that such retputclaucy did not exist, he believed it would be ad meted that the inferences drawn from that redundancy abaut As abandoned. He would now treat the sub ject* as as stbstract naval question, abstaining as much as paisible from the commercial question which be had brought forward last year; and the first con sideration that presented itself was, whether the shipping of this country had or bad not increased? all former 'periods the employment of ships and shipping hid increased after war. Looking back to the period of ,1768, to go no further. he found that there was no instance in that, or in any of the in telinediate wars, up to the period of the last war, in which, taing an average of five years , in each; the' shipping had not annually increased after the war ; but that had unfortunately ceased to be the case after the late war. He would prove that, en the contrary, the employment of shipping and men bad annually dimi nished, and that Oat gradually, except for the first few yPart. In the yeas ending the 60 of Januasy,lBl7, the returns were—. of the come would frs,iitto Sc • of until 1 '. I . . - Ships and Shipping. Tonnage. Seamen. 1817 25,864 2,784,000 178,000 1822 24,642 2,519,044 166,333 Being a diminutiori, in the Ave years of peace of . . ..; Ships aid Shipping. • Tonnage. geaMeih" . 1,222 _ 264,956 11, 667 During that lime it was to be observed, that there had been a considerable increase in the imports and exports, to the amount of eight or nine millions, as compared with the preceding year. What he next wished to im press upon the attention of the House was, a compari son of the last two years, taking in tile whole of the British Empire, including the Colonies. In the year ending January. 1826, the returns were— Ships and Shipping. Tonnage. Seamen. 1826 24.62.5 2,635,000 167,636 1827 23,195 2,460,500 151,415 That statement referred to the whole of the British Em pire, when that which formed the basis of her naval establishment was diminished in the reverse proportion to the increase of her trade. It had been said on a - . former occasion, that if the interests of commerce and navigation should happen to clash, there was no doubt but that the preference should be given to navigation, as it was upon that our existence as a naval power and the retention of our colonies must depend. He would next call the attention of the House to the statement in the Returns as it affected the United Kingdom of Great Britain arid Ireland, not including the Colonies. This statement was as follows— Ships and Shipping. Seamen. 1526 20,409 149,894 1527 19,035 130,494 He did not mention the tonnage, because there was al ways a proportion observed in these accounts between the tonnage and the seamen; so that having the one, the other was to be directly inferred from it. It appeared from the above statement, that t h e re was in the last of _ _ these years a diminution of 1,434 ships and 19,400 sea men. He knew that he should be told to look at the note under that statement, which stated that many of the vessels that remained on the list had long ceased to be in existence ; but he would ask, when the ship was broken up did they throw the men overboard? The argument of 1827 was, that the great quantity of ship ping had led to speculation ; but it was now stated as a fact, that the number of ships was not so great as had been relied on in that argument. But he would ask why, if the number of ships had increased, was the number of Mee diminished ? They h.td always iaulti• plied at the rate of six men to 100 tons, and they, still took their statement on the old criterion. But he would maintain, that there were not five men to 100 tons, and chat upon the whole estimate there was a loss of upwards of 40,000 men. He would show that now there seas nol in general more than four men to 100 tons, and never more than five. The statements therefore upon which Government bad gone mostbe incorrect; and if noother good resulted from his motioe t tbat good'woirld attend it at all events. The error of the - statement would appear distinctly on referring to the,Siimpr a pnwPffice.— Every seaman employed, whether .a 'pre.ntsce or not, was obliged to pay 6d. .a month-towards. - the sup pon of Greenwich Hospital. UpOn - the arrival of any vessel in port, the Captain was obliged•to . deliver up on oath a list of the crew, specifying the length of time, that each had served. He knew of no better:criterion' than this, for those who collected the dint,: as well as he, believed that it was regularly and NAT .collected.; Why, thin, should they not adopt that best criterkim, instead of multiplying at the rate of six to 100 . tone? During war, vessels were compelled to observe the pro , portion of six and sometimes seven - to 100. but now* appeared from the Sixpenny Duty.Rpffiee that they bad only collected from 115,274 men. The calculation was, that every seaman on an average was ein - Ployed eight months in the year, and paid 4s. duty; but it appeared from the return that there was a reduction of 1,1001. or 1,2001. in the last year, as compared. with the former. Looking at all the accounts, it would be found that there was . a diminution 'of from SO to 40,000 seamen • since the war. It would be unfair to include in the number of shipping' Clearectout of sbine of our ports, some of the steam easels, in particular, which be had ascertained madeterenty-five or thirty voyageklis the, year; sti . diatif the' amount of - the tonnage of each • was tonitiPlied by ..the number of voyages, it would swill the amount Of tonnage in :the general aCcount to eight It nine thousand tons fie etch weasel. He did not, therifaie, look at the diminution of-oar sbipping--6w bat: hesejefied particularly to call the attentiortotibe..Hoose to eras, the diminution of the.nwrober of men. It was 'a matter worthy of serious consideration, that while our shipping trade to the East Indies, and the trade of the Colonies, was increasing, our shipping trade was rapidly declining.. There were employed in our colonial shipping trade 23,000 seamen, who never came tothie country, and who could not be available for the service 'of the Royal Navy in case of emergency. He knew that in his view of the decrease of British shipping he should be met, first by the mention 'of the note of the registrar of shipping—that many of the ships included in the list were not in existence—but whether they were so at the date of that list was not of consequence to his argu ment—whether they had ceased to be rated in 1824 or in 1825 was immaterial, it was still a diminution since the war. Now this diminution would be more 'observ able if we looked at the state of our shipping engaged in the trade with America, and the shipping of that country engaged in the trade with us.' In the year 1816, just after the war, America had only 91,000 tons of shipping engaged in her intercourse with this country. In 1826 it had increased to 185,000. In 1816 our shipping engaged in the American trade amounted to 45,000 tons. In 1826, it was reduced to 37,000 tons, being a diminution of 7,000, white, in the same time, the shipping of America had more than dou bled. This was an imporfant fact, and deserved serious attention, for there was little doubt, that if there should be a general war, America would be pitted against us. The calculations upon which he went were from very accurate sources. They were those of last year and from Liverpool ; but as nearly four-fifths, or five-sixths, of the whole American trade came to Liverpool, the statement of the re mainder made little difference is the general. cake- Lido's. If they looked to the difference in the number of men employed, it would be' found that there had been an increase in the number of seamen employed by America of 16,200, while there bad been a diminution in those employed in the shipping trade of the United Kingdom of 16,400. Thns, whatever was the state of the trade with the Colonies and Foreign Countries, he found a most alarming diminution in the number of men in the shipping trade in the United Kingdom ; and whatever might be said, it was a fact. that that which was the basis of oar naval power was gradually mumbling and diminisbiog. It was a fast which could not be denied, that considefable numbers of 'our 1 men were employed in the shipping of America. He bad ;not the menus of knowing the exact numbers. but he thought it was not too snail to state them at 20,000. The reason of this preference amoneour Men fur the ItAsirericaa service was, that the , Ansesicans gave much Uhler wages. • InJact, the great losses sustained in the tarrying trade by some of our ship-ewners were such, iberweretebliged to diminish all their espouses, :.:~: • • . dle ' • ..•, ' ' , and wages amongst the number, to the lowest possible scale. The numbers as well as the wages of the crew were diminished, and one effect was, that none but able seamen were employed, so that mot one in ten were employed, and - there we►e very few. apprentices,. so that no provision was made for any exigency which our navy might require from time to tiMe. He would not trouble the House with going further into this sub■ Ject at present, but conclude with a motion, stating the facts to which he had averted, and pledging the House to an inquiry the next Session. The Honourable Member then moved— "That it appeen by the navigation statements, contained in the Annual Finance of the present year, 1829, now upon the table, that there was registered fer the British Empire— Ships or Vessels. .Tonnage. Seamen. 1826 24,625 2,635,644 167,636 1827 23,195 2,460,500 151,415 •••=1111M•1•1111 MNIM , Nr.=. , Mai........ Diminution of 1,430 . 175 t 144 16,221 _ " Also, that k appears by the same Finance Account, that in 1826, for the British United KingdOm there were— Ships or Vessels. Tonnage. Seamen. 20,469 2,382,069 149,894 1 1827 19,035 2,150,464 130,494 Being a diminution in the Trade of the United Kingdom of 1,434 221,465 19,400 " That this House will, sarifin the neat Session of Parliament, proceed to inquire into the causes of this apparent diminution of ships, tonnage, and men, in the commercial navy of this country." Mr. T. P. COURTENAY said, that if, in opposing the Motion, he abstained from following the Gallant General minutely through his bill of details, he hoped neither the Gallant General nor the House would im pute it to any denial of the importance of the shipping interest, whether it was viewed as a branch of the trade of the-country, or as the foundation tithe Royal Navy. The discussion of this subject would open the investi gation of many questions; but as 'this motion could lead to no practical result, it was not necessary to enter into these questions, which would greatly interfere with the dispassionate consideration of the present subject.— During the ensuing recess, his Right Honourable Col. league (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) and himself intended le, give their whole attention to this very important and controverted question. They felt it their duty to take this course, as they were aware of the difference between' opinions-formed as members of a party and . under the awful responsibility of office. It was . their intention;' therefore, to treat the Colonial Question, the Shipping Question, the general principles of. Trade, and all the otherquestionr that belonged to their department, with the same iinpertiality , .it their minds were a sheet of blank: paper—afear4. .The Gallant General had made out no case in support of his motion. • He had shown: Ahem . was a diminutiorrof British shipping since the peace, but not any stickihtent diminution as rendered the course he proposed necessary.. What object could be gained by this motion? The pledge was not to be redeemed till the next Session; . -This was a course the . House had never adapted bud Once; and that was on the CathelicAination. :No benefit could result from this Motion ) -unless..the:.House went at once into the. Cotrithittee. He shouldi therefore, meet the motion by the previous question.. Idb*Cliuld not avoid remarking, thatthe o pallant Genetl4,in the'.coMparison he had drawn between the yearalBg6 -and 1827, bad failed in, his point, because hebaduot shvarwhow tar the result was influenced by The ciriutestaotemirked by the note i of the Registrar. .Geueral; thrtt...ooSeqoence of many vessels not having ..theer proper.. registry, they. would 'have been struck out of the former flits. The Gallant .General had acknowledged that the 'only seamen' now eMplOyed were able seamen; if we bad, at least; twice the number we bad Use year before Lord Howe ,gainecthis splendid victory. •The Gallant General hied forgotten to state that the year 1827 was the greatest in amount of shipping . 1410 the geese, The Right Honourable Gentleman having. re•stauld his objections to the motion, apologised for detaining the s House, when so many others •more competent were anzious• to Address it. • Mr. G. ROBINSON expressed his surprise at hear,: ing 'that the Right Hon. Gentleman refused to agree to the motion upon the ground that no practical men.- sure was recommended. When - the ship - owners 'IAA year put forward their , prayer to that House, he would venture to say, that they were treated as no other re spectable bodyof men were ever treated by a Govern. went before; and be thought it too much that they were now again to be told. that nothing was to be done, and that inquiry should again be refused. The Right Hon: Gentleman had certainly said that he and his Right Hon. Friend were about to take into their con sideration the allegatiods pat forward by the' ship owners,--and to go into a dispassionate investigation of - their - case.' So far he had beard the Right Honourable ,Gentleinan with satisfaction. .But, although so much might be dope, what security had the ship-owners that ihnie.,4 ee w 0 RiOt.lion. Gentlemen would be in office anotb: jeer N.AA laugh.)—lf• he appealed to the ex perienceof . .t0 last eighteen months, he saw very little ground for coofidence on that point, and he, therefore, called upon the House to bind itself to inquiry before another year passed over. It must be remembered that the subject was one .in which the maritime ascendancy of this cou an was involved; and, if they refused to en tertain it . new,,..itmeight. hereafter be forced upon them when' it wool* be:too - late to repair what they had it now 'in their power to `prevent. The Hon. Member then contended (Imitate operation of the present law was visible in the - diminished number of ships built, and en tries made for foreign ports during the last year. It was not enough for them know that our own ship were employed, but they *etc employed profitably. Ia considering the interests of another great body in the country, the growers of eorn,the House had made it a' part of their consideratiorrywhat was the price at which corn could be profitably sold? Now he knew thit al most all the carrying now undertaken by the British Shipowner was done , almost at the certainty of a loss. lie would never belcoetented to see'one interest in the coontry protected, while another was left to compete with the foreigner as it could. He regretted that last year the application. for inquiry had been mixed up with political considerations; with which it ought never to have been connected. The Shipowners had shown no hostility to the late Right Hon. Secretary for. the Colonies; the worst they hadever said of him was, that he was mistaken in his views, and that if these views were persisted in, the shipping of the country must be destroyed in a great measure. The system of reci . procity as it now operated was ruinous. There was no doubt of its advantage in those instances white foreign gauntries had been induced* to act upon it also. But it was well known that America and all the great. Euro- i lean States were acting upon a system of ho'tility and.' prelusion towards us which must produce the most in.. jurious effect* In the debate of last year the Honour able-Member for Dover had the confidence `to state to the House that ships could be built as cheap in this as in any, other country—(Hear, from Mr..Thcnson.)—' The Honourable Member by that cheer seemed to Main- . tain that assertion. He had adv a ntage of havin g been connected a ith the shipping interest softie years longer than the Honourable Gintleman,and he would undertake to say, without •meining ;the slightest per sonal disrespect, that n ever was ail assertion Wile to I. that House so utterly unfounded and mistaken-4 Hear, hear.) Ths Honourable Member then vindicated the Ship-owners against what he described as .the 5140 " genuPPLAttickPxnde upon them by Mr..flueltisposkin the preceding Sersien;and called upon 'the Muse. nat- - to negative the Resolution. ' Mr.LIDDEL said, that he would not follaw ale; example of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sit , down, by entering upon the very intricate and difficult • calculations which he had brought forward in his speech: The Hon. Member concluded sotne'Yurther observe- tions, by supporting the motion. 'He earnestly hoped that some means might be devised to restore the ship- ping interests to their pristine situation :—they had been reduced to their lowest level, and exposed to a most unfair and ruinous foreign competition. He conjured the Government to rook, before it was too . late, to the condition of this large and now helpless class of, his . Majesty's subjects. Mr. POULETT THOMSON denied the expres sions attributed to him by the Hon. Member for Wor cester (Mr. Robinson). What he had on a former oc casion said, was, not that British ships could be built, but that they could be sailed in competition with foreign ' shipping. This arose from their greater durability, . their cheaper insurance, and the other palpable advan tages which were known to belong to them. As a proof of this superiority, he need only refer to the Report of s the Committee on Foreign Trade. Now, how did the fact stand as to the comparative business of the British and foreign shipping in the general trade of this coon..' try? There had been, as the return of British shipping showed, an increase between the years 1827 and 1824, of 556,000 tons, and of 44,4.66 trio', and a decrease of the foreign' to the extent of 7,748 tons, • and of 1,410 men. And this comparative increase in fa- ' your of this country, was observable in the.. first year of the operation .of the new measures, which were said to have inflitted• so much evil. There had been at the same tithe a great increase :of ship. t• building in the Colonies; still he denied ix tore the. pe culiar depression upon which.so much stress had been attempted to'be He admitted, indeed, that the' profits in the shipping trade were much reduced, but he denied that the reduction was in a greater propor tion than that of the other branches of general trade. Let any body look at the list of comparative prices, and this would be obvious. In 1825, the price of Jamaica coffee was 91s. at present it was 71s. During the same period, cctton (an article of great consumption) had . fallen from Is. bid. to lid. tobacco from 31d. to 2.0. • olive oil from 54/. to 481. British . iron, per* -ton, 'from; • 151. to 81. 17s. 6d. lead frOm 291. 10s. to .181. tin from 101 s. to 765. hemp from 431. to 381. Daatzic timber from 51. 15s. to 41. 15s. so that the diminution in the price of shipping had not sunk below its rein tive proportion. With respect to freights.* found that , in 1825. when the highest prices was held out, owingto the chance of a short supply of ail the commodities of the country, and a desire to 'spectilate in Iststaimltt: the requisite substittite, the regular freight . .to*r hemp from the Baltic was 60s. a ton, .at present it line 455. ; of tallow it had fallen from 40s. to 28s.stIns prow- Serving the' same proportion to the level of other arts.:' aim If the shipping then hid not Oult, as hatiliefq . asserted, but increased—.if the coasting trade gave. ployment to 9,000,900 of tons—if the fisheriesemplorde. 40,000—the colonial 822,000 tons—the foreign tilde 2,860,000—if, in fact, the general' employment 441)4,1:: tidy shipping was 11,948,000 tons, liOarcould, 'comparatively trifling competition -ak75.006 ftweisnt- - : tonnage, be said fo-to hale affetted them Thenrike- 4 - Hon: Men;sber hit said, that the chivy/Ors *ye •ftt 4 .culiarly entitled to relict, from the; Meekness. With winch theyhad. borne their 'depression, and tbo ottani absence - of all reproach against the Night libuoutse able Gentleman (\ft; woe nutkui„,rid were said to have wrought thicpansinl was the paymentsast year kif 2001. from that body Sort„.. a pamphlet, which - did nor contain onetaff tomutleo.. argument as it did abase, : .no refrOaclCoft,he - Righr,' Hon. Gent ? Was nthe exhibition the it* 4117. in thsZ metropolis, of a sort.of general hoisting-46*gs, 'at this. "tight Hon. Gentleinan's resignation,-which, though as a source of joy bythem, reif4 yet a atilt o1; oito profound regret by vreiy ot is co4pt 1- 7 ; c were these demonstrations nothing ? He.could soupy-, deed treat with sufficient contempt the authorl'oftehents attempts atiritimph; Or . With sufficient Off and delhded instruments that were Mide nue'af:Pfi.'l4,' occision ? For what were these.hired ltheli—for whit was this flag hoisting? A pcdr boatean; when be (Mr. Thomson) put the qtrestibn to him,")imply re plied—" Because Of a gemmen,going out wild wons let us live"—(A laugh).—This was indeed in thestylielpn, tone of thepoet's description of the treatment of-rstanerft• " Pone' doud burns duc in Capitoliiniagnum "4 * " Cretatumque bovem ; Sejanus ducitur urico ". • Spectamlus giudent mules: qua labia? ' Vultus erat ? nunquam, si quid usihi credis i antavi Hunc Imminent : sed quo cecidit sub crimioe? quisnani . • Delator ? Tams indiciis? quo team probavit? • . He might with the same adherence to truth, fioisb the, quotation— .. ,~. .. 4, Nil herum, verbose et grandly epistola nett A Cipreis." in justification of the opinions which he had stated to the HoUse, hecould quote the authority of Mr. Lyon, a Gentleman who was long at the head of the shipping interests, and whose.name carried with it great weight• upOn such a subject as this. ' - The Hon. Gentleman del••• precated the ido, if any such were entertained by the persons now connected with the Board of Trade, of entering anew • into- the details of this question, and sifting those facts which had been already so ably sifted and investigated by the great minds of the Right Hon. Member for Liverpool, and his Right Hnri. Friend the ; late President of the Board of Trade. To cornmence such an inquiry'. de . now would lead to the greatest confusion and' mischief. . Mr. ROBINSON 'explained. He could naafi the Hon. Member for.Dover t tbat he (Alr..R.) bad nothing whatever to do with the ltoisilfig of the Bags in the ships on the occasion alluded to. He viewed that proceeding as every honest nun must have viewed it, with complete disgust—(Hear). . Mr. C. GRANT said, llg was much gratiaed.to and that his Right Hon. Friend intended to glee this subject an almost., consideration during the summer. But .it was not now for• the members of his Majesty's Government to pronounce an Opiajap . 9 4 , ... the policy by which they were at. present guided. No system fi a , . ever been more thoroughly sifted and examined, and the result • all their inquiries was a satisfactory conviction of ifs aisdont mirk expediency. If it was again to receives d he felt persuaded that the policy already proved and confirmed—(Hear). He was any disquisition on .tbe general principl he fek that .a hasty and supetfieial review be an injustice alike to the systemasnd , merely, thee, confine himself. to the Honse. The shape of the motion ; sequence.. He could not 'Vat view were annually made to show that Gentleman had. tailed in the purpose tended—(gear, hear): The Honouril of *the tkeittnent the 'Obip °where C. Grant). cd uid One perceive. fee. • thine who argintein faviii•Shf the , 1.;; ; di eutl96. ? .11;4 stinf! up ..fer t. Whiclithey 'laid etas at till ,k),Mig . Vriiperi 4 rees itansbane Of.icais ; 1 dad, loss; ' and *riseliefOke - stitiei.ta t ‘. should . its friliiadtarvlrippia t - bu; :chat 4 *t. ... - 11' 7 ,'esr•I7:••• • , • • . = •4, • • • 4 ). ?.• 1, 1 1 : . P . 1:4 :e . O r. ' • • • ••:! • 1e .: 6 •4 N am:* •igh ;• : -•-• -•• •• • • • ys:11. "• • lor .01 • _~:. eive a dispaisionate .is;veitagatliN already sanctioned would be: a . He was not loclined to iniet tots 1 . principles of, that pallii4beciiitse.. 4 review of weg a 46 z ec vs s and p:, its4npottert: Its s io question at .presen litforl i , L appeared a matter . telittle W 44- it as one of those EIT4 viff 4 4 i . at' the policy Of the'itOset ' rpose for tiji.ich ie'll'ict• )urible,Menigef:ltielethi*llfgalt 'l6.id io N lysideli Tooke Ire • !. viii,ac4aa:-1.4t • "lir ingwourAiiiiiiilii . ,it' 0 i rHa linefest 617 . 6 I ' rat Oh ; Oil' ilia iserhir is ; that ' thei 'Lik . "Aiikvth, "-‘ fvoiiii... riot Apia iode'ftiti but : diat Ilk; whit iatier • l( t i ' I , I „ i 1 ~ t ' i , 1 , 4. 1~ 'I i f P ** aro oe. It Pe' were arts ring