The Sun. — London, England, 1848-06-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 9. Their Lordships met this evening shortly before Five o'clock. ROYAL ASSENT. The Royal Assent was given to-day, by commission, to the following Public and Private Bills : Tobago Relief and Immigration into British Guiana and Trinidad Bill. The Indemnity Bill. The Removal of Aliens Bill. Insolvent Debtors' (India) Bill. National Monument of Scotland Amendment Bill. Clifton Bridge Bill. Leicester Navigation Bill. Folkestone Waterworks Bill. Lambeth Waterworks Bill. Stirling Waterworks Bill. Birkenhead Dock Company Bill. Morley Gas-light Bill. Bristol and Clifton Gas Amendment Bill. Southampton Gas and Coke Bill. Worcester New Gas Bill. Shrewsbury Market Bill. Magdalen Hospital Act Amendment Bill. Sufferance Wharves, &c. (Southwark) Bill. Leicestershire Lunatic Asylum Bill. Liverpool Docks Bill. Dover Landing Pier Bill. Manchester General Cemetery Bil'. Price's Patent Candle Company Bill. Leishman's Estate Bill. Maxwell's Restitution Bill Heneage's. Divorce Bill. The Lord Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. Their Lordships resumed shortly after Five o'clock. The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions against the Scotch Registration Bill; also a petition from Glasgow against the repeal of the navigation-laws. The Earl of GALLOWAY presented several petitions against thel Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill; also a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland against the Scotch Registration Bill. SPANISH PENSIONERS. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY complained that the return for which he had moved, of the Spanish pensioners on the English Government, did not furnish the information which he required, and that there were several persons on the list who had no claim whatever to receive any pensions from the English Government, and he wished to know who had given these pensions to these unworthy individuals, and for what cervices these pensions had been granted. Lord MONTEAGLE said that the Government with which he had been connected had invariably confided in the Horse Guards with regard to the persons on this list. He objected to the production of the names as in sulting to the objects of the public charity. These were not pensions granted by the Crown; they were charities annually voted by Parliament. The Duke of WELLINGTON said his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Londonderry) was entirely mistaken. This was a private charity, and had always been ad ministered in the spirit of the original grant, which was charity, and charity only. After a few words from the Earl of MINTO, the sub ject dropped. Earl FITZ WILLIAM gave notice that on Monday, the 19th inst., he should bring the present condition of Ireland under their Lordships' notice. PETITIONS. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented several peti tions against the Scottish Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions with a similar prayer. PENINSULAR MEDALS. The NOBLE Dui then asked why the Peninsular medals had not been yet distributed? Earl GREY said it was a work of great labour and of great time to engrave the name of each person and of each action upon every one of these medals. Be had seen Mr. Wyon on the subject, and he believed that the distribution would soon take place. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY objected to this system of ex po st facto rewards, whi c h h e d es i gnate d as a prostitution o: orders. The Duke of RICHMOND protested warmly against this attack on those who had shed their best blood in de fence of their country, whose valour had procured decorations for those who now complained that decora tions were prostituted by being bestowed on those who had shed their blood in defence of their country. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he had ap plied the term prostitution to the new arrangements un der the civil order only. REGISTERING BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND) AND MARLZIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILLS. Lord CAMPBELL hoped the House would not re fuse to enter upon a consideration of these two Bills, which involved no political or party question, and were intended simply for the social improvement of Scotland. The first of these Bills had reference to the registration of births, deaths, and marriages. As the law now stood there was no register of births, there was only a register of baptisms of those who were within the pale of the Established Church. The register of marriages was still more detective; and, with regard to deaths, it was not compulsory to make any entry of deaths or burials. Now, he proposed to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, and to make the registry of births, deaths, and marriages compulsory. The expense he proposed to pro vide for by an assessment, which would be very trifling in amount. He believed that all the opposition to the Bill came from interested parties—the sessions clerks — who would not, as he believed, be injured at all, for the registration, as now carried on by them, of baptisms, &c., would not be interfered with. The object of the second Bill was to amend the law relating to marriages in Scotland. Anything more defective than the law as it existed in this respect could not well be imagined. There were several ways by which marriages migt be contracted in Scotland—first, by the marriage ceremony performed by a minister of the church; secondly, with out any minister or ceremony whatever, but simply by an acknowledgment before witnesses that the parties were man and wife; thirdly, by a promise proved. And there was yet another mode—viz., if the conduct of the parties was such as to lead to the supposition that they , were married the law assumed them to be so. These various kinds of marriages might be proved at any time, and by any evidence ; and there were many instances in which marriages were de clared to be invalid in consequence of some proof being afterwards produced that one or other of the parties had been married before in one of the doubtful and objection able modes he bad mentioned, and that the first husband or wife was living at the time of the second marriage. This was a state of the law which occasioned great un certainty and great evil. He proposed by his Bill that marriages be contracted in Scotland for the future only in one of two ways, viz., in the church by the marriage ceremony performed by a clergyman, or before a public functionary to be called a registrar. He had inserted a provision to guard against clandestine marriages—that no marriage should be solemnized, unless one or other of the contracting parties had resided in the parish for fourteen days preceding. It had been suggested that these Bills should be referred to a Select Committee. To that course he had no objection, and would, there fore, move that they be read a second time and com mitted to a Select Committee. Lord BROUGHAM seconded the motion, and ob served that nothing could be more unsatisfactory or uncertain than the present law relating to marriages in Scotland . The Earl of SELKIRK, in order to enter his protest Mlnst the second reading of the Registration Bill on ournals, would move that it be read a second time that day six monehs ; but he did not propose to give the House the trouble to divide. He objected to the Bill, because he believed the object might be attained by means of the existing parish register, without all the cumbrous machinery it was proposed to bring into ac tion, and the consequent expense to the country. The poor -rates had been increasing in Scotland for some time past in a ratio they could have no conception of; and were still increasing ; and it was especially the duty of Parliament, at a time when the people were al ready overburdened, not to throw upon them any addi tional impost. He also objected to the Bill, as imposing penalties for not doing that which in many cases it would be impossible to do. The Earl of EGLINTON, while admitting that the present system of registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Scotland required amendment, objected altogether to the principle on which this Bill proceeded. His first objection was, the large amount of patronage which would be craated by the measure—the number of new offices, he believed, would be not fewer than 2,000. He believed that the existing machinery, with some slight alterations, and the assistance of a few additional clerks, would be found sufficient for all the purposes re quired. Then there were many clauses of the Bill alto gether impracticable. With reference to the Marriage Bill he did not object to the principle, but there were many details which would require alteration in Com mittee, and therefore he should reserve his right to vote against the third reading, should such alterations not be made. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that, in his opinion, the two measures before the House had no necessary connexion. A complete system of registration would be most desirable, and alterations in the marriage law might also be necessary; but that was no reason why their Lordships should mix up two such distinct ques tions in one act of legislation. He thought that the 'setter course would be to proceed with the Registration of Births Bill at once, and to postpone the Marriage Bill for fare consideration. The Duke of ARGYLE objected to the Registration Bill on account of its centralising character. He feared that its operation would be to destroy local control altogether. He also objected to the principle of rating by means of an addition to the poor-rate. In his opinion that fund, which of all others should be kept distinct, and applied only to its specific purpose, was a tax raised from the wealth and industry of the country for the support of the poor and helpless. The Duke of MONTROSE said that the clergy of Scotland had great apprehensions that the effect of the Marriage Bill would be to produce great annoyance amongst the people on account of the double fee which it required on the solemnization of marriage. He thought that in cases where marriage had been previously solem nized by a clergyman, the registrar should not be en titled to any fee. He objected generally to the compul sory character which pervaded the whole Bill. After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE, The Duke of BUCCLEUCH did not wish to be un derstood as giving an unqualified consent to th e Bi lls before the House. He quite agreed with his Noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) in thinking that there was no necessary connection between the Registration and Marriage Bills. The Marquis of BREADALBANE supported the Bills, and stated that they were generally approved of in the part of Scotland with which he was connected. After an observation from the Earl of MINI°, the amendment was negatived without a division, and both Bills were read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee. Their Lordships adjourned at Eight o'clock until Thursday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 9. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. ____ —. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed: Arbroath and Forfar Railway (additional Capital). Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Amendment and Branches, &c.) Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act Amendment (No. 2). - Midland Railway (Branch to Ripley, &c.) Midland Railway (Gloucester and Stonehouse Junction). Scottish Midland Junction Railway (Amendment and Branch to Laurencekirk). Waterford and Kilkenny Railway Act Amendment. LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY _ (NEW WORKS, &c.) BILL. The report on this Bill was further considered and agreed to. PETITIONS. Colonel REID presented a petition from the Windsor Society of Odd Fellows, praying that they might be placed on the same footing as friendly societies. Lord D. STUART presented four petitions from St. Pancras in favour of the Charter. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from White chapel in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. Mr. B. ROCHE presented a petition from Kilmarnock complaining of the conviction of Mr. Mitchel, and pray ing that her Majesty would dismiss her present advisers and restore Mr. Mitchel to his family and society. Mr. G. THOMPSON presented fifty petitions from Preston in favour of a reform in Parliament. Also pe titions from the Tower Hamlets, containing 400 signa tures, cemplaining of the proceedings of the police on Sunday last, and praying for a searching inquiry into their conduct. The petition stated that four persons were very seriously injured by the police. from Colonel THOMPSON presente d a petition f be tween 400 and 500 inhabitants of the metropolis, praying that interments in towns might be prohibited. Mr. R. PALMER presented a petition from Plymouth, praying that no alteration might be made in the naviga tion-laws. Mr. BRIGHT presented 'petitions in favour of Par liamentary reform; also a petition from a person named Watson, residing in Manchester, complaining of the treatment of Mr. Mitchel. Mr. HUME also presented a large number of peti tions in favour of Parliamentary reform-7 from different p a rts of the metrop olis, 1 from Chester, 99 fr om Preston, and 18 from different parts of the country. Mr. COBDEN presented petitions from several families to the same effect. On the motion of Dr. BOWRING, copies of reports to the naval department since last July, on the effects of chloride of zinc as a disinfecting and deodorising agent, were orderedjusTtlocbEe lmaidoNonTtAheGtu. table. VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.—DISMI SSAL OF MR. Mr. E. DENISON, seeing the Right H on . th e U n d er - Secretary for the Colonial Department in his place, begged leave to ask him a question. It would be in the tt recollection oio oth e was as removal koef dot the hea judgeßouigseh i t t o h H a l T O ' ao an. Gentlemanf few em nights eo,a ago, i n Land, r e a f c i eune whencs the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that a dispatch upon the subject had only just arrived from the colony, and it had not then received the attention of the Government. Now he (Mr. Denison) saw that a notice stood on the paper upon the same subject, and he thought it was not just to the public service, or fair to the individuals con cerned, that a question of this sort should remain unde cided for an unlimited time. As the House was about to separate for a few days, he took the liberty of asking the Right Hon. Gentleman whether the dispatch had received the consideration of Government, and whether he was able to give any information to the House on the subject? . Mr. HAWES said the dispatch went at great length and in detail into the grounds upon which Mr. Justice Montagu had been removed from the office of Judge of the Supreme Court of the colony, and he was bound to say that the Governor appeared to have acted with the greatest caution and deliberation, acting in con junction with the Executive Council and under the ad vice of the law officers of the Crown. The simple facts of the case were these :—Mr. Justice Montagu was sued for debt in the Supreme Court, and he pleaded that an action could not be maintained against him in that court. The Chief Justice held that the plea was a bad one. The plaintiff then complained to the Governor, and upon a lull investigation of the whole circumstances of the case, the Governor, through the advice of the Executive Council, and acting under the advice of the law officers of the colony, came to the conclusion that there was no other course to pursue except that of removing Mr. Justice Montagu from the office of Judge. ROYAL COMMISSION. Sir A. CLIFFORD here appeared at the bar, and summoned the House to the House of Peers to hear the Royal assent given by commission to several Bills (fur which see Lords' report). The SPEAKER, on his return, enumerated the Bills that had received the Royal Assent. DISMISSAL OF MR. JUSTICE MONTAGU. Mr. E. DENISON hoped the Hon. Gentleman would continue his statement from the period at which it was interrupted by the entrance of the Usher of the Black Rot'..—(Laughter.) Mr. HAWES said he had very little to add, except that the authorities and Governor of §Vau Diemen's Land acted with great caution and deliberation before the dismissal of Mr. Justice Montagu was de termined upon. He was fully heard, but his defence was deemed very unsatisfactory. He was bound to add that the determination was in some degree based upon the fact that previous Secretaries of State and successive Governors had complained of the conduct of this gentleman in respect to pecuniary trans actions. He had on various occasions received the severe animadversion of Secretaries of State. As " he had appealed to the Privy Council, it was only right that he should say thus much in ex planation and in justification of the course the Colonial office had felt it incumbent upon it to adopt. THE CASE OF MR. LOW. Mr. DISRAELI was understood to ask a question of the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) with respect to the regulations under which chaplains were appointed to foreign stations. Lord PALMERSTON said the Hon. Gentleman had stated his question in a very imperfect manner; he should therefore have to answer that which he wished to ask. The Consular Act stated that chaplains for foreign sta tions were partly to be paid by the residents and partly by . the mother country, and that they were to be ap pointed and removed by the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. When he first came to exercise the powers which this Act vested him with he felt that it would be very undesirable that a Secretary of State should himself select chaplains, as it was not unlikely he might displease the flock for whose spiritual teaching he was to be appointed. He, therefore, thought it more convenient to adopt the Scotch principle, and to leave it to the residents in those parts to choose theirl own chaplain—( Hear, hear)—for part of the stipends were paid by their voluntary con tributions, and the other out of the revenue. In the case of Mr. Low and others, the chaplains appointed were mentioned to him in order that he might confirm their appointment. As he thought it necessary that these appointments should have the sanction of ecclesiastical authority, the Bishop of London was requested to ordain the ministers. It appeared that Mr. Low had rendered ihimself very obnoxious to his flock by the adoption of what were called Puseyite prin ciples, and other conduct, which was not relished by them. Afterwards an application was made to the Bishop of London to admonish the Rev. Gentleman with the view of inducing him to alter his course, but these efforts failed to bring about a reconciliation between the Rev. Gentleman and his flock, and he (Lord Palmer ston) at last felt it to be his duty to call upon the residents to choose another chaplain. They did so, but then the Bishop of London, acting no doubt with con scientious motives, refused to cancel Mr. Low's license, or to grant a fresh license to the newly selected chaplain. Under these circumstances he had felt called upon to dis pense with the license, and in future it was not his inten tion to raise these unpleasant questions by requiring a foreign chaplain to be licensed. It would be his duty, of course, to see that the party selected by the residents was a fit and proper person to fill the office of chap lain, but it was not his intention to raise any question as to licensing.—(Hear, hear, and Laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI said, then the House and the country were to understand that the Noble Lord had re-called a chaplain who was licensed, and sent out one who was not? Lord PALMERSTON was understood to reply in the affirmative. DISMISSAL OF A JUDGE IN VAN DIEMEN'S LND. the question of Mr. E. Mr. ANSTEY, referringA to Denison, wished to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the demand for debt was made upon Mr. Justice Montagu before, or aft er , th at L earne d Judge gave an adverse judgmen t to the C rown i n refer ence to 15 per cent. duty which it was proposed to levy upon the colony ? Mr. HAWES said he had already stated all that he knew in reference to this matter. The dispatch of the Governor in no way alluded to the judgment mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Mr. HUME wished to know if any paper had been received from the colony complaining of the removal of the Judge. Mr. HAWES said his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was in possession of no other information than that which he had already detailed to the House; but he might state that Mr. Justice Montagu's dismissal had no reference to any judgment he might previously have given. LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Mr. HEATHCOTE wished to know whether the Pre sident of the Poor-law Commissioners was prepared with any remedy for the system which now prevailed amongst Irish paupers of obtaining relief every night iu the va rious Metropolitan parishes. In some instances as many es between 300 and 400 were in the habit of obtaining relief at night and quitting the union in the morning. Mr. C. BULLER said the subject had long occupied his attention, and he hoped shortly to be in a position to introduce a Bill to amend the existing vagrancy laws. He would not promise to the House that he would be able at once to remove an evil which had been of such long growth, and was now so extensive, but be hoped soon to adopt measures which would greatly mitigate, if not wholly remove the evil. He had already brought a Bill into the House on the subject and he hoped, after the Whitsuntide recess, that he should have an opportunity of stating the general course of action which he would recommend the authorities throughout the country to pursue, and which, aided by legislative measures, he hoped would result in remedying the evil. NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr. SCOTT asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a dispatch had been addressed by Earl Grey to the Governor of New South Wales, having reference to a new constitution for New South Wales, and, if so, whether there was any objection to its being laid before Parliament? Mr. HAWES said the dispatch addressed to the Governor of New South Wales was sent with the view of ascertaining the opinions prevalent in the colony with respect to a new constitution. The Governor had obtained the opinions held in the colony, and much other valaable information on the subject, and it would be extremely inconvenient to lay the papers before the House at present, as the whole object of the dis patch had not yet been accomplished. Earl Grey did not suggest any form of constitution, but merely in vited the attention of persons resident in the colony t o the subject, and on a future occasion all the information which the Government had received would be laid on the table of the House. REMOVAL OF POOR. Mr. BANKES said a case had been refe r r e d t o th e superior courts some time since with reference to the construction to be put upon the clauses in the Poor-law Act as to the removal of the poor. Be wished there fore to know whether any decision had been come to on the subject by the Judges, and if not when it might be expected. Mr. BULLER said he was unable to give the Hon. Gentleman any information with respect to that decision ' but it would be satisfactory to the House to know that he had received very few complaints as to the removal of the poor, and as to the doubts entertained of the mean ingsleSEorMtEheNTAcOt.F COPYHOLDS. o E f N t the R fi first clause inanswert true to question a uethat the from M AgSliironU. GREY, by, , G sa ß idi; was perfectly Lor r. d Chancellor had laid a Bill on the table of the House of Lords upon the enfranchisement of copyholds, and that it would be proceeded w ith as soon as possible, consis tent with the other b us i ness o f the House. WEST INDIES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that on Fri day next, the 16th, he proposed to make a state ment to the House of the views of the Government with respect to the distress now existing in the West Indies, and that the first order of the day on Thursday would he the Health of Towns Bill. Mr. HUME said the mail for the West Indies left on the 15th, and he trusted it would be delayed in order that the intentions of the Government might be carried out by it. THE RIVER PLATE. Mr. URQUHART wished to know from the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to en force mediation between the contending parties in the River Plate ? _ _ Lord PALMERSTON said that her Majesty's Go vernment had no such intention. WEST INDIES. _ _ Sir B. PEEL was desirous of knowing from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he in tended to take any vote on Friday, the 16th, with respect to the distress in the West Indies, or merely state the course the Government intended to pursue ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was his intention on that day to state the course the Government intended to pursue, but not to take any vote upon the subject. NAVIGATION-LAWS. _ Lord H. VANE presented a petition from Stockton upon-Tees against any alteration of the navigation.-laws. Lord G. BENTINCK also presented similar petitions from Stromness and Liverpool. NAVIGATION-LAWS—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Lord G. BENTINCK then rose to resume the ad journed debate on the navigation-laws. Before he en tered fully into the subject of the navigation-laws he would endeavour to remove the aspersions that had been made on the body of the shipowners and captains of the British mercantile navy by the Hon. Member for Westbury. The Hon. Member had stated that the cap tains had been considered careless in their manner of packing and taking care of cargoes. Now, he was in a position to contradict the statement, without any impu tation on the veracity of the Hon. Member, in whom he found every disposition to fairness while sitting with him for three months on the Navigation Committee. He had an extract from a letter from the agents of one of those many A 1 ships which the Hon. Member repre sented to be unable to obtain freights at Rio. That ship arrived there on the 10th or 11th of March ; and so far from being unable to obtain a cargo from the carelessness of the captain, Captain Young, three freights at 755., 775., and 80s., had been refused ; and finally the vessel left on the 4th of April, because foreign vessels were taking 575. 6d. and 60s. She went to Bahia, and there obtained a good freight. There were twelve or fourteen British ships at Rio in March, all of which obtained freights but four ; while there were eight foreign ships which did not get freights, two of them Ameri cans, although the American captains resorted to means for obtaining freights which were not held consistent with honour" and honesty by Englishmen.—(Hear, hear.) The explanation of the whole thing appeared to be that somebody wished to practise a joke on the Hon. Member for Westbury; for the letter on which he relied was dated the Ist of April.—(Laughter.) He held in his hand a letter from Messrs. Le Breton and Co., the well-known agents, who stated that there was a great want of ships at Bahia, where 22,000 packages of sugar were waiting for shipment, and freights ranged from 80s. to 90s. and even 955. Our English captains would certainly have been great fools to take freights at Rio for 575. 6d. at the same rate as the foreign vessels, when they could run to Bahia, and get there 80a. or 90s.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade had declared his belief that no risk would arise to British maritime interests or to the Bri tish navy from the repeal of the navigation-laws; other wise he said, he would sooner cut off his right arm than lay those resolutions on the table. He lied gone into a statement to show, comparing 1827 with 1846, that the British mercantile marine had increased 44 per cent. beyond that of the United States. In the facts he had adduced he was utterly mistaken; he had also left entirely out of view that in measuring the increase of British tonnage ho estimated it by the new measure introduced by the late Lord Sydenharii, which added 15 to 25 per cent. to the tonnage, making the ship which measured 400 tons, under the old law, to measure nearly 500 under the new.—(Hear, hear.) But the tonnage of the United States ships had remained the same, and this accounted for much of the apparent increase.— (Hear, hear.) He had stated that the tonnage of British ships had increased from 2,460,500 tons in 1826 to 3,817,112 tons in 1847. Making allowance for the new measure, this last amount would have to be reduced by 20 per cent., reducing the actual increase to 3,053,690 tons, or an increase of only 24, not of 44 per cent.—(Hear.) He would not quarrel with the Right Hon. Gentleman that he selected a different period of the year for the shipping of the United States from that which he took for British ships, that he took the year ending the 30th of June, 1846, for Ameri can ships, and the end of the year for British ships, when there was a great increase of ships.—(Hear, hear.) Had the Right Hon. Gentleman taken a year later it would have made a difference of eleven per cent.; for in the year ending June, 1847, the tonnage of American ships amounted to 2,760,961 tons.—(Hear, hear.) But taking his own figures, the United States ships increased between 1827 and the present time from 1,620,607 tons to 2,562,084, being an increase of 941,477 tons; being an increase of fifty-eight per cent.—(Hear, hear.) How, therefore, the Right Hon. Gentleman could make out that the increase of the shipping of the United States was only 44 per cent. he was not able to understand. The truth was that he measured tho American shipping by a short measure, and British shipping by a long mea sure. American shipping had increased 58 per cent., whilst English shipping had increased only 24 per cent. Therefore, he maintained that British merchants and British seamen, without any pusillanimity or any want of energy and enterprise, had reason to fear the rivalry of the United States if they were to be admitted to a par ticipation in their colonial trade.—(Hear, hear.) And that he might not be supposed to have stated on light grounds the difference between the old and new mea surement, he would read to the House the result of a measurement of five ships belonging to Mr. Chapman of Liverpool. Under the old scale those ships measured 3,928 tons, under the new, 4,768; being a difference of 840 tons in five ships, created by Act of Parliament. Some ships belonging to Mr. Bold, of Liverpool mea sured under the old scale 2,974 tons ; under the new, 3,508 ; making together an increase of over 20 per cent. by Act of Parliament.—(Hoar.) He would now read to the House, from the American Almanack, a return of the ships of the United States which traded with the British empire. Their tonnage in 1846, was 1,360,374, whilst that of Great Britain and her colonies in the same period amounted to only 801,321 tons. He would, therefore, leave those who were engaged in trade with the British West Indies to ask what benefit they were likely to derive from a repeal of the navi gation-laws ? The inter-colonial trade had grown to its present extent only within the last 24 years, and whilst there were ships belonging to the United States with a tonnage of 124,133 tons engaged in that trade, the tonnage of British ships was only 23,324. Let them see how the matter stood with respect to Cuba and the Spanish West Indies. In 1846, the United States had ships with a tonnage of 208.189 tons engaged in the trade with the Spanish colonies, whilst the tonnage of foreign ships was only 3,891, and the value of the merchandise carried in American ships was 2,500,000, whilst that carried in foreign ships was only 27,000. Therefore, wheu the United States made a proposition to divide the colonial trade with England, they could judge pretty well from those facts that she expected to get the largest share of the spoil.—(Hear.) He was at a loss to learn any just grounds for making a change in the navigation-laws. He was aware that in the absence of any other petitions a great deal had been made of petitions from Canada and the British West Indies for an alteration of the navigation-laws. He was aware that in a moment of excitement, when the colonists were suffering from the effects of their free-trade measures, th e y, lik e drown ing men catching atstraws, did ask for a r epeal of those laws. But within one or two days he had received an extract of a letter, dated the 16th March, signed by the President of the Chamber of Commerce ot King ston, one of those persons who six or twelv e m on ths ago signed the petition , in which the writer stated th a t he was inclined to agree with Lord G. Bentinck, that a repeal of the navigation-laws was calculated to confer as much benefit on their opponents as on the colonists, with this difference in favour of Cuba, that she being p os sessed of slave labour coul d_ ensure regularity in the crop, 2 and consequ ently, would not have any delay in e whereas in Jamaica the vessels might would be ready. The Noble Lord then read a letter addressed to Mr. J. Cooke, a broker in b freightingdetaine detained vessels; for mouths the City, in which it was stated that inwathse2sß. p iv e e r r cw wi t t . h ch l e 6 a ,9 p 2 e 7 r tboxe s here wereof Cubasugar, American a nd vessels t in consequence of being brought in foreign vessels ; but in consequence of the navigation - lawn it was tid-1 ha t it missible into this country. Let those colonists who were foolish enough to petition for the repeal of the na vigation-laws be aware then that they would have 16,900 more boxes of Cuba sugar in the market, and 2s. lower in price than they could afford to sell at.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred to the evidence of Mr. J. Wilson, of Sunderland, before the Lords' Committee, who was in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws, but admitted that the West Indian colonists would not get freight cheaper, whilst Cuba sugar could be sold from ss. to 63. cheaper in the market; and observed that if, under these circumstances, the colonists wore in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws, they deserved their fate. The Right Hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the petition from the City of London, but, with the ex ception of the names of the Governor and Deputy-Go vernor of the Bank of England, there were no names of any great importance attached to it. One of the Mem bers for East Somersetshire was so struck with the lan guage of the petition, that it induced him to give his vote with the Government—and no wonder, if he believed what it contained.—(Hear, hear.) If the repeal of the navigation-laws had the effect of pumping the ocean dry —of saving the nation, in some 200 years 800,000,000/. in the employment of the poor, besides 100,000,000/. now spent in the prevention of crime—all of which was promised by the petition from the City of London — those who opposed the repeal had a great deal to answer for indeed. He did not see the Noble Lord the Member for Windsor (Lord J. Hay) in his place. That Noble Lord joined in the clamour raised against the captains, mates, and seamen of the British merchant service, and bore testimony to the frequency of the disputes between the captains and the men. The Noble Lord was ready to swear to every statement contained in the reports of the consuls, forgetting how contradictory those state ments were in themselves. Whilst some of the consuls spoke of British seamen as most brutal, Mr. Brooker, of Cronstadt, and Mr. M'Gregor, of Elsineur, bore testi mony to their good conduct.—(Hear.) The charges that were made against them were owing to the letter of Mr. Murray, which applied to only one side of the question.—(Hear.) A letter more calculated to libel and slander the British marine never issued from the Foreign-office. The deportment and manners of the British seamen were not what they might be; but were they to condemn the British seamen because they had not French manners, or did not possess the grace of the Italians, Sicilians, and Sardi n i ans ?—(H ear, h ear.) Consul Baker of New York attributed the better disci pline on board the American vessels to the fact that they still retained the power of corporal punishment in the American marine. Was the Noble Lord prepared to advocate that system in the British merchant service? If he was, he might perhaps have better discipline, but he doubted if such a system would be tolerated.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the member for the University at Oxford made an ingenious speech on the present question, and not havin g heard the rest of it, he confessed that he could hardly believe that he was not speaking on his (Lord G. Bentinck's) side.—Hear, hear, and laughter. He was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman say that reciprocity was the rule of action in this country. Why, were they not of late going hand over head without bargaining for reciprocity? What was the Act of 1846, but free-trade without reciprocity? —(Loud cheers.) The rule! It was, indeed, the good old rule in other days, but it was abandoned in 1846, and they were now reaping the dire consequences in a ruined trade and a starving people.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that with regard to steam the position of the British marine was unapproachable. He would show the Right Hon. Gentleman that he la boured under a mistake in this respect, as he did with regard to the price of silk and timber. The number of registered steam-vessels built in the United Kingdom in the year 1846 was 77 of 15,000 tons; the registered number built in 1847 was 103 of 16,000 tons. He had a return of the United States steam-ships, by which he found that 103 steamers were built in 1844; 163 in 1845; 235 in 1836; 198 in 1847. He was not able to state their tonnage, because they were mixed up with other vessels; but in four years they built 699 steamers, and 3,118 sailing vessels, which measured 613,929 tons. In 1847 twelve sea• going steam-vessels, measur ing 16,288 tons, were built in New York, a number of tons exceeding the united tonnage of all the steam ships of the United Kingdom. During the present year there were 18 such boats, measuring 23,000 tons and upwards in the course of building. What then did the Member for the University mean when he talked of this country being unapproachable in respect of her sea going vessels?—(Hear, hear.) The Member for Man chester alleged that he (Lord G. Bentinck) had charged him personaly with a fraud in the preparation of certain returns laid on the table by command of her Majesty. It must have been some other monitor—perhaps that " conscience which made cowards of us all"—which made the Right Hon. Gentleman imagine he had said anything of the kind. Having instructed 'Mr. Porter to put the Queen's name to a return which was since ad mitted to be false, the Right Hon. Gentleman no doubt felt some qualms upon the subject. The Right Hon, Gentleman had since, indeed, endeavoured to bolster up the return; but Mr. Porter, on his oath before the House of Lords. declared that he made the return by order of the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and that he knew the terms " protected" and " unprotected" were wrong. Of course every one who knew anything of the subject knew it to be wrong; but the free-trade party and the free-trade newspapers for weeks and weeks made use of a return which its very authors now ac knowledged to be deceitful.—(Cries of " No, no.") Mr. M. GIBSON—Read the evidence. Mr. Porter never acknowledged the return to be wrong. Lord G. BENTINCK contended that he did. Ile admitted that China ought not to be in the return, and that other countries ought not to be included in it, and if so, was not the return deceitful and fallacious ? (Cheers.) Then look at the description of the trade with France. One steamboat, the Prince Ernest, of no more than 95 tons, was calculated at many thousand tons, be cause she had made 145 trips. Why. at this rate, the halfpenny steam-boats on the river would represent more ships eehgaged in our commerce with held in his hand a statement countries, fairly compiled, and o t of American o n u a r g tr taphdaaetn with a to ll he t ihoeet other r . showing only those countries the trade with which was really protected or unprotected. The result was this, that the really bend fide protected trade had ad vanced 145 per cent., whilst the unprotected trade had only advanced 93 per cent. Did not that prove that a fraud, by means of Mr. Porter's return, had been committed on the country? These were the tricks the Board of Trade continually had recourse to, to try and sway the,Legislature of the country. The Member for Manchester said the clamour for the suspension of the navigation-laws came from that (the Opposition) side of the House. What would not the free-trade party say next? The Right Hon. Gentleman talked of " clamour." Why, he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had been wafted into office by clamour--(Hear, hear)—that, after runn ing away from Suffolk, free-trade clamour found him a seat for the p lac e he now represented. — (Cheers.) Surely t he Ri g h t Hon. Gentleman was un grateful. Then t he Learne d Doctor the Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) talked of the " iron hand of competition," which was :to do so much good to the shipowners. He used to talk about the free and "in vigorating air of free-trade," but now he talked of the " iron band of competition." Yes, it was, indeed, a right description—the " iron hand of competition." It was the " iron hand of competition" that had doubled the pauperism of this country, and that had ruined her colonial dependencies. It was the " iron hand of com etition" that had reduced the price of bread at Stock- Port from nine farthings to seven farthings a pound, and had increased t he p au p ers in that town from 5,500 to 25,000.—(L0ad Protectionist cheers.) There had been a Committee up stairs which had brought the truth out at last. That Committee, on weighing the evidence ad duced before them, had declared that the opera tion of free-trade principles had materially diminished the e wag s of labour. The next time the Ri g ht - Honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester that town let the operatives of that went down to him by the button and beg him to town take there was between protection explain what difference for sugar and protection for any other articles ? The Member for South Lancashire said no one would be bold enough to say that anc cheap corn meant cheap wages. He (Lord G. Bentinck) remembered when the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) declared that such was its meaning in a ce l e brated pamphlet, and certainly expe rience proved that he was right. In Manchester pau perism had increased fearfully. Would any one desire to adopt the principle of free trade any further in the face of such experience ? Surely, if ever there was a time to stop it, it was now.—(Hear, hear.) Would they venture to put another great interest of forty millions or more into the free-trado crucible to see what would come up ? The Learned Member for ladlton talked of the masters and mates of our merchant service, and said we ought to examine somewhat more closely before we ap pointed them. 110 (Lord G. Bentinck) thought the masters and mates, recollecting the cost to the nation of Dr. Bowring'e pleasure trip. ( might sug through gest that the continent we, and mi might fairly retort, ought to examine our di plomatists somewhat more t d th m oin e e • The Learned carefully before we appoin t e d gentleman's reports bad turned out anything butcorrect. e th t reduction indutiesof the He had predicted a great Zollverein if we adopted a mo derate tariff. The Learned df f d A ask e or ree tra e. Gentleman in those days nevert rest philosopher desired small fixed duty was all tha g nment of Sir Robert Peel at that time. Well, the Gorr Did the Zollverein re adopted free-trade princiP es. t h e contrary, the Minister was duce their duties? O n that he threatened so incensed at the demand s of Prussia that power with retaliato r y m easures. The Learned Member for Bolton, therefore,alld misled his countrymen. the paid commissioner of free-trade, had misinformed _ ervalue the ower of that As to America, he did not un d we shou p ld truckle to country, but he saw no rea son A ho a portion of our her, or give her so large and P 1 'ession carrying trade, trade, exacting no equivalent t conc rade, of which ever. Of the Cuba ca rr y ing -eighth s• Arne s Great Britain now possessed even d would very speedily rice, if this measure passe d, would of that of enjoy the entire monopoly, a s she shipping could ' Porto Rico. He did not say that . e lanc nuhester people flourish without ships; but wh en th A n mafactu res, he talked of the dependence of ships upo begged to ask them how manufacturers could proceed . without ships—how they could, without ships, export their raw material, or how, with out ships, export th • eir completed fabrics? The manufacturing reformers over the way talked o f cutting down some seventeen millions of the expendit ure u po n our army and upon our navy. Did they reflect that if they destroyed our mercantile ; marine, they mus t, if they desir e d to keep the country properly pr o t ecte d aga i ns t the chance of invasion, make a large additi on to our navy and consequently to our expenditure. Mr. HUME denied that the object of those who ad vocated the present measure wa s in a ny way to injure the commercial marine of this c ountr y . On the contrary, it was their earnest desire rather to improve the con dition of that service than to d eteriorate it. The Hon. ber for Dolton from Member vindicated the icon. Mem the depreciating estimate 'which the Noble Member for Lynn sought to impress 'upon the House with reference to the lion. Member's public services. He considered that no reports in the' library of the House contained more valuable matter than those of the Hon. and Learned Member were replete with. As to the sneer of the Noble Lord about the lion. and Learned Member's pre - dictions,the NobleLor , d, had he well considered the sub ject, would have found reason, in all probability, to be lieve that if the landed interest had assented in time to a moderate fixed duty or i corn, as an equivalent for con cessions on the part. of foreign powers, that interest might have secured th: it moderate duty, instead of hav ing been compelled to submit to no duty at all.—(Hear, hear.) As to the distress of the country, great as it un happily was, it would I lave been fearfully aggravated but for the relaxations wbi eh the advocates of free-trade had effected. —(Hear, hear.) The charges made by the Noble Lord against b fr. Porter's statistics were alto gether unfounded; he, (Mr. Hume) had given the subject of those statistics his i nost careful attention, and he was perfectly convinced of the accuracy of Mr. Porter's re turns. The Noble L ord asked, for what purpose was this change propose , I? It was proposed and supported for the purpose of givi n g effect to those measures of free trade which had been: with such difficulty carried, and which required, for the full and satisfactory develop ment, the removal o f the restrictions imposed by the navigation-laws. TI le Noble Lord spoke of the loss to the trade of this coun try of several hundred whaling ves sels. Was it free-ti's de which had driven these ships from England to Ain erica? No; but the infinite re rtrictions which it yeas now proposed to remove.— (Hear, hear.) He had every expectation, however, that a large prop( Pr don of this trade, under the change of system, would return to us.—(llear.) One ground on which our Protectionist shipowners set up a claim to monopoly Ivies the cost of shipbuilding; but it was these same shipowners who had resisted a reduc tion in the timber du ties. Another ground used to be the cost of victualling; but this ground was now re moved, and our ships could be victualled as cheaply as those of any other .country. He avowed there was scarcely any particular, since the recent changes in our tariff, in which we we.re not as advantageously situated as was the foreign slai:powner, and there were many re spects in which we ha d decidedly superior facilities for fitting out ships. This evidence of Sir James Stirling had been spoken of as hasty, incomplete, and incorrect; he had closely followed Sir James Stirling's evidence, from a sole desire for information, and he felt bound to declare his conviction that the entire of that evidence was well-considered, judicious, and scrupulously accu rate in its details. It was to him a matter of great sur prise that burdened as English ships were they had been able to compete with 'foreigners. But once let the ex isting impediments be . removed and the impulse given to British enterprise— -both commercial and maritime in dustry would be incres rsed in a tenfold degree. For all these reasons he should support the resolutions. Admiral BOWLES. thought that as an officer of the navy he ought not to give a silent vote, but in what be should say he would endeavour to be fair, and he should confine himself to the naval part of the question. He feared the House was legislating rashly, and that before long the country would repent it. If the Govern ment merely proposed to lay the resolutions on the table, and to allow time till next session to consider them, he should have no objection. The same hasty in considerate course of legislation had been pursed in the West India colonies, and the lamentable results were to be seen in the report from the Committee that had lately been laid on the table. With that example before them the House ought to be cautious how they trusted the prophecies of the Government as to the na vigation-laws. The Hon. Member for Montrose had praised the evidence of his Friend Sir James Stirling, bat with all respect for that Gallant Officer he (Admiral Bowles) doubted if another officer could be found in the navy to make the same statement. The two marine ser vices of the country were indissolubly bound up togethr. Their interests—their source—were the same. Circum stances were greatly changed in respect to the mode of manning the navy. Impressment was no longer available for the purposes of manning the navy, and he very ' much doubted whether any means existed, in case of very sudden alarm, for procuring a supply of seamen. It was, therefore, doubly incumbent on the House to move cautiously in this direction. Why should a system, also, which provided a reserve of 25,000 seamen—he meant the apprenticeship system—be abandoned? If the navigation-laws were abolished, the Marine Society, which rid the streets of London of thousands of vagrant boys, and turned them to useful purposes, would be done away with. The arguments respecting the in creased wealth and prosperity, which were predicted to flow from the new system of legislation were only so many proofs that every consideration save that of mam mon was forgotten. The navy was only recovering it self from its state of depression, and he trusted that the warnings which, as an old officer, he had offered to the House would not be deemed out of place. lie had seen many of the glories of the past naval service, and he hoped he should not live to see those glories dimmed or obscured, as he feared they would be if the contemplated changes were effected. Mr. COBDEN said he should not follow the Noble Lord in his arguments as to free-trade generally. He and the Noble Lord started from two entirely different points. The Noble Lord was for protecting the few at the expense of the many, whilst he was not for taxing any class at all. All he would say of free trade was that the country was satisfied with it as far as it went, He did not say satisfied with the present state of com- merce, but that was attributable to quite different causes. The Legislature having dealt with free-trade in corn, sugar, and other articles of first necessity, now approached the shipping; and how, let him ask, could the partial protection now given to this branch of in dustry be justified? It he had been strong in his argu ments against protection to corn, he was doubly so in respect to ships. The agriculturists urged the excessive burdens on land and on their productive resources. The shipowner had no such burdens. The sailor got all his articles of consumption duty free, and ships paid neither county nor poor rates, nor assessed taxes. They were, therefore, in a better condition to com- pete with the foreigner than the English landowner. But they must go into the principle of free-trade. What did it mean ? If it meant anything, it was the impor tation of a larger quantity of commodities into the country—corn, for instance. But they could not move a quarter of corn from abroad without resorting We shipping ; therefore, the increased importation of corn must increase the number of ships. Then, again, it was said that those who built the ships could not compete with the foreigner in point of cheapness. But it had been satisfactorily proved that taking quality for quality a ship could be built and rigged more cheaply in Eng land than abroad. He did not speak of the American ships which were on Lloyd's register for four years only, but of such ships as stood their ground on the register for 12 years. People talked of a ship as if; like a box, it was made of wood only. Why when the wood work of the ship was complete half the outlay only was made. The rigging, sails, anchors, cables, and stores all were to be added, and they were to be had at a far cheaper rate in England than anywhere else. There was the evidence of the inspector of Lloyd's at Sunderland to refer to on this point, who stated that a ship could be built of Dantzic oak and equipped cheaper at that port than at Dantzic ; and when he was at that place he had asked a mercant there if this was true which he was informed was the case.--(Hear.) The question of wages was another element to be taken into conside ration. The American workman got more wages, it was true, but then he worked more hours, and his skill was superior to the English artisan, therefore, though he got more money, the American shipbuilder did not pay him more in :proportion to the value of his work than the English shipowner. It was also said, and truly he believed, that the American ships performed their voyages more quickly than English ones, and that the English masters of vessels did not take so much care of their cargoes as foreign shipmasters did. That certainly did present a difficulty, but it was to be overcome. Let him take into consideration the characters of the English masters and the seamen of which so much had been said and written. He could not say anything of his own knowledge on this subject, but both Mr. G. F. Young and the late Mr. Soames, had stated that English sea men were very disorderly, Mr. Brooker, the English vice-consul at Cronstadt, who had resided at that port for 59 years, also told him in September last, that in the July previous he had no less than 61 squabbles between masters and seamen of English vessels to settle in his counting-house ; and he showed him a circular, issued in July, 1847, by the governor of the town, warning the English seamen against the consequences of their riotous, drunken, and violent behaviour, and of the serious con- sequences of striking a police soldier. Therefore it must be taken for granted that ➢lr. Brooker had confirmed the statements made respecting the conduct of English seamen in foreign ports. Ho had never accused that class of being given to robbery, but the question was, were they insubordinate and given to drink when in foreign ports, and he believed they were. Was it therefore wise to lavish compliments and praises on them in that llouse, instead of telling them of their faults? From the evidence he had read, he was led to believe that the English seamen were more addicted to drink than the sailors in the Mediterranean ports; that they were less qualified in point of education and information than the seamen of the northern ports, and that is both these particulars they were inferior to the American sailors. The best way, therefore, to serve them was to tell them of their faults, and so to amend them. But with all his faults the British sailor was possessed of natural qualifications which rendered him superior in the hour of danger or difficulty to the seamen of other nations. his courage, promptness, and presence of mind during a gale or under unexpected circumstances, were such that if his moral qualities could only be made to equal his mental aad physical powers, he would be able to compete with the best sailors of the best nations. He did not wish to have protection removed from British shipping for the purpose of reducing the wages of the sailors. Give them the same qualities as were possessed by the Americans, and they would make better voyages, and consequently be cheaper at higher wages than they now were. But the questio❑ the House had to consider was whe ther they would continue to lay a prohibition on the carriage of commodities from foreign countries. The manufacturers were entitled to get their supplies in the cheapest way they could, whereas the operation of the navigation-laws was to prohibit the free importation even of manure, for if bones or oilcake came in certain vessels they were not allowed to enter English ports for consumption. The farmers' friends ought, therefore, to do away with these restrictions. He had, he confessed, been much surprised by the Noble Lord's attack on his friend Mr. Porter's statistics; for if there was one de partnaent in which the public had confidence it was in that presided over by Mr. Porter, whose return, so much cavilled at, was entitled to the utmost credit for its accuracy. But the cause for this attack must be looked for in the fact that no statistics could be found to favour the protective system. He was prepared even to go so far as to say if the english ships cannot compete in the market with foreign ships let the latter have all the trade. The cheapest market was the best. But let him not be mistaken on this point. He believed that En glishmen were better fitted to ba sailors than any other nation on earth. England visa great in her manWhe tures, but she was greater in her maritime adventure. What the camel was to the Arab of the desert, or the horse to the Tartar, the ship was to the Englishman. It had been urged that there were very few petitions in favour of abolishing the navigation-laws. The same was true of petitions in their favour, only 25,000 having petitioned out of 1,500,000 sailors who were to be thrown out of bread by their abolition. The true rea son why petitions against the navigation-laws had not been presented was, that those laws were included by the millions who had petitioned for free•trade in that policy.--(Hear, hear.) lie should be glad to see a Navigation Act passed as short as that made by Lord Dalhousie for India, which consisted of four lines. He, however, preferred the proposed measure to that suggested by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, who wished to have one framed on the basis of reciprocity. The Right lion. Gentleman ought to re member that reciprocity was already promised on the part of America and Prussia. Now, one word as to the naval part of the question. He heard with regret the constant reference made to physical force arguments, which were so much condemned when urged by the working classes.—(Oh, oh.) Ile must say he heard with regret the boasting language respecting England's naval supremacy. He must say that those boasts were gene rally uttered after dinner, and therefore they might be the result of a little extra excitement.—(" Oh, oh," and groans.) The abolition of the navigation-laws would not affect the naval condition of Great Britain. But was this a time to be always ringing " Rule Britannia." (Laughter.) If Hon. Members opposite had served with him upon the Committee on the army, navy, and ordnance estimates, they would have a just sense of the cost of that song.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had, in the course of the discussion, been a good deal attacked for the sentiment with which he concluded his speech the other night. In that sentiment he (Mr. Cobden) en tirely sympathised. His Right Hon. Friend had not asserted, as had been supposed, that this country was about to enter upon the millenium of universal peace ; but he stated that they should treat wars as the normal state of this country. His Right Hon. Friend had con tended, and he (Mr. Cobden) agreel with him, that this country was in favour of peace ; and if this was doubted, let but a word be said in this House to indicate that they were going to war, and then the full force of public opinion against it would be felt.—(Hear, hear,) The constant assertion of warlike maritime supremacy was calculated to provoke kindred passions in other nations, while, if Great Britain announced the doctrines of peace, she would invoke similar sentiments from the rest of the world. With this view he was anxious, while prepared to maintain every just right for the English people, to identify this nation with peace, and by removing the obstacles which the navigation-laws presented to free trade and freedom of intercourse between nations, to blend nations together in interest, and thereby place one of - the most potential obstacles in the way of war. Mr. DISRAELI said the Noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had been accustomed sometimes to teach those who attempted to defend the cause of pro tection— a cause which he (Mr. Disraeli) and thy, near him had not yet deserted—that they were reason ing in a vicious circle. The Noble Lord had used to say that if the interests they had formerly advocated operated to the injury of another interest, that other interest might, in its turn, by some exceptional legis lation, operate to the cost of its neighbours, and thus, as the Noble Lord well expressed it, they were moving in a vicious circle. Interest after interest had received the advantages of exceptional legislation ; but the result was that the multitude had been injured. The House was now placed in a new vicious circle. In this debate new interests had been attacked, and it was said that, as every other interest had been injured, they must go round the vicious circle, and that, after having pursued a course of theoretical legisla tion, which had terminated in so much practical misery, it would be against reason, justice, candour, and fairness, not to deal out to every other interest the same merciful interposition which had produecd such beneficial results. —Meer, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Cobden) had been the principal author of the first vicious circle; but for him that thesis would never have been adopted by a Minister or accepted by a party—(Hear, hear)—and yet at the end of two years the Hon. Gentleman had to-night again to rise in his place and become the advocate of a new vicious circle.—(Hear, hear.) Before, the lion. Gentleman had promised the House and the country perpetual advantages—now he said that it was but just that all should take their share in the universal disaster. With regard to the unfortunate interest now under dis cussion before an assembly called together towatch over the interests and to guard the rights of Englishmen —with re gard to the new victim, he must say that if this question involved an inquiry into the comparative expense of building ships at Stettin and at Sunderland—he should consider that he should himself be guilty of an act of the utmost assumption if he offered an opinion on that sub ject. Though he had paid constant attention to the course of the debate, he had studied with as much power of abstraction as he could command the evidence which had been offered to the two Houses of Parliament, and still he felt if he offered an opinion as to the relatiee prices of cordage and sailcloth it would be an act of ar rogance which he would not assume. He therefore left all these deductions from the evidence to the Hon. Mem ber for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), for he thought that even the House itself was not exactly a tribunal cum petent to decide with satisfaction upon such a topic. In such a matter the lion. Member (Mr. Cobden) had im mense advantages, because he was the friend of Mr.Brun ton, who had personal experience of the cost of building ships at Stettin and at Sunderland, and had stated that he had no fear of competition with the ports of the Baltic. He (Mr. Disraeli) bowed with great respect to the opinions of that gentleman; but as he had been quoted, he (Mr. Disraeli) must refer to an opinion expressed by Mr. Brunton within the last few hours. At a meeting held at the Exchange of Sunderland on the subject of the navigation-laws, Mr. Brunton was the principal orator, and had moved one of the resolutions adopted by the meeting. In the course of his speech he attacked the evidence given by a Mr. Wilson (not the [lon. Member for Westbury), upon whom he did not charge falsehood, but adopted a milder term—(A laugh)—and then he was pleased to state that the repeal of the navigation laws would reduce property thirty to forty per cent., and would drive ship-building out of the country, and inflict equal injury upon artisans, builders, and owners. lie added that, by the co-operation of all, means would be found to defeat the plan of the Government. Mr. Brunton sat down amidst loud cheers, proposing a reso lution to the effect that, if the measure of the Govern ment was carried, it would be fatal to builders, owners, and artisans, and calling upon all those favourable to native industry to rally round those classes at the present moment. He (Mr. Disraeli) thought it right that he should thus furnish to the House the last opinion which Mr. Brunton had given on this very subject. Be fore he (Mr. Disrraeli) entered upon the general ques tion, he could not help noticing some of the observations made by the Hon. Member for the West Riding respect ing the commereial marine of this country. He had heard Kith regret his remarks upon the character of the seamen and captains. In all classes—in all modes of employment—there must be some troublesome fellows, from whose conduct it would be hard and unjust to judge a whole race. It ought to be no evidence against the system under which they were educated, and under which they were employed. Now he (Mr. Disraeli) had before him some evidence of the conduct of English men not employed on board ship, but in an institution which was scarcely less interior in national importance. A gentleman well known to Hon. Members opposite Mr. John Brooks, of Manchester—had been examined before the Navigation Committee, and, in answer to a question put by the Hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Alderman Thompson), this witness seemed to think that it was because crews were allowed to consist of one-fourth of foreigners and three-fourths of British seamen they could not agree. But Mr. Brooks, with more candour than the llonourable Member for the West Riding, had spoken of his ma nagement of his men in Lancashire—that was to say his own men employed in his own mill. Mr. Brooks was well known to possess a knowledge of the Lancashire character—indeed. he himself was remarkable in a crowd.—(Laughter.) But, speakiwe of the management of his own men, he said, " I have fought several battles with my men—there are some of them called flints,' and some knobsticks'—(Lond laughter)—and I have been obliged to have sixty soldiers and three officers in my mill for nine months together to keep them in order, for, when mixed together, the men would not agree." —(Hear, hear.) Now it would be quite as just for him (Mr. Disraeli) to bring this evidence forward as a proof against the character of the whole of the working classes of the most favoured district of the country, as for the Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to con demn the seamen in the commercial marine on the iso lated instances of undisciplined and unruly conduct which might be alleged against portions of that body. He, therefore, dismissed this part of the case. With re spect to the allegation, that the coasting trade would be protected by the ignorance of the native tongue of foreigners, he begged to state that no man was allowed to command a Swedish or Norwegian ship who was not master of the English language.—(Hear, hear.) The question now before the House he understood to be a proposition on the part of the Government to abrogate an ancient national system with respect to navigation — a system founded upon definite principles, and aiming to arrive at definite ends; and if he could show that the principles of that system were an actual advantage to the country, and beneficient to the State, then the ques tion of the ability or inability of British shipbuilders to enter into competition with foreigners was not an element for argument on this occasion. He was there to advocate the present system, which he main tained had worked with great advantage to the State, and to do this he had but to make evident that the ar guments against that system were utterly unsubstantial arid fallacious.—(Hear.) In the first place, it had been said that England was not protected in her export trade, and therefore it was asked why it was necessary she should be protected in her import trade? He denied that this country competed with success with the fo reigner in the export trade. No Member for Liverpool, or merchant of that town, would venture to assert this, but, on the contrary, must admit that practically the export trade was in the hands of foreigners.—(Hear, hear.) Every one knew that if a large order was given from America fur iron, they made it a condition that it should be exported in American ships. Within a day or two a large order had been given from the French Government for coal; and it was a condition of the con tract that it should be exportedin French ships.—(Hear.) He blamed not the American or French Governments for this; but hearing it said that we were not protected in the export trade, and yet competed with so much ability, and knowing that there were no authentic di cuinents to guide the House on this subject, ho was obliged to ask for the evidence, and in the want of it to avail himself of the information which was open to everybody ; and he could not help arriving at a conclusion totally diffi rent to that of those who were the protne l ' gators of this opinion.—(llear, hear.) It had been said that England could compete in an oeen market with any state, and that while we were trembling before comPe: titiou on the Thames, in the most celebrated port of South America and the Adriatic—Rio and Mean-- English shipping carried euerything before it. Re ac, copied the test, so ostentatiously offered, and wo uld show how utterly unfounded and fallacious was the foundation of the principal arguments which hied been offered throughout these debates. He had a return from Rio for 1847, which had been given on oath befo re the Lords' Committee. It showed that in that :year 655 ships, amounting to 198,000 tons, read cleared from Rio with cargoes ; of these the British tomeage " 9 32,000 tons, foreign more than 166,000 tons. Of the British tonnage 15,000 tons cleared for our coloniel so they were out of the category ; there rerealoe t something more than 16,000 tons for foreigii p arts.-- (Hear.) Ot the foreign tonnage 68,000 was American' 15,0(10 Brazilian, 13,000 Danish, 14,000 Swedist , 130, Hamburgh, 11,000 Portuguese, 10,000 Freud) 1 , 7,00 " Sardinian, and 6,000 Belgian. So that out of a tonnage of nearly 200,000 tons from the port of Rio, Bri'.isb sbiPv; ping only commanded 16,000 tons.—(Hear, heat'.) no .., was it possible, in the face of such a docuurie t as Ha t , to pretend that British shipping carried everyt hi ng befo „ it, and competed successfully in open pores Trieste,l" nations of the world. He had a return fr one not of very recent date, but he was informed. by a il e eti : e e _ having very extensive commercial transac Lions there, that the relative proportions of shipping woe) still Invlc., the same. Analysing the trade of 14 countries Trieste, he found that in seven of them- —the Uni te d, States, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Spain, Hainbu re h,11 01 , 131 '„3 and Sweden—not a single British vessel we's etalm ° Y i ` es in conducting the commerce between thoi,e cnfor. and Trieste; that in five others, Norway, Cubtfeito, tugal, our own possessions at Gibraltar and ' tw o and St. Domingo, sometimes one, in other casesnrozii British vessels were employed; and that olelY W il e ar.) was there a large majority of British ShiplYalg• :7 ( ur O iil - Recollecting that England exported to Braze. only lions sterling per annum, and received front Breit toolc one million, it was quite clear that the ships Aqui? t he out the four millions must be chartered to TriesteTaY three extra millions to other ports ; the port of ; fat attracted this great part of our traffic; so 1 339 ' t us these three millions which th e B raz ils did ne t r - lioes for were drawn by the cour se o f com mercial I raneacareat from the port of Trieste. So much for the We : l b so cases, which had been appealed to in this deb ate ear. ) much triumph and with so littl e foundation L_ ( the ybe The Hon. Member for Westb u ry (Mr. J. W hod great champion of the virtu e s of cotepetr x lyiotl , stated, to show the immense advantage of l'e' s ot e elf that from 1817 to 1823, British shipping Was; not having stationary but absolutely in decline--the tonne ge„ n sing fallen off from 2,600,000 to 2,500,000, notwitril'at the the increase of population and of imposts; ae is was $ moment the reciprocity Act was passed , iv " trad e ' considerable approach to the principles of 0 11l 0 . pat there was a rapid improvement in British siliPP l the the Hon. Gentleman forgot that, though the dot e r took reciprocity Act was 1823, no increase whate; el 1183; place in the tonnage of our mercantile marineai e t he ° and that it was only in 1834 that it had arrive ° 00 te ns, same amount as it exhibited in 1817- 2,600,0 for ea twenty years after the peace, a nd eleven years' 14 boasted reciprocity Act.—(Hear.) This was ,_ speech . ent , 00, made by one who was called a master of the sue.Vegactee of those speeches which influenced public opi nion r s triev a revolutions, altered tariffs, and changed Min s ore (Laughter.) It was impossible to draw conc l u sn ia to at variance in every respect with facts. In si e yore t b t e the trade of this country and other countries, eres reciprocity Act, the Hon. Gentleman h ad talr,t3i, ot care not to give the name of a single e °ll 0 6 ' the date of a single treaty. Time f bet date s ee ; a procity treaty with Russia was only in eas _ our commerce with that country had in ,to o,o oo , from 200,000 tons in 1824 to more than eses tons in 1846—an increase owing to n ineteen ee tie ee that monopoly which the Hon. CI entlealan d en ,. 101 11 0 g .. He had represented the whole British trade eS tie os 1 . 11 increased from 3,290,000 tons in 1824, to 8i 1 1/ 05 ,,, 1846; but to obtain the second amount the ora tor tleman had taken the clearings inwards and ho d 01 r ,, and added them together, while in the first he en lyl diously separated them.—(Hear, hear.) W h r o -r. e at e ter d silt the boldness of such evidence as that?---leio b e , But this was the evidence which for InonY e 'i e a do t governed England, which, brought forwarbead saeo in ments and speeches, had passed laws which °Ste. the great interests of the country.—(Se an ) yid s ' e - a d an unlimited confidence in these documents they roe rnents, and in the statistical genius of the age' bled been hurried into Acts which had alreadY toen soc i coo country to its centre, and filled it with disenlithe sternation, He inquired not the source of wetersho Gentleman's information; he had tasted the ws g ob fore, and greatly suspected that be fille cl e Tri ele jir from the tainted fountains of the Boar", - sota a an (Hear, hear.) There had been shawl t su e o , m ee d e V cussion on the authorities of that dePar' f ,, ro ta 4 ample vindication was promised; b e t here- I - a N o - 00 attack on any one. Since Mr. Porter 11 , 4 ' he els !fog mined before the House of Lords he be' int a re f fog' summoned, and cross-examined on some P°-,eas s t a te' to these documents; and that examination Av e e r , an lows:—"Question—In a previous answer Yot i ,A L t Sli n vi era ment of the progre ss o f B r i t i s h s hippingl en j r r e lj e r increase of 1846 over 182 1 of 1,25 0,000 w„ii'larra4 the led to the inference th a t t h ere was a. W u ' hot , r es•se crease in British tonnage than in America a i t itisb Committee understand your statement no ' f in the one is an increase up on the whole, - an tonnage, and the increase u p o n the other is jos ive- tho e only upon part of the American tonnage ? „„ e otlYe e e i° is so.—Hear, hear.) Question—Coro": sane two are not to be taken as compared, a - o f P' - 0t ,../ any degree the comparative increas e ro iall 1,0 over American tonnage? Answere-Cens of S t , ger ° (Hear.) Question—Have you any m il e ta the comparison correctly ? Answer these c os ; that I have." It was not he who i n trodu that tbe b t he meats into the debate. He did not t hini‘ of a ship in Sauderland had anything ta r earee'., / , question. Still less did he care for the° s yetew t be of tb e I cept that they were part and parcel - tr ipe- owe (Hear, hear.) He had seen that migh t Y su st asei Poor-law Commission, sink before ade cou ld col la rd o f by such returns. He thought that CO 7% 0 0 0$ that there was a bias in the officials 0 _ 1 ", w ith e_ . „ „es' Trade, and that they were always prepar; 1 0 0 '5,.." venient return for any Minister, no ma tt n rope u the terous the scheme which he wishe d t° a r tlee lsn ais cie (Cheers.) The Right Honourable Geof only (I*d President of the Board of Trade bad thil o bee a speech, which was always a dange ra s b e pol d ) . y icle o laugh)—but what was still more perilouch bioge it—(Loud laughter)—and in that spa jot 0/ 5 o poe the question into four heads. He cape", flies, tin c oo in the first place on account of the coM: vi d e oce .ote r, that point he certainly was not rich l oos char' of er sisting as it did of a memorial, of a suslu e b of t h e t he from Jamaica, an extract from the dispat e e sseu who le nor of another island, and a document sots, the t the colonial case, Assembly of Canada. Such was the eeiat ai ace ° t oll printed evidence, of the Government f 0 " - eve r set e . ;0 0 decidedlyand considering that the e llii . l3 re e tb° it the British empire, he felt justified in sa) a l ric r o i bu t meagre.—(A laugh.) The isi t i ef olo e ! f l e j ece , was said to demand a repeal of the nsvi n til e 6" ali tri when asked why, the reply, according m o tile-- „, e° ,lo olll was, that everything necessary for the he they "there had been changed, and they did not eee, w so not have a trial at the same game. Their saws n'ersreei fore, was, it may ruin the shipping in terre b a ye eote" benefit us; but what of that, Piet us 060 q ,bovi (Laughter.) The Honourable Gentlernau,;we to 0 ,0 ; wi nos , ft „. some returns, and argued that it was 0 .Ia" that the colonies were suff,rin from the , ._ vigs tio o . t hat said by some Hon. Gentlemen that the t hey l ead ,orei had been changed a hundred times, and t ht to ( I° l th 9 fact the basis of the argument that we mtg_ eo ct vi e with them altogether; but he drew from l_ b otir se e . „ en tlf reverse, namely, that those laws, in the and erecl`lo3, we hundred years, having been graduallY e , ns y the, 3 to improved, instead of being prejudiced ligm, e 0 3 0 ,Fte f t he ought to assume that they were in a sta e L oe ttor la st the necessities of the times. The C ba os pea ri c le v eas; i ) Exchequer said that they were even e e s etee - C"'le ° l3- year—so had been the Bank Charte . 13 _ r iaciP to th e If he was asked if those laws were just 1 .. F ...0in g 000 , advantageous in their results, he w eitit ioar effects of the long voyage which emploYe u en a seht e v t ioie thus benefiting our maritime interests, ,tog re much added to the commercial character , 1 10 4 l ocS o e The only cases opposed to the principle or, the ko on b; were purely exceptional. The becretary:oo thetao docks, on being examined a few days 81 " we reha u 4b e ject of those laws, was asked if he as a _„..d he desirous of repealing or modifying theni,ioot be e was not; and in reply to a further fl u es e ,f c_n ts 7i o g served that there existed no desi . r h e ar.) amongst the City people.—(Hear , e alio ° t en% i direct y po t the third and remaining one—the n en Oa , o for disposed of two points, he trade. The argument used against ftheo3,"ipossibt ,she would 00 aarri v t was a practical one—namely, that it was trad e 'lilte t as' them to monopolise the indirect carry.egke Right Hon. Gentleman, although he sPe ent ly sei s rice' person who had been menaced, did not etxthe late cre a menace had been made by Prussia ;bu the -dade ' President of the Board of Trade, who Was I wo 1 1 ° f of the Government, let the cat out o f the habit ° see mitted that the Board of Trade was in the _ y t ael%p• et ceiving threatening notices.—(Laught er.) he' C rhe , what Prussia could do in that respect. gl! tleman here read at some length the evidendeso, Or. coo . fore the Lords' Committee by Mr. TY n t it w as derson, and Mr. Powles, to the effect thtt. in 0 0.,00 pletely out of the power of Prussia to re k t i a o i!! Gre atw!" - f oe land.)—(Hear, hear.))Then the Right ~.tu i e if t valic said that America would give us a i n . Ea uch, ) o itea them a little, and that she would give u, s ' f t he u_ ie ro' gave her much. Why that languag e , o f re v ' P, States invotved tho very principT iche erf!/ . .d city which the Government abandoned k the 13 0 . _!: 00' was a rich treat to see the Presidenttom:ssist ta t ° o re: f uld tee n' Trade asking the House of Commons * when r so ciprocity with the United States, not el 3l Ober 3 itself acknowledged that they coulduld be still r. r oci vernment in passing a law because it eey he Go.e e t ti o rinetPa. t he Vpo see a Minister who gave up the P to advocate , h e reciprocal arrangements; but it wo poi °f -lie' coming down at some future time vou ja of the most extraordinary specimens 11 7 c o n !-'70.0 0 ciple of retaliation.—(Hear, be.ar.) s . " L o naial le o2 lv as. , af see m that 0 0. t (Laughter.) But it would in fav our 0t . ;minent and the present one Same time ien o the same cr t . _ presented to a wondering House f o i th the a te, th system of reciprocity, and at marred all tu jia the existence of treaties whic.. W as Iv' tious. Now, if both We Government T' lo