The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-10 00:00:00

objection to do so. On investigation several minor inac- I curacies, not of a large amount, had been detected, which would be corrected in the subsequent returns he should be prepared to lay before the House. THE NAVIGATION-LAWS. In reply to Mr. GOULBURN, Lord J. RUSSELL intimated that he proposed to take the debate on the navigation-laws to-night, and if concluded, he proposed to take the Committee of Supply on Monday. If not, he should propose that the debate be proceeded with on Monday. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that on a future day he intended to ask the Noble Lord what measures bein tended to introduce on this subject. RATE IN AID BILL. An HON. MEMBER inquired on what day the Noble Lord proposed to take the second reading of the Rate in Aid Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL replied on Monday week. If he could not bring it on on that day, he would name when he would do so. NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr. HERRIES presented a petition from Liverpool, signed by 24,700 persona, entreating the House not to ♦ote for the repeal of the navigation-laws.—(Protec tionist cheers.) The LORD MAYOR said ho esteemed it a high honour to attend in that House to present a petition from the merchants, manufacturers, bankers, artizans, seamen, and ethers, of the city of London, against the repeal of the navigation-laws. The signatures to that petition amounted to 20,757. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He had carefully looked at the petition, and from his own knowledge he could state that many of the signatures to that petition were composed of the most influential and respectable firma in the city of London ; and he would venture to say there was no petition more entitled to the respectful consideration of the House. Mr. A. HASTIE presented a petition signed by 2,890 shipowners, artizans, merchants, manufacturers, and seamen of Glasgow against the repeal of the navigation laws. Mr. F. O'CONNOR rose to ask whether the Right lion. Member (Mr. Ferries) who had presented the petition from Liverpool, on the subject of the naviga tion-lava, had taken the trouble to count the signatures to that petition.—(" Oh, oh," and laughter.) Mr. COBI)EN presented a petition from the inha bitants of Dunstable, in Kent, in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws. On the motion being read that the Bill for the repeal of the navigation-laws be read a second time, Mr. HERRIES said he rose to oppose the further progress of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Ile rose to propose, as an amendment to the motion, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, He under took to oppose the motion because of the principle of the Bill, which they were now invited to read a second time. If it were not conceived in the spirit in which it was conceived, he should not have opposed it at that stage in its progress; but he was not content, so far as his voice would prevent it, to allow this Bill, framed on such a set of principles, to pass this stage in its progress. It was a sweeping abrogation ef the navigation• laws, with some such trifling, some such insignificant reservations— (Hear, hear)—as tended not to amend or remove the objections to the abrogation, but to render them in some respects absurd, and in others onerous, without any compensation to the body of the shipowners.—(Bear.) These reservations consisted in punishing other nations who did not conform to our policy. He hoped also to show that what had taken place in the meantime between the last discussion on this subject and the present, exhibited in a remarkable degree the absur dity of those reservations. The second o: those reser vations had reference to the coasting trade, and went to impose on the shipowner, after exposing him to a perfect freedom of competition with the foreigner in every brznch of our commerce, obligations to which his rivals were not subject.—(Hear.) To a Bill so framed it was impossible, with the opinions he enter tained upon that subject, that he could allow it to pass into another stage, and it was his intention to cffer in this stage of its progress, if the House would bear with him while he did so, all those objections which he believed to be applicable to this ill-judged measure—(Hear, hear)—and so to state them as to enable the House, as far as he could throw any light on the subject, to come to a decision, and as early a decision as might be, on the merits of the Bill. The present discussion was ver ymuch in the nature of a resumed debate. In the last session of Pat liament the subject was very fully entered into and very ably discussed, with great ability on the part of some he saw around him, and with conspicuous ability indeed on the part of one whom he saw no longer in that House.—(Hear.) In that interval documents had been produced, and an expression of opinion evinced on the part of the public, which were highly advantageous to forming a correct judgment and to coming to a true decision upon this great question. They had also on the table of the House the correspondence which had taken place with foreign powers. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. La bouchere) seemed perfectly satisfied with that correspon dence, and he hoped he wou ld b e so w h en t h e contents had been fully discussed. They had also petitions from all parts of the country, which were of vast importance by reason of the great number by whom the opinions contained in them were expressed, by reason of the places from which the petitions came, and b 3 reason of the classes whose interests were represented by those parties who so expressed these opinions. If the House would attend to the num ber and character of the petitions presented in opposi tion to the measure, it would agree with him that it would have been unfortunate indeed if the measure had been passed which was introduced last session. From a list of towns which he held in his hand, it appeared that petitions had been presented from Edinburgh, Bel fast, Dartmouth, Sunderland, Montrose, Portsmouth, Portsea, Weymouth, Sunderland, and Glasgow. There was also one from the metropolis of the great commer &al world, London, which was represented by the First Minister of the Crown, signed by 27,000 people. Then came a petition from Liverpool, the second great commer cial city of the empire, signed, by 24,700, the prayer of which was, the petitioners viewed with the greatest alarm the progress of a measure which proposed to do away with these laws, which had been so long and so successfully in operation, and the repeal of which would have the effect of allowing foreigners to share in those advantages which ought exclusively to belong to this nation. Since last session a correspondendence had been produced, relating partly to Canada and partly to fo reign states, to which he thought it right to draw the at tention of the House before be proceeded further to des cant upon the principle of the measure. He did not intend to trouble the House with any statistics, so much detail having been entered into last session, but would endeavour to rest his views and arguments upon the principle of this question itself. The Right Hon. Gentleman who intro duced the measure rested his arguments mainly upon three points, or put them forward at least as the principal inducement for the House to take this subject into its consideration, and to accede to his proposition. His great foundation was the case of Canada, and the state of the West Indies. There were other topics into which he was desirous of entering, but he would for the present abstain, and simply before taking up what after all was the matter mainly for consideration, namely the principle of the measure— (Hear, hear)—he would take up those three points to which he had previously referred. The first of these was Canada, and had reference to the state of public opinion on the subject of the navigation-laws in our North American: colonies.—(H ear , hear.) They had an impression last session that all Canada was in favour of the repeal of these laws, and it would seem from the representation that had been placed before the House by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, that the opinion there was such as to justify the course which ho had taken.—(Hear, hear.) But he believed that the Right Honourable Gen tleman was not in possession of all the papers which he required for a fair exposition of the matter. Yet, with all these advantages, there never was a more slender case made out than that of Canada. In fact, the papers were presented evidently with a view to make an impression to serve certain purposes.— (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to say that the plan had the countenance of members of the Government in high places. There was a practice of presenting documents, but instead of documents they had only por tions of documents. Such parts were laid be fore them as suited the position which the Government had to serve, whilst others were om i tte d . He would be one of the last to believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade would willingly or knowingly follow such a custom.—(Hear, and loud cheers.) A document was presented to the House, respecting the Members of the Legislative Chamber :of Canada West. Now, it appeared that this Council consisted of 89 Members, of whom 17 were absent from the country at the time that document was concocted, and of those seventy-two Mem bers fifty-three had absolutely signed a declaration such was not the feeling in Canada. Such was the case also : with regard to the Legislativerouncii Mon treal: of Another document was presented from the Chamber of Commerce of that country. This board consisted of 103 members, of whom thirteen were absent from the colony. The members who refused to sign amounted to eight, while twelve protested and fifty-seven signed the letter, declaring that they were in favour of protection.—(Hear.) But there had been a document presented to-day which showed more strongly than anything elseS the feeling of the Ca nadas upon this question. It was the report of a meeting held in the colony, at which there was a larger number of persons present than had been known at any previous assembly of the sort. The meeting was convened by parties favourable to the re peal of these laws, but upon a resolution being proposed adopting a petition to Parliament in favour of their re peal, an amendment was moved and carried by a large majority, to the effect that a repeal of the naviga tion-laws, so far as Canada was concerned, would prove most di sastrous to i ts prosper i ty.—(Cheers.) The Earl'" of Elgin had - conveyed an intima tion -to the Home Government that the erec tion of Montreal into a free port would re move 'the difficulties under which the inhabitants were labouring -se, proposition which was seconded by several memorials. It w as sent in the s rin of 1847, and he asked, in fairness, why! ) when they spo k e loudly of th e grievances of the people, in respect of the navigation-laws, they did not take the step suggested by the Gover nor - General o f t h e North American prpvine es, and give them th at relief they re uired.—(llear.) H e put it to them why they did o ,LEwsiv s piii . ., as he had pointed out. There was 0 pre vent the G overnment from issuin g 4-1 'n council declaring Montreal free port. a'g‘ tei ela respect West dispatch to the lndies where s from the Governor-Gener a l, . ;:e4IT4 . 04. gLe '; their particular attention was called Tct . inieelest,'" go? What had they done? They had Intrielisesek competition with respect to slavery - `I3Y-Aatt oducing slave grown sugar to the 14,1 areaS injury of that part of our dominions. The United States would not answer us.—(Hear, hear.) They were a nation most careful in all their proceed ings ; they had no answer to give us. The House would all remember the letter of Mr. Ban croft. Austria was vastly surprised that we could not understand what the merits of the case were. Could they wonder at that? When she was willing to concede much to this country, we turned the cold shoulder to her, and said, she must give up all her protection. We had got a very positive answer from Belgium, but Belgium would not assist us ; she had been just to herself, and said No, I will continue to protect my own commerce. —(Hear, hear.) Belgium would not conform to our system; and was this country prepared to put the screw upon that country ? Belgium had done that which every enlightened country ought to do, and that was to pro tect the subjects under her rule.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") The Prince who ruled over Belgium had car ried from this country the wise principles of commercial policy which prevailed here whilst he resided amongst us. Ministers addressed themselves also to France. Nothing could be more civil than the terms in which France replied; nothing more positive than her rejection of the proposition submitted to her. It was evident that, notwithstanding the missions which had been dispatched to enlighten foreign nations on the subject of free trade —France, Belgium, Germany, and America still conti nued in a state of darkness. In spite of the orations which the Hon. Member for the West Riding had made at banquets—which certainly did not appear to have been got up on the cheap market principle—France, Belgium, Germany, and America continued Protec tionists in their policy.—(Hear, hear:) The Noble Lord at the head of the Government said that he was opposed to protection because it always injured the party protected. That declaration was so contrary to all experience that it was wonderful the Noble Lord should have hazarded it. It was hardly possible to point to any great manufacturing in terest which had not at the outset received protection.— (Hear, hear.) When we commenced the cotton mana facture in rivalry with a distant country, we excluded its productions, and fostered our home manufacture by the imposition of a heavy duty.—([fear, hear.) Could any one suppose that France and Prussia, which were making great progress in the cotton manufacture, and America, which consumed five times as much raw cotton as she did a few years back, could have withstood our competition without protecting duties? Not a loom would now be at work in any of those countries had it not been for the protective system which they adopted. —(Hear, hear.) Their cotton manufactures had grown up under protection, and were now flourishing. In vain we told them to leave manufacturing to us, and that we would give them goods in exchange for theirs. They were resolved to take a leaf out of our book and to protect their own manufactures; and they were right. —(Hear, bear.) Having now disposed of the evidence on which the Government relied for the support of their case, he would proceed to consider what was really the question at issue. On the one hand it was contended that the fiavigation -laws secured to this country a large commercial marine, that such a marine was auxiliary and necessary to a great naval power, and that, there fore, it was desirable to maintain the navigation-laws. On the other hand it was contended that the navigation ha's inflicted injury on consumers by enhancing the price of commodities, that a great commercial marine was not essential to a naval power, and that, therefore, the navigation-laws ought to be repealed. It resulted from that state of the question, that the continuance or abrogation of the naval laws ought to be depend upon the balance of advantages or inconvenience resulting from them. The proposition advanced by the opponents of the navigation laws, that a great commercial marine was not necessary to a great naval power, might be dispo=ed of very briefly. The navigation laws were imposed solely for the object of creating a great commercial ma rine upon its admitted requirement by a great naval power. That had been avowed by all persons who had been concerned in imposing or maintaining those laws. The only persons who maintained an opposite opinion were the Hon. Member for Stoke, and his ally, Sir J. Stirling. The evidence opposed to that of Sir J. Stir ling by Sir T. Cochrane, Sir B. Martin, Admiral Dundas, and Admiral Parker, was of such a nature as, without disrespect to Sir J. Claridge, left that gentleman without a leg to stand upon. There was another witness to the importance of a great commercial marine, whom it would hardly be fair to pass over on the present cccasion—the Hon. Member for the West Riding. Addressing a meeting at Manches ter, the Hon. Gentleman referred to a passage in history between France and America, and said—" At that time —I have it from the Americans themselves—the French bad three times the force of ships of war that America had. Admiral Mackau was in the Gulf of Florida, with a fleet large enough to ravage the whole coast of Ame rica and bombard her towns; but did France rush into war with America? She paid the money. Why? Because she knew well, if she provoked an unjust war with the United States, her men-of-war were nothing compared with the force that would swarm out of every American port when brought into collision with another country. France knew that America had the largest mercantile marine, and though at first the battle might be to the stronger in an armed fleet, in the end it would be to that country which had the greatest amount of public spirit and the greatest amount of mercantile ships and. sailors." The navigation-laws gave us the exclusive en joyment of a vast international maritime commerce. Our commercial policy had been relaxed to some extent by Mr. Huskisson, but that Minister did not give way on the pretence that he was conferring an advantage on this country, but because he could hold out no longer. With reference to the change proposed, no one asserted that we were compelled to make it, and his (Mr. Herries's) maxim was, " Hold what you can—concede what you must."—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that the navigation laws did impose a restraint, and, inasmuch as they did so, tended to enhance the price of provisions.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen cheered that as a concession; but it was part of the principle always maintained on that (the Opposition) side of the House; but he could show, on the accumulated testimony of the first mer chants of London, that the addition was inconsiderable compared with the importance of keeping up a great mercantile marine. But what advantage w ould be gained by the abrogation of those laws in regard to the dimi nution of price, and who would gain it ? In itself it would be inconsiderable, and would be frittered away before the consumer could feel it. And what said the merchants, who ought to be the most sensible of the di minution or enhancement of freight? Mr.Horsley Palmer, one of the first merchants of London, was asked whether he had experienced any injury or inconvenience from the navigation-laws? His answer was that he was not aware of any. Mr. Robertson, a great China and East Indian merchant, said they never interfered with him. Mr. Bo sanquet, a large West India and East India merchant, said he did not see that he suffered at all from them.—(Hear.) He was asked whether he could suggest any alteration of those laws by which the general trade of the country would be benefited? His answer was that he was not at all read in them ; he had looked over Mr. Ricardo's book, and the answer to it, but still what he knew amounted to so little that he could not safely answer the question. Mr. Russell Elliot suid he had suffered no inconvenience from them in his own transactions, and other eminent merchants in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, gave similar testimony. Their saying that they did not know the navigation-laws was the best testimony that those laws did not press heavily upon the merehants.—(Hear, hear.) But the Government had undertaken—most rashly, most unwisely—to unsettle those laws, upon which the foundation of our naval power depended.— (Hear.) Without sufficient reason, they had entered upon a course which had about it this fatality, that un fortunately if the result did not answer their expecta tions they could not retrace their steps. Let them once abandon those laws, as cumbrous and useless, and never again could they clothe themselves in the armour they had hitherto afforded them, however much they migh from 1821 to 1847, but rather than trouble the House with detailed statistics, he should contsid himself with stating the averages of six periods. The three years ending 1823 give an average of 76,000, the two years ending 1826 gave 205,282, the three years ending 1831 gave 115,666, the three years ending 1837 gave 182,806, the three years ending 1841 gave 319.110, and the two years ending 1844 were 154,005. In 1846 the quantity was 213,000, and in 1847 it was 266,000. The various depressions and elevations in freights which took place during these periods must be fresh in the recollection of Hon. Members, and he would ask, was it fitting that laws should be permitted to remain on our statute-book which exposed commercial interests to such fluctuations? That system must be regarded as the best which pro duced a steady uniformity, rather than that which ap plied sudden stimulants and checks as sudden. The Right Hon. Member for Stamford had enlarged on the impor tance of the navigation-laws with regard to their poli• tical influence upon the defences of this country. He (Mr. Wilson) would not now enter into the question whether a commercial navy was needful for the support of the royal navy or not ; but, admitting that the Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his conclusion that a commercial navy was necessary for the mainte tenance of the royal navy, he (Mr. Wilson) would ask whether that royal navy would be best supported by a system of laws which increased the commercial navy, or by a system which depressed it.—(Hear, hear.) He would ask the House to observe what had been the effect of the commercial measures lately adopted by the Legis lature upon the number of men employed in the com mercial marine of this country. In 1842 the number of men so employed was 181,000 ; in 1847 it was 232,000. lie contended, then, that a free trade system, which had thus increased the number of men, was the best adapted to carry out the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Tho Government being of opinion that the time had come when the restrictions upon shipping should be abandoned, and when shipping—like all other branches of industry—should be exposed to a healthful cempeli don, the only question was how this object was to be accomplished. Ile believed the Government had taken not only the wisest course in the proposition they bad made, but the only course practicable in order to be of benefit to this country with regard to navigation and shipping. He regretted that the Right Hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) was not in his place ; for that Right Hon. Gentleman, in the course of one of the most able speeches delivered on this question during the last session, had spoken in favour of proceed ing by treaties upon the principles of reciprocity. Mr. C ARD WELL—Not by treaties. Mr. WILSON.—Upon the principles of reciprocity then. He (Mr. Wilson) would endeavour to show the great inconvenience, if not the practical impossibility of proceeding upon such principles. He objected to reci procity, because it was a bad princip!e; because he con sidered it against a wise policy, and because he thought it was very inconvenient if not impossible, in practice. lie believed one of the greatest errors the Legislature could now commit would be to do anything that might sanction the opinion which had gained ground too extensively on the continent, with regard to the viers by which this country had hitherto been influenced in its commercial policy. lie thought nothing could lot more prejudicial to the extension of free-trade prin ciples than that wo should sanction a notion, on the. part of foreign Governments, that we made concessions —not for the benefit to be derived from those conces sions, but for the purpose of obtaining corresponding concessions from other countries. He had found the most fallacious and erroneous opinions held by foreigit Governments and by foreign Ministers, as to the motives by which this country was prompted in its commercial legislation; and he should feel great regret if, by any Act of that Hteise, they should appear to shrink from the principle they had so broadly put forward during the last five or six years, that of legislating for the in terests of this country, regardless what other nations might do. He believed it was not until they convinced foreign Governin- ins that they legi-leted upon this prin ciple that those Governments would begin to perceive that there was something worth having in free trade. At present those Governments said, " You offer us reci procity, but it is not a fair reciprocity. You are an old country; you have large capital and vast colonial pos sessions, and it is very well for you to offer us these reciprocal advantages, when you know that we are not in a position to avail ourselves of them." He had heard foreign Ministers say, "Do not send am bassadors to urge free trade upon us; it will only excite suspicion on the part of the people that we are g ,ing to sacrifice them to your greatness, and to your capital." He believed, therefore, that any attempt to offer terms of reciprocity to other countries would not be attended with benefit, but would throw difficulties in the way of foreign Governments which might be disposed to meet them. But, if they went upon the principle of re ciprocity as To ho thosewhogiv it w oli a t s scrtled,elwiboeudldbgyirMe little; to give much I would give much; to those who give all I would give all;" where was the country which could give them anything corresponding to what they gave? If they did proceed upon the system of reciprocity, it must be upon a well-defined principle of equivalents ; b u t th ere was no such thing i n ex i s t en ce. If England threw open her colonial trade to many foreign countries, those countries had no colonies which would enable them to give reciprocal advantages. He objected to proceed ing upon this principle, because there was no other country in the world, except the United States of America, from which they could have anything re sembling equivalents. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who addressed the House last night en larged at great length upon the principle of reciprocity, but his remarks referred to reciprocity in general, with regird to produce as well as shipping. He (Mr. Wilson; admitted that there was a great distinction between re ciprocity in articles of produce and reciprocity in navi gation. It was clear that, if they placed retaliatory duties upon the produce of another country to meet duties imposed by that country on their goods, they did not visit the same interests. If Prussia imposed high duties upon their cottons and woollens, they could only retaliate by putting high duties upon the timber, or corn, or other produce of Prussia. What was the conse quence? The Prussian Government first punished the woollen and cotton manufacturer of England by imposing high duties upon his manufactured goods, and he was again punished by his own Government, who imposed high duties upon the raw material from which be manu factured those goods, or upon the food which he con sumed.—(Hear.) If they acted upon a system of recipro city with regard to produce, they must give perfect free dom of trade to those nations which gave them the same advantage o r in other cases, duties owith hthe duties foreign coun res pond n g they in mustamount w coun tries imposed upon their goods. The result would be, that for every country in the world they must have dis tinct and different tariffs.—(Hear.) If, however, they imposed restrictions upon foreign shipping correspond ing with the restrictions imposed by other countries on British shipping, they had, at all events, the advantaee of meeting directly the same interest, and the restriction would he more likely to be felt by the country against which it was directed. What, than, were the objects of repealing the navigation laws ? The great objects they had in view were, to do justice to our colonies ; to answer in a becoming manner the addresses to the throne from Canada, and the numerous petitions presented to that House from large commercial bodies in Canada, Australia, and the West Indies, who complained that, but for those laws, they could send their produce to this country by foreign ships at a cheaper rate than by English ships. It was no answer to those parties to say that we could not enable them to employ Dutch or Spanish ships because the Governments of Spain or of Holland would not enter into the views of reciprocity entertained by the British Government; but when ex isting, palpable, well-defined evils were to be remedied, he could not understand why we should make our policy dependent on the caprice or ignorance of foreign Go vernments. He also objected to the principles of reci procity on account of the great practical inconvenience to which they led. He had referred to the great variety of tariffs which would be necessary in carrying out a system of reciprocity with regard to produce; and an analagous difficulty would arise with respect to the navi gation-laws if they were carried out on the same principle of reciprocity. They must have various kinds of navi gation-laws, differing in degree ; they must have a great variety of complicated and difficult regu lations to correspcnd with the restrictions im posed on British shipping by different foreign coun tries. If we found one country that was disposed to give all, and to which we were obliged to give all in re turn, it must be recollected that there were 20 countries which had treaties with us, enabling them to claim being placed on the terms of the most favoured nation; and whatever privileges were given to other nations must be extended to those countries, whether they gave us any thing or nothing.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to reci procity, because he believed it would lead to great eva sions of the law. Suppose a treaty of reciprocity in na vigation existed between this country and Hamburgh, what guarantee had they that the ships of a third country, with which England had no such treaty, might not become the carriers of foreign produce to Hamburgh, which might be brought to this country in Hamburgh ships? He might observe that he thought the Right Honourable Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had thrown some very unworthy im putations upon the United States in doubting the sin cerity of the professions they had put forward as to their conduct in case the English navigation-laws were repealed. He (Mr. Wilson) could only say that the in timation the United States' Government had given was in conformity with the standing policy of their naviga tion-laws, which had been for years past to give to of the petition. The fact was the petition proceeded from the Protectionist section of the Montreal Board of Trade, and a counter-petition against protec tion had been signed by the free-trade members of the board. But the petition from the Protectionist section of the board alluded to by the Right Hon. gentleman prayed, firstly, for a repeal of the navigation laws, and the throwing open the navigation of the river St. Lawrence; and secondly, for a ss. duty. Two other petitions had proceeded from Canada, one from the Board of Trade of the city of Hamilton, in favour of the repeal of the navigation laws, and a second from the citizens of Montreal in public meeting assembled, also praying for the repeal of the navigation laws. An address to the Crown had also been received from the Legislative Council and Commons of Canada, praying her Majesty to use her influence with the House of Commons to re peal the navigation laws. There was indeed every reason why the population of Canada should be favourable to the repeal of the navigation laws. It was well known that the navigation of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec was very difficult, and that the inland navi gation of the country was, generally, expensive and diffi cult. There was, therefore, the more reason why the Imperial Parliament should not superadd artificial impediments to the natural restrictions which already existed in the way of the Canadian trade. The Canadians had opened up ship canals in the interior and had borrowed 2,000,0001. from this country to enable them to open a communication with the Western lakes of America; but of what use was this outlay, or what prospect was there that these 2,000,0001. would ever be repaid, if the House imposed restrictions at the mouth of the river St. Lawrence which prevented the Canadians from entering upo❑ a fair competition with the Ameri can shipowners? He would now follow the Right Hon. Gentleman to the West Indies, and he regretted that soma very recent correspondence, which would be laid before the House on Monday, was not already in the hands of Honourable Members, because it would be seen from the testimony of the highest autho rities upon West Indian matters, that the ques tion of the navigation-laws was increasing in importance the more it was considered. In Jamaica numerous public meetings had been held during the last six months, and the language held was that there could be no reason, except for the navigation laws, why Jamaica and Trinidad should not become what they had been before, the central emporia of trade for the Spanish Main. Coming to the continent of Europe, the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware that the greatest portion of the continental powers had a perfect treedom of trade with regard to shipping, and all that the Go vernment had to fear was lest they should be reminded that such or such a treaty was about to expire, and that a more liberal course was expected from this country. Austria had given us all she could, and had a right to feel disappointed that we had not given her similar and reciprocal advantages by the relaxation of our naviga tion-lass.—(hear, hear.) The present was peculiarly a time suitable to the introduction of such a measure, because a sufficient period had elapsed to witness the effect of the great free-trade measures upon the shipping interest. Since 1842, when these relaxations in our commercial code might be said to have com menced, there had been a great increase in the imports of the more bulky articles of shipping. A few figures would show how much advantage the shipowner had de rived from the recent changes in our legislation. Look ing first at the continental trade previous to 1842, they found that live stock were excluded, and that the ship ment of grain was so seldom and so accidental in its oc currence as not materially to benefit the British ship owner. Flax, hemp, and timber were subject to duties more or less high. In 1841 no live animals were im ported into this country ; in 1848 the number was 195,000. In 1841, 1,738,000 cwts. of flax and hemp were imported ; in 1848, 2,300,000 cwts., an increase of 30 per cent. The average import of grain had been 2,000,000 quarters ; during the two last years it hal amounted to 12,030,000 and 7,000,000 quarters re spectively. The importation of currants in 1841 was 173,000 cwts.; in 1848 it was 400,000 cwts., an increase of more than double. In 1841, 4,700 tuns oF olive oil were imported from the Levant; in 1848 10,000 tuns. In 1841 the imports of provisions of various kinds were 91,629 casts.; in 1848 they were 600,000 e►vts. The im ports of cotton wool in 1841 were 4,357,000 cwts.; in 1848, 6,362,000 cwts., an increase cf 2,000,000 cwts. in six years.—(Hear.) The imports of sugar had increased from 4,905,000 cwts. to 8,209,000 cwts. in 1847. Our imports of coffee in 1841 sere 43,317,7621 b.; in 1848, 57,000,0001 b. Of sheep's wool 56,170,0001 b. were im ported in 1841, in 1848, 70,521,0001 b. But the most important change bad taken place in the shipping of timber. In 1841 there were imported 700,000 loads of timber from British possessions; in 1848, 1,500,000 loads. In 1841 the total quantity of timber imported from the whole world was 950,000 loads; is 1848 it amounted to, 1,850,000 loads, or nearly double. Why should the shipping interest not be called upon to enter into competition with other countries when all other inte rests and classes had to sustain a competition with foreign rivals?—(Hear.) The sugar refiners of this country very naturally complained of being excluded from the pi ivilege of taking for consumption cargoes of foreign sugar when they were exposed by the act of last session to the com petition of the continental refiners. A great number of other trades were complaining in the same way. Two great authorities among the shipping interest, Messrs. Young and Richmond, stated before the Lords' com mittee, that they thought that all the mischief had been done already that could be done by the repeal of the navigation-laws. He quite agreed with them, that the navigation-laws as they at present stood were of very little importance to the British ship owners. They had to compete with their American rival in his own market, and where he had every advantage, and they had none. They had to compete with Prussian shipowners in like manner in the Prusian market, and with the Spanish shipowner at Cuba ; and this resulted purely from the policy of the navigation-laws, and not in consequence of any measures of free trade. Why should they be afraid of the British shipowners en tering into competition with the foreign shipowner in neutral markets, when they were already compelled to enter into competition with him in his own market? If there were a country in the world where ships were built cheaply it was here, if quality and every other circum stance were taken into the account. Since the discus. sion on this subject last year, the Select Committee had received most important testimony upon this point from Mr. Minter, an American gentleman, a passage from whose evidence the Hon. Member proceeded to read in corroboration of his assertion. But, had they no other evidence that British shipping fully possessed the power of competing with the marine of other countries? that evidence he contended might be derived from many quarters, amongst others, from the state of the shipping interest in the United States of America, and such evi dence was likewise to be found in the history of our own shipping from 1827 to 1844. Of the American and Bri tish shipping entering American ports, as well as of other tonnage entering the same ports, the account stood thus— In 1827 the American tonnage was 918,000, the British 101,000, the other tonnage 36,000. In the year 1844 the American tonnage was 1,977,438, the British 766,747, the other tonnage 150,245; which showed as increase in American tonnage of 100 per cent., and in British tonnage of 650 per cent. He held in his hand another statement which would show the increase that had taken place in British tonnage between the years 1824 and 1846. There cleared inwards and outwards of British shipping in 1824, 3,454,853 tons, and of foreign tonnage 1,506,148, while, in 1846, the British tonnage inwards and outwards was 8,688,148, and the foreign tonnage only 3,727,438; showing an increase on British tonnage of 5,233,295, and on foreign of 2,221,290. If any country could be considered more formidable than another as a rival of England, that country was the United States of America; and most assuredly the best possible test of our ability to compete with all foreign countries was to be found in the fact that American bad not surpassed British shipping —not only had not sur passed the shipping of this country, but still re mained far abort of the point which the ship owners of the United Kingdom had gained; and, although our commercial marine had long been subjected to that test, the progress of our shippin g interest still went on rapidly. For the purpose of sus taining this position he should beg the attention of the House to a statement which he held in his hand, and which contrasted American tonnage and British tonnage from 1827 to 1844, showing the progress made by each of those countries respectively. In 1827 the American tonnage was 747,170 ; in 1844 it was 1,068,764, being an increase of 43 per cent. In the United Kingdom the tonnage in 1827 was 2,460,500; in 1844, 3,637,231, showing an increase of 48 per cent. ; the whole increase in the American shipping being 321,594 and that in British shipping 1,176,731. He should now come to the question of the long voyage trade. In that trade we found ourselves under the necessity of competing with the shipowners of all nations, and of engaging with them in that rivalry under circumstances most favourable to their interests and most disadvantageous to ours. The vessels of the world at large in competing with British ships had, of course, the obvious advantage of trading to the particular ports of the countries to which they be longed, whereas British ships were obliged to take the desire it. The shipowning interest, paying no less than 5,000,0001. a year in wages, and employing an nually 30,000 artificers, were thundering at the door of the house, imploring them to stay their hand in this rash experiment. They were about to do with the sea what they had done with the land—to try a great political experiment. Did the aspect of affairs justify the risk? Was there any provocation for it from within, or any demand for it from without? Isle could hardly conceive anything so nearly approaching dementation on the part of the Government. It did not follow as a ne cessity of their former proceedings. If their theory was right that there should he no protection whatever, still they might justify themselves in staying their hand, and not trying this groat experiment. Had ,the Noble Lord presented any petition front the city he represented? All prudence, all sound judgment, was against this plan. It Was wild, uncalled for, and deplorable. Public opinion was against it; and if it were possible that the Govern ment could learn from anything the voice now rising in every corner of the country would teach them that the first duty of a British statesman and of a British Legis lature was to maintain British interests, to uphold Bri tish industry, t o st i mulate British enter prise—(Hear, hear)—and so to promote the glory and honour of this great country. She had beers an useful arbiter in the nations ey o f t e h t e ey e e a d r t t h h , e i a r n h d e long n might she mcounntiintyueof the be so to inlawthse which had T h e m a R d g h h t e r H t o h n e . m no ig t ht d i e e s s t t ro e y mp th ir o e s e Gentleman then moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. WILSON, after complimenting the Right Hon. Gentleman on the tone of his address, said he did not wish to undervalue the opinion of so large and influential a body as the merchants of London, as expressed in the petition which had been presented to the House that wn H e t) the House that Sir R. Walpole, ond Liverp ool.coming d 0 evening, and especially when it was b a c ked up by those of the merchants of Glasgow House to propose one of his g reatest reforms in the commercial policy of the country, the bonded syste m , was stayed from doing so by a p rotest from the mer chants of London; but he must say he did not think :that petitions signed by 20,000 or 27,000 persons in so large a population as that of London would justify its being taken as a conclusive voice on the measure now under discussion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had referred to the reasons which his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had given for this measure on a former occasion, and had spoken of the pressure which the Government felt from Canada. He (Mr. Wil son) wished to make no invidious observations, but outward voyage either in ballast or only partially laden, while their foreign competitors came to this country al ways fully laden—full cargoes of timber, cotton, coffee, and other bulky commodities. If we could stand such competition as that, what could we have to fear ? The House would of course recollect that, apparently for the purpose of securing to this country the benefit of the long-voyage trade, we had laid restrictions upon our commercial intercourse with the Continent ; the effect of this had been to protect foreign shipping to the mani fest injury of Briti s h i n t eres t s . H e wou ld state a case illustrative of this. A British ship not long since con veyed a carg o o f co tt on f rom A mer i ca to H avre; at that time the French revolution was in progress. The owners of the cargo in Liverpool wished not to have it left in Havre, but conveyed without delay to Liverpool; that how ever they could not accomplish without transferring the cargo to a Continental vessel. Surely that state of the law operated as a protection to foreign shipping. In addition to this case of a cargo of cotton, he might mention that hides were subject to simil ar regu l at i ons. Now, those were inconsistencies to whi c h th e tra d e of a great' coun try ought not to be subjected. He was aware that Mr. Grey had recommended a plan acco r di ng to wh i ch all . goods brought into this country should be accompanied by a certificate stating whether or not they were in tended for the British market. He apprehended that that would be a mere clumsy evasion, and would never work well in practice. The next subject to which he thought it desirable to direct the attention of the House was the cost of freight. Without hesitation he might assert that freights were not raised by the navigation , laws. Bad harvests sometimes occurred, a deficiency in the sugar crops occasionally took place, hence sudden den - y.11(1s for shipping, which of course caused British freight for the moment to rise, but it was only on those accidental occasions that such advances took place, and they were occurrences too rare and uncertain to produce any substantial benefit to the ship-owner. It might assist the view to be taken of this part of the subject if he were for a moment now to call the attention of Hon. Members to the tonnage built and registered o p o ar t e h d o to pr g io iv o e ip t l o o thoef But ro ci.m.fortythwisocoolduntoroyttoooplyrocmeead. foreign count r i es w h a t eve r those countries were pre terially emba rrass f ore i gn Governments in putting into execution any desire t o adopt our policy, but would be r e p setting a bad example, and giving a sanction to very erroneous and mistaken notions of the real views of this country in respect to its commercial policy. The great object which the commercial legislation of this country ought to have in view was to insure as much as pos sible to the merchant the greatest degree of certainty and simplicity in his transactions ; but if by acting on the principle of reciprocity there was produced not only more uncertainty but also much more com plication, the two great and paramount principles of commercial legislation were entirely abandoned. It might be said that the power proposed by the present B willtaos arguing—but reserved to othnethQauteseunbijecn at present,ouncil did in s ome measure tend to create the very objectionsagain ho stwhich he was disposed to say very little.—(A laugh.) lie would, however, say this—that, according to the course pro posed by the Government, free-trade unrestricted would be the rule, and restriction, if they so pleased to call it, the exception; whereas, by pursuing the other course restrtetion would be the rule and free-trade the excep ti, n. With respect to the reservation, however much it might be worth, he trusted at all events that freedom of commerce would be the great rule according to which this law would be carried out in reference to our transac tions with foreign countries, and that hostile retaliation, he ;as very much surprised at the somewhat unfair re- presentation which the Right Hon. Gentleman had made o£ those sentiments. The Right Honourable Gen. tleman contended that the petitions presented to the House last year were in a great degree negatived by those of the present year, and that those of last year were presented on a misunderstanding as to the true interests of Canada. With respect to the navi gation laws, he would call the attention of the House to the petition from the Board of Trade at Montreal, to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred. The Right Hon. Gentleman told the House that that petition prayed for protection. It was true, .as the Right Hon. Gentleman said, that the navigation laws were alluded to in it, but that was a secondary and consequential part THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1849. if ever resorted to, would be the rare, he hoped the very rare, exception.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of GRANBY trusted that the House, in coming to a decision, would not be influenced by the argument used by the introducer of the present measure —that whatever inconvenience or mischief might result, the course which the Legislature had pursued for the last four years was to be persevered in. He hoped rather that the question would be decided on its own merits, and that question was, whether the British ship owner could compete with the foreigner. That the Bri tish shipowner could not compete with the foreigner might be very easily shown by the evidence given be• fore the Lords' Committee on the navigetion• laws. Ile believed it was almost universally admitted that ships built in ILeigland were dearer than ships built abroad. According to Mr. Minter's evidence, the price of Arne rican ships was 141, a ton; the price, however, of English ships, class Al, averaged from 241. to 261. a ton. The Noble Lord, after noticing the increase which had taken place in American tonnage, proceeded to say that in 1846 the amount of British tonnage which entered inwards from the United States was only 205,123, while the amount of American tonnage which entered inwards from the same country was 435,399; and the American tonnage employed between America and our colonies, more particularly our western colonies, increased in the period from 1821 to 1846 to no less an amount than 1,635,828 tons. Did that prove that the British shipowner could compete with the American? To show the great resources possessed by America, he quoted an extract from Mr. Mackay's Western World, and observed, that while he admitted the extensive resources of America, he did not agree in the conclusion at whi c h th e author sated that he ar rived irresistibly, however reluctantly, that the power of England must yet succumb to the power of her off spring. If native industry were protected and the navi gation laws maintained in their present integrity, this country needed not to succumb to America, or to any other nation on the face of the earth. It was contended that though the British ship might be dearer than the foreign, yet that, owing to its durability, the dear ,hip was the cheapest in the end ; but that he thought a mistaken notion, and referred to Mr. Young's evidence before the Lord's committee tor the purpose of showing that Baltic ships lasted longer. The House should take the opinion of British shipowners—the men to whom it was proposed to gi ve the opportunity of using foreign ships. What class of ships did they prefer? Why, in 1840 there were 1,059 British and colonial ships built, of which only 308 were above ten years upon Lloyd's register, and 751 were un der ten years; and in 1846 there were 643 British and colonial ships built, of which only 180 were above ten years, and 463 under ten years. He himself had seen that day a gentleman who had intended to charter two British chips to send to Jamaica, but in consequence of the expectation of the repeal of the navigation-laws he had chartered two Danish ships at a reduced rate of 7s. 6d. a ton; that gentleman anticipated that by the time the ships returned from Jamaica the navigation laws would be repealed.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the reciprocity treaties, it must be remembered that the present measure was founded upon a totally different system; we were now going to admit foreign vessels into etur whole trade, and the Baltic and American ships would and must supplant ours. Even under present circumstances our shipping had not. increased in the same proportion as foreign; where the British ahipping entered inwards in 1847 measured 2,564,865 tons, or, deducting twenty , five per cent. for the difference between the new and old measure ment, and for the repeated voyages of English chipping, (an English ship averaging a voyage and a half in the year), 1,900,505, the foreign shipping that was employed was 2,253.939 tons. But the proportion of our ships that went out in ballast must also be remembered; the average of British shipping in the foreign trade, without cargoes, was 22 per cent. in 1820, and 51 per cent. in 1817. In 1814 the average foreign tonnage in our foreign trade was 241 per cent. less than the British, bat in 1847 it was 21 per cent. more than the British. The average in crease of British tonnage from 1814 to 1847 was 134 cent., but, of foreign, 259 per cent. The House must not forget the number of ertizans whom the repeal of the navigation-laws would throw out of employ, for one of the main objects was to destroy the monopoly of the British shipbuilders; and some years hence the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) might come down to the House, when about to ruin some other class, and say, as he did the other night of the inhabitants of the Western Islands of Scotland, that these artizsns had been crushed by foreign competition, and had to betake themselves to other pursuits, or to emigrate to a country that knew how to protect its workmen.—(Hear.) What was expected to be gained by this measure? The case of Canada was the first put forward; and the Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. Wilson) asked what answer he was to give to the petitions from Canada and the West Indies? But why were the petitions of 20,000 persons in London, and of the shipowners of Liverpool, to be disregarded, and the petition of 12 men in Canada brought forward? Then, as regarded the West Indies, the question had been en tirely overlooked on the other side till the Hon. Gentle man opposite (Mr. Wilson) attempted to take it up. Now on this part of the subject he found the Chamber of Commerce of Jamaica stating, that though the repeal of the navigation laws was offered as one branch of the scheme of relief which the West Indies was to re ceive, yet it would serve them less than their slave trading neighbours, inasmuch as it was impossible for them to dispatch their cargoes with the same facility as their Cuban neighbours, and they urged that the only means of rendering the measure valuable was to give them immediate protection to their produce in the home market.—(Hear, hear.) He begged also to call the at tention of the House to a paragraph in the address of the Canadian Assembly, from which it plainly appeared that the object of those gentlemen of Montreal who were in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws was that they might be enabled by means of foreign vessels to get slave- grown labour imported at a cheaper rate than at present.—(hear, hear.) It had been shown that as the rate of freight fell the selling price rose, and as the rate of freight rose the selling price fell, so that the almost imperceptible amount gained in the way of reduction would be divided between the seller and consumer. Then as to the long voyage, not withstanding what fell from the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson), he was still convinced that it was beneficial to the shipowner, and a real advantage to the manufac turer and the consumer. By the operation of the pre sent law the foreign manufacturer was obliged to come to the British market to buy the raw materials of India, and he paid 2/. a ton freight between this country and the foreign ports to which be carried the goods ; so that British importers paid 21. a ton less for every ton of such goods they carried to foreign countries. Repeal these laws, however, and the foreigner would import his own goods in his own ships, and the shipowners of this ceuty try would lose the carrying trade. They had been told of some cotton lying at Havre which could not, on ec count of the navigation-laws, reach this country ; but were they to repeal those laws on account of some va grant bale of cotton, or lost cargo, that had not found its way to Liverpool ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson), speaking of reciprocity, said we had al ready all the reciprocity with foreign nations that we ever could have, for they could give us nothing in return. If this was so, then why did he allow the Government to write all those letters to foreign countries of which so much had been heard ?—(Hear, hear.) Why ask for reciprocity from them if it was all a delusion, and if they had nothing to give us ?—(Hear, hear.) He regarded the repeal of these laws as fraught with injustice to the Bri • tish shipowner and to the British arnzen, but the ques tion astaffecting them sunk into . insignificance comparedt with its bearing on our naval superiority. In his esti mation it would be in the highest degree dangerous to our naval supremacy, and therefore he was opposed to the measure of the Government. On the subject of the apprenticeship he found the evidence of naval men strong in support of the present system as one exceedingly valuable to the navy, and deprecatory of any diminution of the present proportion of apprentices as detrimental to its interests. The merchants of London had at all times evinced the greatest readiness to support the navy of this country, and to allow sailors to be taken from their ships in case of war, in order to man the navy. During the late war they even offered a bounty of 40s, to able seamen and of 20s. to ordinary seamen who would enter for the navy. He hoped, therefore, he should hear no more reflections on British merchants being unwilling to contribute towards the mainte nance of the glory of their country. He entreated the House that, come to whatever conclusion they might, they would found that conclusion upon the evidence of practical men, and upon the evidence of naval officers of this country, whose patriotism could not be doubted; and :not upon the evidence of men who, shut in their rooms in this great city, got up columns of erroneous figures to suit their own particular purposes —men, one of whom had the audacity to state before the Committee of the House of Lords, that for his part he did not care if the whole trade of the country were carried on in foreign ships. He owned that he dreaded this introduc tion of foreign shipping into the colonies, harbours, and ports of Great Britain. It put him too much in mind of the introduction of the wooden horse of old —and he would not wish to see his countrymen 46 captique dolis Quos neque Tydides, nec Larisstens Achilles, Non anni domuere decem, non mille carinaz." Ohl said the Noble Lord, in conclusion, that I had the power to dispel the delusions with which we are now assailed! Oh that I had the power to stir up that pa triotism and that love of country which should animate every breast! for if I had such power, I should ha ve no fear as to th e resu lt ; f or , d esp i te o f the confidence now entertained by her Majesty's Government, and despite those inconsiderate communications, and, I may say, the unconstitutional communications made by them to foreign Governments—(Cheers)—despite all those ad vantages, still I think I should see the gallant vessel that is now struggling with the storm sail triumphantly above the waves that threatened to overwhelm her.—(Cheers.) If Englishmen be true to themselves and their country— if we be so, and I think we shall be—then we shall keep the vessel's head straight to the sea, and not follow the advice of those in command, who would run her upon shore; then we shall weather the storm with which we are now assailed, and then we shall be able to retain the command over that glorious element which is our na tural protector, and that is the connecting link between this country and its dependencies abroad; and for years yet to come, notwithstanding the prophecy of Mr. Mackay, the flag of England shall float triumphantly over the most distant quarters of the globe —(Cheers.) Mr. CARDWELL observed that the Noble Lord who hail just sat down, and the Right lion. Gentleman who had moved the r.ijectien of this Bill, anticipated with deep dismay the decay of our mercantile, marine, and the declension of our maritime power. Though he could not share in their gloomy apprehensions, yet the same natu ral anxiety weighed upon him in approaching a question of this great importance. Ho also desired that they should avoid every rash or precipitate measure, take every precaution, and be guided by prudence in the course on which they were about to enter. But sharing to that extent with them in the spirit in which they ap- proached the question, he could not reconcile it to his conviction of what was due to the great i mercantile interest of this country, and of tahat a sense of justice to our colonies imperatively demanded, to avoid addressing a few words to the House ; and he did not think it would be difficult to show in same important respects what a due regard to the real welfare of those groat interests required of the Parliament of this empire. It was difficult to understand, either from the speeches of those who wished to reject this Bill, or from the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords, exactly the position in which this question stood. He would ask Hots. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House what was-the opinion they entertained with respect to the clause which secured to England what was called the long voyage. If he looked to the evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords he found witnesses of the first consideration stating that they thought it an essential element in, and one of the fundamental principles of the law; while, on the other hand, he found many intelligent witnesses stating that, as that clause stood, the law could not by possibility be maintained. Now he would warn his friends of the shipping interest to take timely caution as to the import and effect of that clause. The purport of it was to pro hibit the importation of the produce of Asia, Africa, and America into this country, except in ships belonging to the country where the articles imported were produced, or in British ships. They were told that reciprocity was to be the order of the day. Let him, then, ask what was their position in regard to one of the most important interests of this country? He knew of none more important than that which was known by the name of the " warehouse system"--a sys tem which was the growth of recent years, and resulted from a judicious relaxation in the navigation-laws, by which this country was made the great entrepot, not only of Europe but of the whole civilized world. Eng land imported cotton from America, sugar from the tropics, and all kinds of produce from the different por tions of the globe. These she sent largely to the ports in the Baltic Sea. Last year she sent 200,000 bags of cotton to the northern ports. What was the share which the British merchants enjoyed in bringing that cotton from America to Liverpool and then carrying it to Russia from the other ports of Europe? They had, in fact, the whole carrying trade of Russia and the Baltic. But now they were told that reprocity was the order of the day. But when the treaty with Russia expired, as it would do in a few years, and when Prussia should have put in execution those threats which she had held out, what would then become of your carrying trade, and of those warehouses which made this country the entrepot of the world? England would not allow the products of Asia, Africa, and America to he imported into this country except her own ships or in :the ships of those respective countries where the articles were produced; Russia would, therefore, say she would not allow the importation of the products of Asia, Africa, or America into Russian ports unless in ships of the country where the goods were produced or in Russian ships. At least, she would take care that if England would not relax her law those productions should not come in British ships. Thus Great Britain would lose the carrying trade to Russia. With regard to the United States of America, there was at this mo ment reciprocity existing between England and that country in many important respects—reciprocity, but not a friendly intercourse—because it was an intercourse jealously guarded by restrictions. A great trade was springing up in the world. He would not enter into any disquisition as to the speculations that were at present afloat, but it could not be denied that a Kew trade was rising up in California. He was not alluding to the money part of the question, but to the plain and palpable fact that a large trade nets taking its rise in that portion of the world. That could not be gainsaid. He knew a gentleman who was reaping a large reward in having sent out tea from China and sugar from the Philippine Islands to California. Was it not to be expected that the Ameri can Government would have an establishment them selves in California ? and then would come into opera. don that clause of their navigation-laws which had been made on the model of the English long-voyage clause, and so made because there was such a clause in the English navigation-law, and then no more tea, no more produce of the Philippine Islands, could be car ried to the western coast of America by British com merce. It was important, therefore, for the sake of the commercial interests of this country, that they should come to a right understanding with regard to the long voyage clause. Mr. Huskisson warned them to be care ful not so to arrange their navigation laws as to call up a great maritime power in opposition to them. What country would carry cotton to Russia and Prussia, and tea and sugar to California, if our jealous restrictions were maintained ? That one country of which you were afraid, and with which Son had made it your particular consideration not conclusively to decide—America. He had never listened with greater astonishment to any statement than he had done to the grave, deliberate, and measured statement of the Right Hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), that he thought the case of Canada good for nothing. A gentleman wrote to him the other day stating that he had received by an American vessel from New York a quantity of flour; by the bran be perceived that the corn was grown in Canada, and being an honest man, he stated the truth to the Custom-house, when he was told that it could not be admitted, and he prayed him (Mr. Cardwell) to go to the Treasury.—(Laughter.) Would the Hon. Gentleman who sneered tell him why they should protect corn grown in the United States and not protect corn grown by her Majesty's subjects in Canada ? But it was said that a plan had been devised to meet this difficulty. They were to nationalize Cana dian corn by causing it to pass through the United States. But corn could be conveyed from the interior of Canada by the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence as cheaply as it could be conveyed by the Erie Canal and by way of New York. The Right Honourable Gentleman greatly lauded the Americans for giving a drawback for the transit of Canadian corn through their provinces. But, if it were sagacity on the part of the American Government to give a bounty on the transit of grain from Canada to New York, what was the virtue of that policy which gave a positive discouragement to the conveyance of grain by means of the canals in Canada? Canada sought only to be put in a position to compete on equal terms with the United States; and was the British Legisla ture to refuse that reasonable demand? He coald not come to any such conclusion. He asked the attention of the House to a remonstrance which was made by a go vernor of a British colony in 1671. Sir W. Berkeley, Go • vernor of Virginia, writing soon after the passing of the Navigation Bill of Charles 11., said, " Mighty and de structive have been the obstructions to our trade and navi gation by that severe Act of Parliament. If it were for his Majesty's service, or the good of the subject, we should not repine, whatever were our sufferings ; but on my soul it is the contrary for both."—(Hear. hear.) He (Mr. Cardwell) held that the same remark was applicable still, for what would the British shipowner gain if; by the sagacity of the Americans, and the want of sagacity on our part, all the produce of Canada went to New York, and was carried to this country by them in competition with American shipping ?—(Hear, hear.) There were anomalies in the navigation laws which it was quite im possible to allow to remain as they at present stood. He did not mean to occupy the House at any length, and would not therefore go into many of them ; but he would ask the House how th e y wou ld d ea l with this par ticular case ? They had made from some motive of good policy, some port in the Danube, which was not locally situated in Austria, a port of Austria. They had also made the port of Memel a pert of Olden burgh, it not being locally situated in that country. Holland, under the most favoured nation clause, might claim a similar convenience, and the United States might presently ask a similar favour for a port in Mexieo. Was it fit they should leave anomalies like that without a remedy? The Noble Lord who had just sat down had quoted the evidence in the Lords' report to show that ships were more dearly built, wages higher, and the expense of navigating vessels, altogether greater here than in America. Now, he had taken great t rou bl e to make himself acquainted with the contents of that report and be found in it very opposite statements. He found that Mr. Dunbar, the chairman of the London Ship owners' Association, had stated, in reply to questions, that it was their interest to build ships dear, because they lasted longer and were c h eaper i n the end; while opinions of a different kind were given by others; but whatever the cost of ships in the first instance, it might be taken as certain that the country where there was the most energy and enterprise, and which had the command of the markets of the world, was the country which on equal terms was the most able to com pete with every other country in the world; and they might be assured that the British shipowner was not likely, in fair competition, to be defeated. But the Noble Lord had said it was impossible we could com pete with America. Yet what was the case? From the, year 1821 to 1844 th e t onnage o f B r i t i s h s hi ps wh i ch had entered American ports had increased from 52,000 to 776,000 tons. If we could not compete with the United States, how were they to account for that in crease? He found also that Liverpool, where ships were built dear, could compete with New Brunswick, where the cost of building was cheap, and that New York, where the cost was dear, could compete with the state of Maine, where the cost was much less. How was that? It was because experience showed that to build the latter vessel at a greater first cost was cheaper in the end. But the Noble Lord had laid stress upon the question of our maritime supremacy. He certainly concurred with Mr. Huskisson, that if the supremacy of their maritime power came in contact with their commercial interest the latter must give way. But the legislation of Queen Elizabeth's reign was of a most liberal character with regard to navigation; and yet the glory of our maritime supremacy was not tarnished in her reign. The patent of our precedence dated from a day anterior to the ordinances of Cromwell. If it rested upon the foundation of the Act of Charles H., his anticipations would be of a still gloomier character than those of the Noble Lord. Those were arguments which did not bear on any particular Bill that might come be fore the House, but bore exclusively upon the necessity of a settlement of those questions. He went further, and said it was not only desirable for the mercantile in terest, but just towards our own colonies and the ship ping interest generally, that there should be a speedy settlement of the question. If for even a short time they delayed the settlement of the question, they would hold suspended over those whose property was embarked in this pursuit the threat of impending change; they would prevent the application of British capital and the employ ment of British industry, and thus give an impetus to the employment of foreign capital and labour, and on that ground, if on no other, they ought to come to a speedy settlement of the question. There were anomalies in the present law which it was impossible to defend, and which those even who objected to th e proposed measure did not defend, but, on the contrary, freely expressed their mind as to the necessity of their removal ; and he said, then, it was the paramount duty of Parliament to deal with the question, and to come speedily, effectively, rationally, and not precipitately, to a settlement of it. He would not, at that hour, follow the Hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) into his argument. It was wiser, in that prelitninery stage,.to confine themselves to the simple question, should they reject all progress 10 the matter or not ? f or th a t was t h e proposa l of his Bight Hon. Friend—a proposal to which he (Mr. Car& well) ventured to oppose himself. In Committee be hoped they would hear every reasonable proposition for improvement which either side might suggest, and be trusted that eventually they should arrive, with the general concurrence, at a final, conclusive, and at the srme time saf and satisfactory settlement of this most difficult and most important question.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY con,idered that the argument of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down abounded 1 0 inconsistencies and fallacies. The Hon. Gentleman bad warned them to look to the long-voyage trade and to their warehousing system. What did the Hon. Gentle man say? " you don't make some relaxation in your navigation-laws, the American ships will carry cotton into Russia." Was it not open now, he (Mr. Haeley) would ask, to America to do something in that way ? The Hon. Member, after adverting to the warehote. ,o s; system in this country, and to the observations of tile Hon. Member for Liverpool on that breech of the gees" tien, directed his attention to the argument of the lion- Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson), which also abounded, he said, in fallacies, and in which he (Mr. Wilson) cut his own throat, for his argument cut both ways. (Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman the Member for Westbury had thrown over altogether the question of reciprocity. He said that the fo' reign countries referred to had given us all they could give us. Well. if this were so, why did they resist the clause in the Bill in reference to reciprocity? Were they going to legislate a lie? The Hon. Gentleman thee contended that the commercial marine of this country had, under the navigation-laws, kept pace with the cow' mercial wants of the country. If this great experiment did not succeed, in what situation would this country he placed? Unless it did succeed, and unless the coal' mercial marine of the country could be upheld, the country would be placed in a most perilous position, 20 the event of an unexpected rupture taking place betwee n this country and foreign countries. He wished here 10 ask the Government what they intended to do with' respect to impressment? There was also another qua" tion which he wished to put to the Government. They did not propose to put the shipowner on the same footing as the foreign shipowner. How did he show this ? They relieved the British shipowner, it was true, as far as the apprentice was concerned , but they did not do so as regarded the man ning of the ship, therefore they did not place the British shipowner on the same level with the foreign shipowner, and the consequence was that the former would be placed in a false position. If the supporters or this Bill meant it to benefit the public and the British shipowners, as they said they did, why was it that they did not throw open the coasting trade? If that trade were thrown open, there could be little doubt but the consumer would gain by getting coals cheaper. If they were honest in their statement, that by allowing the shipping of foreign countries to come into competition with ours as regarded our foreign trade, we woug thereby increase our shipping, then the same principle must apply with equa l f orce to t h e s hi pping engaged in the coasting trade. Why, then, did they not throw that trade open? The truth was, that they were making an experiment in which they had no confidence, and they were therefore afraid to carry it out to the full extent , lest it should break down altogether. Was it therefore wise, when there was no immediate necessity for this measure, to which their largest commercial towns were opposed, to press it forward, and to do so merely tocarrf out the principle of free trade. Mr. dLAIiSTONE moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday next. Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the motion the understanding that no further adjournment iihouid take place. 111 i. KER made some remarks amid much noise Oa laughter, to the effect that he looked at the question as very doubtful one, and he could not give the Gown' ment much credit for having used any very great coil' sideration about it. Mr. DISRAELI inquired if the Noble Lord could O S make an arrangement more convenient to Hon. Memberi than the one proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman tilt/ Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the re' sumption of the debate on his resolutions. Lord J. RUSSELL would see before Wednesday if it were not possible to fix an earlier day than Thursday next. Mr. DISRAELI replied that Thursday would be s vury convf•rdent day. Lord J. RUSSELL could not say positively tha t Thursday would be named, as there were other motions which would have precedence. Mr. DISRAELI said, as the subject was one of grea t importance, he hoped, under the circumstances of tb e , cue, that Hon. Memb ers w h o h a d mot i ons would n e' object to postpone them in his favour. The Summary Conviction Bill was read a secorl,l time. • TITHES. Mr. HUME, in the absence of Mr. Aglionbit moved for returns "of all agreements for the corn' mutations of tithes, which have not been co 0; firmed by the Tithe Commissioners, in the several counties of England and Wales, specifying in each oes e the legal or other cause of hindrance or preventiot to the confirmation thereof, and how long such cause or hindrance or prevention has existed and continued, since the year 1836; like return of all awards for the cow' mutation of tithes not confirmed, with a like return of the cause of hindrance or prevention to the confirmation thereof, and how long it has existed since 1836; like return of all apportionments of rent charges which have not been confirmed, with the legal or other cause 0:!f hindrance to the confirmation thereof, and how long 1 $ has existed; and return of all parishes or townships, or separate districts, for the commutation of tithes, in which the tithes have n o t b een commuted, and the cause 0 f hindrance to the commutation:in each such parish, town' ship, or district since 1836." The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS• BRISTOL, Menai 9. ---- STOCK EXCHANGE. —The sales are—Caledonian, 23% ‘,"- t Western, Quarters, 2% dis. —Di tto, New, 2 dis.—Manchester Stock, 32' LIVERPOOL, 31.tacu 9. STOCK EXCHANGE. —The sales are—East Lancashire, caster and Yorkshire (late M. and B.), Fifths, 2% dis.—London a; , North-Western, 136 ex dlr.—Ditt o, Quarters, New, Cl. 85. 9d. ex' —Midland Stock, 80 ex di v .—Di tto, New Halves, 7% dis.--2(1:, castle and Carlisle, 103— S out h-E astern, 24% —Ditto (No. 4), Thu' 71. Bs. 9d.—Ditto (No, 4), Registered, 71. 3s. 9d.—York, Newca. 4l ; and Berwick (Extensio n N os. 1 and 2), 1% c. dis. ex (G. N. E. Purchase), 6 per cent. guaranteed, % die. MANCHESTER, MAitcn 9. 16 STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sale s are —W est Riding Union, 3 13-.. Sheffield, Old, 42 —Sheffi e ld an d Li ncoln, 14 dis.—North Weste r / 7% dis.—North Stafford s hi re, 2 15-16 dis.—Boston, Stamford. ail Birmingham, dis.—Dover (No. 4), 7 9-16— West Riding Un i o n ' s i. 13-16—Grimsby, Quarters, 7 di s. —L eeds, Fifths, 2% dis.— Preference, 10%. BIRMINGHAM, Melton 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Caledonian, Preference, 1 %,..P . —Midland, 81% ex di v.—Ditt o (Bi rm i ngham and Derby), 53 es —Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Irallley, 11% —Shrevr' . bury and Birmingham (A), dis. ex in. —Ditto, Preference, Sel: 41s. 3a. p.—Shropshir e Union,2 dis.-4outh Staffordshire, 3% d' GLASGOW, MAaca 8. STOCK EXCIIANGZ. —The followin g are to-day's transac ti ons Caledonian, Preference, 111. Is. W.—Edinburgh and Glasgow, 8,,„ 5 Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Halves (No. I) M , 6/. 16s.— - No. 2), 7—Great North of Scotland, 4s. 6d.-3Torth British, 1 64 York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Purchase or Preference) , "• TIIE NEWS VENDERS' BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION.' Yesterday evening a meeting of the general committee, and subscribers of the above institution, founded in 183 9 ' for the purpose of granting temporary relief and per manent assistance to masters and servants engaged 9' venders of newspapers, who, from age, infirmity, and dis tress. may require the aid of the benevolent, was held 0 the Newsvenders' Hall, Black Horse-court, Fleet-street , for the transaction of general business. The annual re port cpngratulated the members on the satisfactory Pre" press the society was making, whereby the committe e had been enabled to make their present funded stock ,to amount to 9501. Th ree per Cents. The receipts, 10; eluding the previous year's balance, subscriptions, sou donations, amounted to 140/. 17s. 2d. The expenditure was 118/. Bs. 9d., leaving a balance in the treasurers hands of 22/. Bs. sd. The report concluded with s° urgent appeal to the members of the trade to help the indigent, worn-out, and helpless newsvenders. COST OF WAR IN TIME OF PEACE.—In the first forty-five years of the present century, we had fourteen years of war and thirty-one of peace. We have a debt of 800,000,000/. accumulated by war, and yet we hay! expench,d 500,000,000/. in further war expenses, lastest' of paying off our unhappy obligations, And our preSefl l war expenditure in time p of peace is such, th a t it p would pay off the national debt in forty years, interest e]t eluded. If to the di rec t war expenditure we add the 11' direct--the interest upon our debt—we find th a t this would pay off the debt by instalments in less than twenty years.—Stamford Mercury. rADVERTISEMENT.j—THE EARL OF ALDBOROI7 4}II AND HoLtower's Pfu.s.—An astounding cure by this miraculoul: medicine, alter every other means had failed. See extract front 5 Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 184 f: Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that your pills have e' t fected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach which all the 0 °,.% eminent of the faculty, at home and all ever the continent, bad n" , been able to effect; nay, not ever tho waters of Varlshad or Af_.l l rienbad. (Signed) " ALDBOROUGH." These wonderful pills v , ;', cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also HelloWaY: Ointm.nt) at Profess o r H olloway ' s Esta bli shment , 244, Strand , an h. all medicine vendors throughout the civilised world. BIRTHS. On the Ist inst., at Park-villas, Holloway, the wife of John Steavenson, Esq., of a daughter. On the 3d inst., at Clifton, B r i s t o l , the wife of C. WilsonWilsonFaber, Esq., of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 6th inst., at Wivenhoe, Essex, W. V. Wright, of London, to Elizabeth, only daughter of the late Charles Foster Mustard, Esq., of Tendering. On the 7th inst., at the British Embassy, Brussels, Henri Pearson, Esq., of th e Mi ddle Temple, barrister-at-law, Lucy, eldest daughter of Horatio Vachell, Esq., late of Cotfold-hall, Essex. DIED. d On the '2th J anuary, at Moultan, Captain George lcL b .-e l Erskine, I s t R eg i ment Bombay Light Cavalry, fourth soil " the late David Erskine, Esq., of Cardross. On the sth inst., at Southampton-row, Russell-squa re ' Mr. Willi am Di xon, for many years in the Bank of Englan aged 63. On the 7th inst., Mrs. William Millidge, Strand, aged On the 7th inst., at Linchmere, near Liphook, Hants, the Rev. Richard Henry Baker, aged 64. On the 7th inst., at St. Andrew's-terrace, Plymouth, age d , 61, Elizabeth, wife of Rear-Admiral J. Coode, and 1 35 ' survi , ing (laughter of the late Vice-Admiral Sir Charle s Vinicombe Penrose, K.U.Lk, &c. On the 7th inst., at Cockspur-street, Sarah, relict of the late Abraham Phillips, Esq., formerly of Abergavennn Monmouthshire, aged 62. On the 28th ult., Selina, wife of John Warren, of Homertout aged 38. London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. ° f No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 111 Strand, in the Precinct of th e S avoy, i n t h e count? ° Middlesex, Saturday, March 10, 1349.