The Sun. — London, England, 1849-04-24 00:00:00

Mr. ROBINSON agreed with his Right Hon. Friend, that the answers from foreign nations, in reply to the invitations addressed to them, emeunts d to this, that if we repealed the navigation-laws, then we should see what they would do.—(Hear.) He could not see what commensurate advantage any foreign countries could give this country. The letter of Mr. Bancroft in the case of America might serve as a comment; that gentle man stated that America would reciprocate with this country, but it was well known that America never meant to give up their coasting trade. With regard to the application of the principle of free trade to agriculture, it was said that the depression of that interest was not owing to free-trade, but to other disturbing causes, such as the failure of the potato crop, which he allowed to a certain extent operated in that direction ; but he felt satisfied that when these disturbing causes ceased they would still experience depression. There could be no doubt that if these laws passed, although ship building would not stop altogether in this country, still it would be ersatly di minished. No one except Captain Stieing would hold the opinion that a mercantile navy was not essential to a Military navy. The plan of Captain Stirling was to have voluntary enlistment in the navy, and a shorter term of service—of three years. Now, that was altogether irn • practicable. His objection to the Bill was that it would throw open to foreigners the direct colonial trade, which he would no more allow them to participate in than ho would suffer them in the coasting trade Mr. Huskis son and Lord Cornwallis held the inter-colonial and fish ing trade to be essential to the maritime pre-eminence of this country. Much had been said by gentlemen oppo site of retaliation. He should like to know what country could retaliate upon this country without injuring itself. There was notsone of them which was not more depen dent on our markets than we were on theirs. Take the case of America, the most formidable rival we had. It appeared that more than half of the entire exports of that country were made to the markets of this country. In fact, we had nothing to fear from the retaliation of other countries. He wished to do away with monopolies, if other countries would imitate their example ; but since the time of Mr. Huskissou, now twenty-seven years, nothing of that kind had taken place. On looking over the evidence before the Committee, he found that seventeen of the principal merchants, connected with the East and West Indies, Australia, and other parts of the world, one and all declared, that they never rotted the least difficulty in obtaining freights at moderate prices. Ile was for forty years a merchant in the city of London, pretty actively engaged, and he could also testify to that fact, notwithstanding the new-fangled notions which had sprung up in this country of late years on that and other portions of their commercial system. The Manchester gentlemen thought every thing was to be sacrificed in order to set them and their spinning jennies at work—(A. laugh)—but he could tell them that every year the great commercial States of America were rivalling them more and more, either by drawing away their best artisans, or copying their works, and even France and Italy were not only supplying themselves with articles independently of Eng land, but determined to keep up a system of protection. Ile should give the measure every opposition in his power, and ardently hoped that it would be rejected by the Legislature. Mr. MeGREGOR would not have obtruded himself 1 upon the House on the present occasion were it not that be represented one of the greatest shipbuilding towns in the empire, and one of those most interested in com merce. In entering upon the discussion of this measure he must begin by saying that he did not complain of what the measure did for foreign ships, so much as of what it left undone for foreign ships. He was far from entertaining the opinion which others did, that dis astrous consequences would ensue from the passing of this Bill. At the same time he Wishe 1 that every re striction and burden which it imposed upon British ship owners should be removed, and he alluded to that clause especially which restricted British shipowners from man ning their ships in any way they thought best for their own convenience and advantage. He believed that was the only clause in the Bill which he would like to see altered. But there were other burdens upon the ship owners of this country—he meant the stamps upon ma rine insurances on bills of lading, and on other docu ments and instruments connected with the shipping interest. He should also wish to see that law abolished which interfered with the victualling of British ships. Re should also wish to see the lighthouses of this coun • try put upon the same footing with those in the United States, where the whole were in the hands of the Go vernment, and where their expense did not exceed half their amount in this country. If these restrictions were removed he feared no competition with other countries. Re would go further, and say he could not discover that the navigation-laws had at any one period been of ad vantage to the British shipowner and British shipbuilder. Mere than that, from their establishment up to 1815, this country had during the greater part of the time been engaged in war with other countries, and due. ing that whole period they were actually break ing the navigation-laws, for they captured ships from the enemy, and then it was considered that they strengthened the power of this country by regis tering them as B r i t i s h s hi ps. Now he could not see that there was the least difference between the British shipowner being allowed to buy a foreign ship and regis• ter her as a British vessel, and the British navy captur ing a foreign ship in war, and then having her registered With regard to our Norh American colonies, it was re markable that every subject of discontent between those colonies and this country had reference to the restric tions on trade, which lasted up to the period of the de claretion of war. He saw no reason now why they should dread competition with foreigners. In the case of neu tral ports, such as Porto Rico, Cuba, and the Brazils, he found that British ships contended tuecess'udy with the ships of every other country except those of Spain in the Spanish colonies, which gave a preference to Spani-h ships, by allowing a draw oack of 33 1-3 upon the duti• on goods imported in Spanish vessels. But on the other hand, England had her revenge with respect to Spain; for he found that those high duties were not equal to the advantages we possessed, in being able to send goods into Spain by way of Gibraltar. With regard to competition with the different countries of Europe, he would begin with Sweden and Nor way. Comparing their ships with British ships, he found tnat every article which entered into the constitution of a British ship, paid no duty except on the little foreign timber that entered into her construction, while the Swedish ships paid duty upon their cannon, their anchors, their cordage, their copper sheathing, and often came over to this country very slenderly equipped, in order to obtain the principal part of their rigging and stores here. It so happened that we had full and entire reciprocity with Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, before the navi gation-laws existed. It was true that there were more Swedish than British ships employed in the trade, but that was because our importations consisted of manufac tured goods, which required small tonnage, while the return cargoes were of great bulk, which made it not worth the while of British vessels to engage in the trade. But their ships had not greatly increased over ours, for he found that nearly the same proportions existed in 1702 as now. With regard to the Hanse Towns, they had always allowed the ships of every country in the world to come into their har bours with any cargo, not even imposing light-house duties upon them. And how did British ships stand at Hamburgh? lie found that there had been a gradual increase of British shipping, and that, taking one year with another, they amounted to one-third of the whole tonnage in that part. Then with regard to Prussia. Their ships were much on the same footing with Sweden. Their exportations also consisted of cargoes of heavy bulk, which made it not worth the while of British ships to engage in the trade. But he did not find that Prussian ships entered largely into competition with British ships where there were no navi gation-laws, such as Cuba and Porto Rico. By a refer ence to the trade returns fur the past quarter, ho found that the departures of British ships for various ports not British were constant and frequent; In Holland, British ships were subjected to no higher port charges than Dutch vessels. Freedom of trade and from the re striction of navigation-laws had been the rule in the Lsw Countries from the establishment of their power to the present time ; and if Holland prospered and grew great under a system of perfect free trade, he could not conceive why any other country, with eg.tal energy. equal enterprise, equal advantages, and positive and equal economy, might not defy competition with every country on earth.—(Hear.) In the l)utch settle ments in Java and Batavia the English had not the same advantages as the Hollanders; but the reason was that we subjected ,the produce of our Indian possessions to double dutia s. Let England remove the restrictions upon the trade of Holland with British India, and he was certain the Dutch would permit English vessels to trade with Java and Batavia upon equal terms with them selves. In Belgium there was the same desire to reci procate. As to France, he should say that the present commercial and maritime policy of the country was extremely illiberal. The arrangements entered into between Mr. Pitt and the then French Ministry, in 1793, were the most liberal ever known. But the breaking out of the war put an end to that state of thiee s , and it had never since bee n thoroughly restored. In Genoa the most liberal mar itime p olicy prevailed. With Rome and Tuscany nothing mid be i more liberal. Th e ki n gdom of the Two Sirsilp s al lowed British ships to trade on exactly the same terms as their own. In the por ts belon g ing to Austria on the Adriatic our vessels were allowed to enter on the same terms as Austrian. If he went further, he should point to Turkey, whore no restric tions whatever existed. And as to Russia, there our Vessels were allowed to enter their ports from all coun tries in the world exactly on the same footing as Bus 0-"nitli,,shiPs. He had thus gone through all the countries 1,;,,""e continent of Europe, and shown that in every 13 r e n i tt n ie n snh c ci e tire th at ey th t e r m ea ; ted the British much better than the co wilst, with regard to their power of they nr , la g with us inship-building, they might do so if the n th e possessed people more skilful and more economical cneap People of England. For they had labour er, Whilst our only advantage lay in having a __ price. Much better quality of timber than they had, and at a lees say that Upon the subject of timber, he should only oa , he hoped t o see the duty entirely removed from close`' At the ri s k o f ti r i ng th e Heusi), he could not States observations without alluding to the United of America. Ile took a much higher view of l e great republi c th an as a m ere opponent of England. _ .wished t o sec established between the United States and England all the bonds of social and material alli ance, the lie wished them to be considered as a peop'e of , same origin as the English, a people to a great ex te_ent profe ss i ng t h e same re li g i on, an d up to a very re• !_l3 period p ossess i ng a common hi story . I n t h e i r schools nearly the same lessons were taught as in those ngland, and by their fire sides mothers instilled into their children's minds the same moral instruction. An unrestricted mar i t i me an d commerc i a l a lli ance b etween the English and the United States was of far more im portance than it would be with any other. When it !as considered that in the year 1759 there was not a ' l ngle British merchant who possessed an acre of THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1849 . land in Halifax or Nova Scotia, nor up the River St. Lawrence to the Allegheny mountains, nor south of Georgia, and that no barque except the Indian 1 canoe navigat• d those immense tracts of waters, and that at preseet a population of 25 000,000, speaking the English language, inhabited those territories, there surely could be no doubt of the adv ►ntages that must at tend an unrestricted intercourse between the people of the two countries. The condition of the people of the United States was said to be physically and morally be yond that of the pe Tle of the United Kingdom. Why was it so ? llad the people of the United Kingdom de generated ? lie could not conceive that they had. And when they knew that labour was dearer in the United States than here, and that every article used iu ship building, except timber and sheathing copper, was dearer also—when it was notorious that their crews were, at all events, as well fed and as wk 11 paid as the crews of Eng lish ships, he thought that they need apprehend no thing whatever from the competition with the Americans in the navigation of the world.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WALL'OLE said that, looking at these naviga tion-laws historic:l,ly, they might be divided into four periods—from 1815 to 1825, from 1825 to 1835, and from 1835 to 1842. Comparing the tonnage of British vessels and the number of men a ith the tonnage and number of men in foreign vessels, th' y had increased in an equal ratio during the first period.—(llear.) The next change brought on the recirecity system of Mr. Huskisson, and again comparing the relative progress of British awl foreign shipping, the con clusion was, that these reciprocity treaties of Mr. Bus kisser, had been beneficial, and if so, why alter the system, and do away with the navigation-laws?—(Hear, hear.) There was a difference between alteration and abolition, and considering the vast amount of capital depending upon these laws, and considering the small fractional benefit which would result to consumers of sugar, cotton, and wool, they were not justified, econo• mically, in abolishing these laws. Whether they would materially profit by this proposed experiment was doubtful. There was a tonnage of four millions, an employment of men and boys to the number of 240,000, and freights amounting to between twenty-five and thirty millions a year, dependent upon the success of this measure. The magnitude of the interests affected should induce caution, and he would rather recommend altera tion than abolition —(Hear.) If the effect of free trade was not applicable to international carriage, although it might be to internal barter, the responsibility which the promoters of this measure took upon themselves was great. Ile now came to that part of the question which was most important. Last year Government brought on the measure upon evidence which was most important, and, as regarded the national defences, they relied solely upon one witness, Sir James Stirling. Was that the way to deal with a law which had been in existence for 150 years? The proposed measure would endanger their national marine, and a national marine was the foundation of national greatness.—(Hear.) According to the evidence of Sir Byam Martin, the dockyards could not supply a sufficient number of shipwrights, and upo❑ an emergency they were obliged to have recourse to private dockyards. Skilful shipwrights were absolutely necessary, if they meant to keep their navy in a state of efficiency. He then referred to the manning of the fleets, and to the evidence of naval officers, to prove that the victory of the Ist of June could not have been gained had it not been for the drafts of seamen from the mer chant service. It was asked, however, by Gentleman on the other side, Well, but will you keep your laws as they are ?" Hit answer would be that if there were de fects in the existing navigation-laws, lot them apply a remedy, which could be done without destroying the law. They were about to repeal the navigation-laws altogether, and allow the ships of foreign states to trade with British ports. Now, instead of doing so, he would retain the laws, and, under the power of relaxation, would enter into treaties with favoured nations, to give them certain advantages. lie could not consent, by his vote, to hazard an empire which ha 1 been gained by so much valour, and preserved by so much wisdom, which was more extensive than both the Americas, which had been cradled in its infancy by the genius of Blake, and consecrated in its culminatory point by the blood of Nelson—the empire of the sea.—(Cheers.) SirJ. GR AHAM said, when it was remembered that he had had the honour of presiding at the head of the'Admi ralty, and that certain Acts were brought forward by him while in that capacity, it would not be matter of surprise that he should be desirous of expressing his sentiments on the question before the House, especially as he had never ceased to take an interest in maritime affairs. Desirous as he (Sir J. Graham) was that this measure should pass into law, he could not but regard it as an auspicious omen that it should be brought in by the First Minister of the Crown, and the Member for the City of London.—(Hear, hear.) Reference had been made to petitions on the subject, and the name of Baring had been mentioned. Ha looked on the opposite side of the House, and he saw on the Treasury Bench the head of the Baring,s, and who had had the honour of being appointed by her Majesty to preside over the navy of England—(hear, hear)—a man of forethought, of extended views and of determination, and he could not think that gentleman would give his assent to a measure which would have the effect, as some anticipated, of injuring the commerce and the naval power of this country.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He then looked to the feeling exhibited in the outports, and how did the Members for Liverpool vote, and also the Members for Glasgow? Why they voted for the Bill. —(Hear, hear.) When a wish was expressed that commerce would speak, he would remark that the opinion of the trade and commerce of the country was to be taken from the representatives. Ile would now turn to the speech of his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole), who bad treated the subject under three ge neral heads, namely, historical, economical, and national. He (Sir James Graham) would follow his example, and first as to the historical part of the question. On that point he thought it was sufficient for him to go back to the period of the consolidation of the laws in the reign of Charles the Sec md. He looked to the origin of the law in that narrow mercantile system which proceeded on the principle, that what one nation gained most be gained at the expense of another. That was a principle which he thought was exploded, but it would seem from the course now pursued, that there was some attempt to renew it.—(llesr, hear.) It had been alleged that the effect of the Act of Charles the Second was to revive commerce. Now, he believed, that almost immediately after the passing of the Act in 1670, Roger Cook pub lished a tract for the purpose of proving that the passing of the navigation laws had operated to drive the trade to Russia and Finland, and greatly to diminish the trade of the country. Another writer (Child) wrote a treatise, showing that these laws had the effect of destroying the Baltic trade. Another writer on the subject, in 1750, said that the intention of the navigation-laws was to add to the number of seamen and to increase the tonnage of the shippiug, but the reverse had been the fact.—(Hear.) He would now refer to the great authority, on which so much reliance was placed—Adam Smith, speaking from memory, and taking the whole of the passage to which his Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole) had referred, he be lieved he was right in saying that Adam Smith was of opinion that the navigation-laws were inimical to commerce.—(Hear, hear.) He laid down the doctrine that the greater the number of sellers, the greater would be the ',umber of buyers ; but the effect of the navigation-laws was to do the reverse. Under their operation they bought in foreign markets dearly, and sold cheaply. On the economical part of the question, the Newton of' politics, as Adam Smith had been called, was against his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole). He would now come down to the period of the relaxation of these laws. Towards the period of 1824 and 1825 the pressure upon the commerce of the country became ex cessive, and it was therefore a question whether Govern ment should relax the operation of these laws, or whether they would permit the country to be excluded from the markets of Europe. In such a state of things the relax ation was forced upon them; it was not a m otter of choice, and although the shipping interest was opposed to it, the measure was carried. But still in the abstract he could not attach much importance to this sy-tetra of recipro city, because it made the interest of others the measure of their own. He had another objection to a clause which it contained. If reciprocity or retaliation were to be the general rule, he for one should say it was much better to leave the navigation-laws as they were, and not act on any such principle. Retaliation appeared to him to be this, that because some foreign nation did that which was more injurious to herself than to them, in a spirit of blind passion they proceeded to do that which was more injurious to themselves than to others.—( !leer, hear.) To retaliation, as a rule, he was opposed, but he was prepared to give his assent to this Bill, because, upon the whole, he was of opinion that, considering the large amount of capital which this country could engage in maritime speculations—considering also its advantages and superiority on the sea, he was satisfied that any mea sure which added generally to the commerce of the world would have the effect of enlarging greatly the commerce of this country, and that the lion's share would fall to their lot. In other respects the measure would he advan tageous, for the number of seamen would be increased, and commerce, in its numerous branches,increased. Every rea son that existed in 1825 for the repeal of these laws ex isted at the present time with at least equal force. He could not regard with indifference the invitations they had received from foreign Powers.—(Hear.) He would not again trouble the House with the passage from the Prussian Minister's letter of 1847, but he considered that unless they proceeded to make further relaxations, the exact type of their measures would be adopted by Prussia, and all their restrictions be returned by retalia tion. They treated America with greater severity than she treated them. Their treaty with Russia would expire in 1851, and if they had any desire to continue their terms of friendship their conditions must be re viewed. As to the United States, it was not necessary to have any The United States had fri given na e s l c ag o sr a te s yn t coasting i n th . ot th o e nly . to Great Britain, but the world at large, that , a law with r tr e e s a p t e ) c . t w , trade, which was not ‘‘ n ' o lt w h a thm t . iss e u x e c , e w p d t h io a ll tev o e b r i ); h a another etrh those euntry countries.shou should be In the granted he ev i e evidence once, g and as of to t important he s view presenteds t a te before the Committee, there w as a by a witness with referencemost Z o! e l v i rein. T certainly h te w founded apprehension, waser ti t l adhered to the rigour of thetr navigation-law's, to I it w L ' m dl u r b g e h c , B o ni r e e Br art emen, a o n i Cl iottsh policy other places. to k extend. T e eer a t B s s 2 e 6 l a: passage in a speech delivered by Mr. Husoil s ine which contained, in brief, all that he could ay . upon this subject, and which appeared to him to contain the these fate of this argument. Every impediment which lawsnpen its offered growth, to the and n courselagnitoefdetreafdethwaats peawecrheeckn which their naval magnitude tefrleie depended. The real ques tion was this—woulsi the repeal of the narigation-laws injure their commercial mat ine, which was the mainstay of the Royal Navy? If he thought there were any serious apprehensions arising on that point he should not vote for this Bill, but not entertaining a doubt upon it he had made up his mind to support it.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the Umber for Oxford had laid down two principles, both of which he maintained with consummate ability—first, that commerce was the foundation of the commercial marine; and, secondly, that ships did not create commerce, but followed it. When they gave facility to the free importation of navig n ation-laws, in 1847, gatitm-1 a aw s difficulty h ey arose ‘,, upon e euli t i h m e a tely operation suspended thef with regard to corn. The suspension produced the rffMct which was intended, by diminishing the price of all the corn incident upon a large importation. And were Prussia, Russia, and America the carriers? So far from their being so, the ships of Great Britain imported it in a much larger ratio than those of any other countries; and as to the number of British seamen, returns showed that they had increased during the interval. The ab surdities which prevailed in these laws with respect to the prohibitions of importations from certain ports abroad constituted same cf the principal objections to them. Thus, a merchant could not bring a cargo of cochineal from the Canary Islands, because they were deemed, for all the purposes of the Act, to be a part of Africa. So with regard to an importation of Ma deira wino from Lisbon. Then, again, Bordeaux was the greatest emporium of dyes and gums, the produce of the French territory of Senegal; yet the merchant could not bring over the smallest quantity of them.— (Hear, hear.) The same rule applied also to Antwerp, Amsterdam, llolland, and all the Orientaland ikoch goods; and he was satisfied that the impediments to the free course of trade, as experienced by the mer chants of this country under the navigation laws, con stituted a loss to them which must be compensated for by charging extra prices to the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) So that the indirect effect of these restrictions it was impossible to estimate.—(Hear, hear.) Passing from merchants to manufacturers, the Hoe. Member for Manchester was anxious, on behalf of his constituents, for the growth of cotton in India. The native Indians fought their battles in the field, with a heroism which rendered them not unworthy of an alliance with British soldiers. Hindoo seamen and lascars, when a full com plement of men could not be obtained, helped to man their ships, but had to be sent back to India at the ex pense of the consignee, because the laws did not recog nise them as British seamen.—(Hear, hear.) Let them take the instances of wool and copper from Australia, or of cotton from New Orleans. It frequently happened that when the demand in Great Britain for these com modities was intense, the navigation-laws stepped in and offered an impediment, while the importation was most desirable. Their manufacturers were in this way placed under great disadvantages, but the law did not stop there. It imposed still greater ones. It allowed fre quently an importation of the manufactured, but not of the raw material. Thus, they would not allow the im portation of foreign wools from Europe, though they allowed it when made into furniture, very mischievously to the interests of the manufacturer in this country.— (Hear, hear.) With regard to the effect on the colo• 'nes, the Honourable Member for Stamford had objected that the colonies had not remonstrated generally. He thought that Australia had remonstrated, Ceylon cer tainly had, and Trinidad for very cogent reasons. Ja maica, a year or two ago, was well known to have done so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And from what had since taken place, there seemed to be no reason to doubt that it intended to do so.—(Hear.) It appeared to him that no time should be lost in passing the Bill; because as it was not possible to retain the Canadas, for instance, by unnecessary restraint, having placed their produce in the market on terms of equality with that of America, if they did not put their means of importation on the same equality, they must not be surprised to find them availing themselves of any means of resistance they had. Mr. Bancroft, in his history of the American States, said that the navigation laws contained the seeds of American independence. Mr. Huskisson confirmed that opinion, and illustrated it by another topic, viz., the resistance made by the Irish to the attempt to put Ireland under this navigation law; so odious and degrading did they consider the exemption in reference to themselves. That was a warning which they would do well to keep in mind. He would now briefly inquire whether these laws were favourable to shipping. First, the shipowner was prevented from making repairs at a foreign port beyond the rate of 20s. per ton ; and there were several enactments, vexatious in their operation, with respect to operatives. The British sailor did not derive benefit from them, on the contrary, he would im prove his condition by that repeal. He was convinced that seamen would receive higher wages after the repeal, and that in other respects his situation would be more tolerable. There remained now only the British con sumer to consider, is speaking of the probable results of this measure. As a consumer of luxuries, the price to him of tobacco, spirit, &c., was enhanced. Upon the whole, looking at the great classes of this community, he was convinced that these navigation-laws were not conducive to their interest.—(Bear.) At one time it appeared desirable that British shipping should be built at Bombay, in relation to:economy, the: rate of wages being extremely low there ; and when ho had the honour of being connected with the Admiralty, he recollected the question arose, whether it would be cheaper to build ship. in England or at Bombay; and it was resolved, all things considered, that it was cheaper to build them in England. In the carrying trade their shipping was all over the world, and in Hamburgh, in 1847, the number of British ships was double those of Hamburgh and Bre men. In 1824 the British shipping in foreign ports was 64 per cent., and by a recent return it increased from 64 to 83 per cent. He did not agree with an Hon. Friend of• his its the views which he took of this subject in rela tion to considerations of economy, holding as he (Sir James Graham) did, that monopoly in shipbuilding was as ot•jectionable as any other description of monopoly.— Hear.) He could not but refer to the opinions of Mr. George Young on this subject. That gentleman had :aid that he felt clnvinced that the capital employed in shipping had produced a smaller amount of return for the last 25 years, than in any other branch of industry in this country; and his Right lloaourable Friend, the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), had said, if ever a change were to be made, that the pres en t was the time to make it. Now, coals were imported into this country duty free; cotton was imported into it duty free; wool was imported into it duty free; every article of first necessity was imported into it duty free; the trade with China was extended; and, if wages were diminished, it should not be forgotten that, coincidently with those things, the price of every article of fool was diminished. lle (Sir James Graham) therefore said, there never was a time when a change could be made with less injury to the shipping interest. In the whale fishery, it appeared that they had exhausted the Arctic se-,s, and a gentleman who bad been engaged largely in that trade—Mr. Enderby—was about to betake himself, on considerations of saving, to the Antarctic regions, and to locate himself there, and to strike and ply his har poon in the frozen seas. So much for the state of the shipping interests. lion. Gentlemen, and more par ticularly the Member for Stamford, had stated that the proposed measure would prove fatal to agri cultural and commercial interests, and one Hon. Gentle man had said that the working classes would suffer ex tremely by it. Now, if that was the opinion of those Gentlemen, he could not for a moment account why they did not at once bring the question before the House.— (Hear,hear.) If it was necessary to retrace their steps, why such delay? The Right Hon. Baronet having re ferred to opinions delivered ley Lord Stanley on the first evening of the session, in opposition to the doctrines and measures of free trade—doctrines against which the Noble Lord protested—and against which he called upon those who thought with him to make their election, re marking, that he was the uncompromising supporter of protection, proceeded to say, that the measure which the House was now discussing was the necessary column to the capital of the measure of free trade; here issue was joined, and here the struggle must take place, between reaction on the one hand and free trade on the other. He was now dealing with the political views of the question, and all tho-e historical and economical views of it were, in his mind, as light as dust in compa rison; and so tar from regretting the part which he had taken in the matter and advancement of free trade, he most firmly believed that the peace and tranquillity of this country and the safety of their institutions, in the year just past, were attributable to the measure to which he had just alluded.—(Hear, hear.) Ile was satisfied that the idea of going hack to protection would, if at tempted to be put into practice, prove a dangerous expe riment, leading to inevitable convulsion and its conse quences. At all events, his part was taken; he was opposed to reaction and favourable to progress, and on those grounds it was that he should give his most un qualified support to the measure now before the House, and expressed a hope that it would be successful.—(Hear, hear, and enthusiastic cheers, amidst which the Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat.) Mr. T. BARING agreed that it was necessary to apply practical remedies to practical grievances. As one of the mercantile classes, he felt that restrictions were injurious to trade, and that it was a desirable object that the importing merchants should have the liberty of importing what they thought proper. The difficulties of the question were very great. The Hon. Member referred to a treaty which we entered into with Austria, the operation of which was much to the disadvantage of the shipping interest of this country, and said the ques tion now was, whether the repeal of the navigation-laws was desirable and necessary. It had been said that the colonies had memorialised in favour of repeal; but he denied that—he denied that the Mauritius and several other colonies had memorialised for it; and with respect to what had been said in relation to the feeling of the West Indies on the subject, he was glad to say gtphlretuii their threats th sititih-ha a le,ra t reawea a change n. s_tds; and iinnd.rawe a Russia, there.—(Hear, had he taken a r.With) place respecti n the o Portugal, opi nion at he tongut oa must rtahn s et a e y e h ha maintenance e t w h o e ul d d id aos n fk o : t hhea regard dnatyhie. G rh o oa v ise e rt powersh n e m r e e n a t n , i yv n vt oh t u h i nl e dg e n v i on e tn the hu o et f t Bill rep r tn e h a or l wo o a b f t seth oseinto et l hx a ce w c uH s tio t ou h ns a e? t that would give them a guarantee aga i nst those threats? What were the principles of the Bill? The removal of all restrictions from foreigners, and the maintenance of all restrictions affecting English shipping intereats —the taking from British shipowners what they pose sessed of advantage, and the granting unto those who had nothing to loco and nothing to give, facilities in carrying on trade in a spirit of competition against them. Sweden, for instance, was one of those powers. IA us take Holland next. What does she give? The trade with Java is in the hands of a commercial com pany, and they might decline agreeing with the propo sition of this Government—yet England could not refuse Sweden or Holland the terms of this Bill. R e was free to admit that much benefit would accrue to this country if the United States would coincide, accord inee to the representation of Mr. Bancroft, with the pro posit o vernment; but the cont rar y i s now beyondplaceidonso f His opinion, and he beli eve d t h e opinion of the co untr y , was a g ainst this measure, an d he, that the mercantile marine, the great nav al bulwark of the , nation would not be totally over - therefore, hoped the doubt. Government; looked by those w _ w ho were determined to support th e third reading of thi s Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL said—lf I feel any difficulty - in addressing the Reuse upon the present occasion, xt arises from the consciousness that the whole argument 1 in favour of ttie Bill now before the House has been exhausted by the masterly speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon.—(fleer, hear.) He went so completely through the argument, and touched on all parts of it in so convincing a manner, and he has been so little answered by the Hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that I feel great difficulty in addressing the House on this subject. Nevertheless, having a deep sense of the importance of this question, and feeling that, after a year of delay, after an inquiry by a Com mittee of the House of Commons, and by a Committee of the House of Lords, and after the measure has been twice recommended in the speech from the throne, it is high time that our deliberations on this subject should end in a settlement of this question, I sin induced to address the House before it goes to a division on the subject. I was glad tai hear the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last admit in a somewhat different spirit from that evinced by the Honourable and Learned Member for Midhurst that all restrictions of themselves required defence; that there must be a strong case made out for them; and that consequently the burden of proof lies on those who attempt to support them. Every one, I think, must admit that it is no crime for a person to wish to bring wool from Australia to supply our manu facturers in a Bremen ship, and that there is no moral guilt in attempting to bring hides from Holland, and na turally no sin in attempting to introduce America cotton from Havre. The only crime, teen, must consist in the violation of your prohibitory law, and that prohibitory law must require strong grounds for its defence. — (Hear, hear.) This question has been treated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst in a speech of great ability as one to be divided historically, economi cally, and nationally; but I do not think that on any of these grounds there is a sufficient defence for the present state of the law. I am aware that the law has been al most worshipped as the charta maritima of this country and that much of its prosperity and commerce has been attributed to the law, and that it has been thought profanation to alt• r it. But in my judgment that opinion is founded in error, and at no time has this law been essentially advantageous to this country.— (Hear, hear.) Let us look to its origin. Did it arise from any views of commercial wisdom, or from any of those views of protection which are now said to be so conducive to our prosperity? It arose from a wish on the part of the Protector Cromwell, inspired on the occa sion by the enmity and indignation of St. John against the Dutch, to cripple and destroy the commercial marine of Holland; and so little did the law answer in any other view that the Right Hon. Member for Ripon quoted correctly Roger, Coke, and various other writers who followed in the course of a century, showing that the na vigation laws, in a commercial point of consideration, were most injurious to this country.—(Hear, hear.) Whether it was our interest to destroy the navigation of Holland at that time we need not now much discuss; but we do know that 40 years afterwards it was the chief ob ject of our policy to maintain the power of Holland, and effect with that country the most close and intimate alliance.—(Hear, hear.) What was the next effect which we find produced historically by the navigation-laws and the restrictions connected with them. We find that the vexatious and intolerable nature of these restrictions provoked the loyal and attached friends of the British connexion in America to resistance.—(Hear, hear.) What next was the effect of regulations of a similar kind? You prohibited Ireland from trading with any of your colonies. You fettered her by the most severe re strictive regulations; you produced resistance in Ireland; and it was only by abandoning those regulations that you succeeded in pacifying Ireland. I say, therefore, that in a historical point of view the provisions of the navigation-laws have been mischievous, and not condu cive to her welfare. Then, Sir, in an economical view, I think there is almost a confession—a confession by the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, a confession by the chief of those authors who have defended the system —that, economically, the regulations must be injurious, that these restrictions must tend to diminish the wealth of the country, and that no other defence can be found for them but their tendency to promote our naval power. I need not, therefore, go into the various matters in which the present laws are injurious. These have been shown in evidence before the Committee. They have been shown, in various instances, to have delayed and obstructed the commerce of this country. But then it is said, that whatever may be the injury which our commerce has suffsred,t however unwise those restric tions may be in a commercial point of view, they have tended to keep up a commercial marine, from which the sntarveyngotfh. so this country I th h i a n s h derivedthere are its many reasons resources and for doubting that assertion; and I call it an assertion be cause, after all the argument and all the evidence from men of high naval authority, or from persons of high economical authority—from Adam Smith—from those who have taken part in this debate, I see nothing like regulations; I see nothing proof that our navy hasderimveodreittshasntreanngathssferrotmionththosee t here are regulations which tend to monopoly, and, therefore, they must bo beneficial to the commercial other ( L o ud hand, cries are o f t " h l e l e r , a e ' the truth of this assertion. In the first doubting a r' so h n e s ar io " r ) in stance, there is the character of oar people, eminent:). I m , e a t r marine seeof this what, co o u n n country.—(Loud attached to naval pursuits, readily embracing the marine as a profession distinguished among the nations of the world as a naval people. I own I was astonished to hear the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last, complain that if we pass this Bill, we oblige the shipowners of this country to employ interior woikinen.—(Hear, hear.) I ask him, why inferior workmen ? (flear, hear.) I am ted I that a great portion oe . the commercial marine of the United States, of which many are so jealous, con sists of the se very Britie li seamen whom you now call inferior workmen.—(hear, hear.) What is it, then, that has made the masters and the seamen of our British commercial marine in any way inferior ? What is it that has tended to cripple their energies, or to diminish their skill ? What can it be but the constant invariable effect of protective lives—(Heer, hear)—and of telling men " Do not trust to your own energies, do not trust to your own powers, because, in default of industry—in default of skill —we will give you a law which will protect you against all competition ?" (Hear, hear.) And yet, in spite of these "inferior workmen," we know, that in 1848 236,000 men belonged to the commercial marine of England—(Hear, hear)—we know—we must know that that is not a number which could be produced ( hear.) But what is the among a nation th at was not essentially a nat i on l ov i ng the marine as a p ra f ess i on, and eminent among t h e na tions in that r es p e ct.—Hear, next reason? W e were told, I remember, a b out 1824 and 1826, that M r . H uskisson had introduce d measures which would totally ru i n tho commerc i a l mar i ne o f thi s country—(Hear, hear)—that the shipping must be ut terly destroyed—(Hear, hear)—that the state of distress was something which had scarcely ever been paralleled, and that it was owing to his measures. Now those measures did, to a very great degree, introduce com petition with other nations; they gave reciprocity in some instanc es — t h ey did away w i t h restr i ct i ons without reciprocity in others; and what has been the consequence? I h ave here the tonnage o f t h e Bri tish empire as it stood in 1523, in 1840, and in 1849—1 will trouble the House with only those num bers; our tonnage in 1823 was 2,506,760, in 1840 3,226,681, in 1849 4,052:160. That is the mode in which the tonnage of this empire has increased under this sys tem of modified competition. In the same period the number of men employed has risen from 165,000 to 236,000. I say this is a reason for believing that we can stand Competition, and that we may go further in that courses—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Midhurst (Nit.. W a lp o l e ) a d m i tte d t h at t h e p l ans o f Mr. Huskisson wer e successful, that there h a d b een a great increase in the amount of tonnage and number of men, but he said—" As yo u have been so successful , stand where you are ; you have succeeded, you are going on well, and therefore be contented with the position t which you have reached." Now that is not modemy I considering questions of this kind.—(Hear, .hear.) and at direction, and it has been eminently successful, that is the same time has been a cautious experiment,. . the same direction — consider that if you have made an experiment in one a reason for going further in still as I trust, with greater hear)—to be attended, we have already taken than the measures that taken —Meat-, hear.) I have mentioned two grounds for confidence that our commercial marine will not be (Hear, hear)—a reason for greater progress— (Hear, injured by the proposed repeal of the navigation laws. I go to another ground, to which I do not see that there can be an answer. It is, that not only is this amount of tonnage employed and this number of men in the trade of the United Kingdom, but a great portion of it is employed in a trade in which we have no protection whatever—in the carrying trade to Russia, to Trieste, and to parts of Austria, where we meet the other nations of the globe, and where those nations, be they Swedes or be they Americans, if they have such an ad vantage as is said, would drive us out of the trade and disable us from such competition.—(Hear, hear.) I do not really see what answer there can be to this state• ment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Hew is it that some say that the Swedes and Norwegians navigate so cheaply and are paid such very low wages, and the same gentleman, or others, say that the Americans receive such high wages, and their ships are manned so well, that they must beat us? Whatever the case is, we are told that the British shipowner, the British master, is to be beaten. I believe, on the other hand, that, with the energies of this country left completely free, you have not to dread the competition of any nation upon the globe.—(Hear, hear.) I believe—and I by no means regret—that foreign shipping will increase, as it has increased in past years ; but I believe that British shipping will increase in a manner com mensurate, or probably in a greater proportion, and that the only result will be a general increase in the com merce of this country and of the world.—(Hear, hear.) t l d iann rho h o but spoke I was last, a h s a t p . We are t o ld th a t th e manner i n wh i ch wo have proposed this Bill is a concl us i ve argument against our suo ceee g ;happy that the don ht, with honourablehis expe rience, - rience, has considered the measure in all its details, fully concurred in the ' opinion we entertain, that a Bill framed on strict grounds of reciprocity— a 13ill declaring that you must follow other nations in every particular—would lead into inextricable difficul ties, and that it would not have been wise to propose it. —(Hear.) If that is the case, what other course could h t we take, with our opi n ions, th an p ropos i ng a total repeal impose o w Righte uponil !lave r u e by s— . Hon. of these laws, leaving it to the Q ueen i n Council to exer cise a po we r, if it s h a ll be th oug h t fi t, of imposing upon (oouutihrrea present .) nation slo larwc retainings r I ic t h i nt quites that agree with tpower, which theywi which Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), that in ordinary cases when you attempt to impose a restriction, because a re striction is imposed upon you, you are injuring yourselves more than obtaining any benefit; but there are cases where the restriction may be put on from national rivalry and national animosity, cases is which in former instances we have succeeded by putting similar restrictions on other nations; and therefore I think the Crown should not be deprived of that power. But in many cases, such as the instance which has often been referred to, of the colony of Trinidad, 1 believe you Might Very ogely give to Trinidad the trade with Venezuela in ships not built in Venezuela, and which are prohibited from trading with Trinidad by the present navigation-laves, even though you can have no equivalent advantage on the other side.—(Hear, hear.) We are told that we shall not obtain from foreign nations similar advantages. The information that I derive from the papers laid before Parliament is of a totally different kind.—(Hear, hear.) I conclude that, with respect to the greater part of the nations of Europe and of the world, we shall obtain fair and equal terms of navigation with those countries, pro vided we are ready to give those terms to them.—(Hear.) Nobody can doubt it with regard to the United States of America; no one can doubt it with regard to Prussia, er Russia, or Austria. Indeed, I think the nations which will not be prepared to give those equal terms, reduce themselves to some three or four—to France, Spain, and Belgium, and perhaps one other ; the list can hardly be extended beyond that.—(Hear, hear.) But lot us take the opposite case—let us take the case that this Bill is re jected, and that you wait for some years before you take any measure; what will be the case then? Prussia has told us (I do not consider it a threat, I consider it a fair declaraticn), " If you continue these restriction, if you think them wise, I will copy your wisdom, and give you the same terms that you give me." I cannot see that there is anything offensive in that, or that we have any reason to complain of such a declaration.—(Hear, hear.) Russia has already proclaimed the same thing ; she -has proclaimed, with regard to other nations, that she will impose upon them the restrictions they impose upon her shipping, but she will not do ',so with regard to England because she has a treaty with England; and how long does that treaty last? It expires in 1851; and from that time Russia will be at liberty to impose restrictions upon us. Is it wise to wait till you are subject to them, and then endeavour to negotiate in order to take off those restrictions on both sides?—(Hear.) I remember that Mr. Huskisson held a very different, and, I think, a much wiser doctrine? I have here the words which he used, after speaking of what is now called the " threat from Prussia," and the conduct likely to be adopted by her, he said—" The immediate lesson which I derive from it is this, that it is a part of political wisdom, when danger is foreseen, not supinely to wait for its approach, but, as far as possible, to take timely measures for its pre vention."—(Hear, hear.) That is the course that we are now taking.—(Hear, hear.) We are told that there is no popular cry for this measure—that there is no de• mend for it on the part of public opinion; but I think we are bound, if we see such dangers before us, if we have the information which enables us to judge, not to wait till the people of this country come to us complain ing and saying—" Our navigation is subject to restric tions, you knew that it would be so, you might have prevented it, it was your duty to settle these questions, but you have allowed this to come upon us, and you are to blame for the injury we are suffering."—(Hear, hear.) I ask the House, then, to agree to this Bill, and to endeavour to procure a settlement of this question. —(Hear.) I am the more impressed with the necessity of arriving at the settlement we propose, from the considerations which have been adverted to by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). He has quoted the statement of a Noble Lord, that, with respect to protec tion, we ought to retrace our steps. We know very well, not only that this is a declaration from a person of high authority and in a commanding position, but that in many parts of the country, from certain classes, a cry has been raised for a renewal of protection, not upon any trifling article, not upon any imported goods, with re spect to which the great mass of the people of this country can be indifferent, but they have asked at once for a renewed duty on the import of food.—(Hear, hear.) Now I beg Hon. Members to consider what would be the probable consequences of any attempt of that nature. — I am reminded of abet the Right Hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his speech, when he stated that we were making agitators ; and he called upon us not to promote agitation, or irritate the minds of men. Now the agitation and irritation produced by our proposal to re peal the navigation laws are not very considerable or very alarming—according to the opinion of any one. But if we were to declare that we were about again to impose a tax upon food ; that we were not satisfied with the low price of corn, then, I believe, we should have an agitation and an irritation of a very different description.—(Loud cheers.) I believe that you would then have the mass, the great mass of the people who are now quiet and contented—(lronical cheers from the Protectionists, and counter cheers from the Ministerial benches)—l again repeat it, " who are now quiet and contented," and I rejoice that they are enabled—with regard to articles both of necessary food, and of those slight comforts which they enjoy—that they are enabled to purchase them at lower rates than perhaps they have been able to procure them in the memory of man in this country—ot any one now living. I believe that if you were to proclaim that you were about to impose a tax upon the importation of corn, that these classes would agitate from the fear of the suffer ings which they would have to endure, and of the scarcity which you by your legislation would attempt to expose them to.—(Cheers.) Who would feel the benefit of such a state of thing? The farmers, you tell us, are asking for a duty upon corn. If that duty were small an advantage would be gained to the revenue. But a protection, to be effsc'uil, in the opinion of the farmers, must not be the protection of a small duty, and no benefit would be derived from it. If any benefit is to be derived by them we aro told it must be by a high duty; but is it imagined that there could be imposed upon the nation a high duty upon corn ? In the present state cf this country does any man imagine that, even although this House, by a ma jority of four to ono should pass such a law, and if it should pass the House of Lords without a dissentient voice being raised against it, does any one believe that such a law could be maintained and enforced in this country?—(Loud cheers.) Well, Sir, then I ask this House, do not, by the rejection, give a signal fur fresh 1 and renewed agitation on the subject of the corn-laws. Like the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, I rejoice in the tranquillity with which we passed through a year remarkable in its revolutions and con vulsions, in almost every country in Europe. I believe that there were three things that contributed mainly to your tranquillity, to the preservation of confidence, and to the loyalty of the people. I believe that the first of these causes was the attachment of the people to the form of their own ancient institutions, and in the next place that it was very much owing to the removal of those grosser abuses in the representation of the people which the Reform Act proposed and carried under the Admi nistration of Lord Grey.—(Hear.) I believe that if you had had such flagrant abuses as Gatton and Old Sarum that what might have been a call for reform would have swelled into a cry for revolution.—(Hear, hear.) I be lieve the third reason why the people were so tranquil during the agitation of the past year was that the grievances which they felt from the high price of food, caused by your legislation, bad been removed, and that by the Act of 1846 there had boon removed all the im pediments by which the people were prevented from pro curing that food as cheaply as it could be introduced from every foreign nation.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that to these three circumstances you aro indebted mainly for the position in which you stand—a position which is gratifying t every native of this country—and a posi tion which is conspicuous among all the nations of the world. I ask you to maintain that position by the met us by which you acquired it.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) I ask you not to refuse a reform which is pointed out by reason which is the result of inquiry and which is in conformity with the principle that Parliament has already deliberately adopted. If, on the other hand, you announce that you are about to purses the course of re-action, and if you induce men to think that yc u doubt of the soundness of those princi ples that you have adopted, if the opinion prevails that the shipping interest is not alone to be left as the sole protected interest in the country, and that you are about to restore that protection which Parliament has taken away, then I say you will be giving the signal for an agitation of which indeed you may have been proved of having commenced the operation, but of which you will not see the end without the deepest regret and sorrow.— (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—There are only two considerations which lead me to address the House at this late hour (a quarter past twelve), and these aro the general desire of the House that the debate should terminate to-night— (Cheers)—and the remembrance on my part that I shall not trouble them for more than a few minutes. I have on another occasion entered more fully, with the indul gence of the House, in the discussion of this great ques tion; and I now only take the liberty of venturing to express the general feeling with which I shall give my vote on this occasion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon has told us that he considers the motion before the House to be in short the capital which is to be placed on the column that we have been so long engaged in raising. But if the column that we have raised be one that, in the symmetry of its outline and the general beauty of its design, has somewhat disap• pointed our expectation; if it is found when we have raised it that it does not realise the expectations of our creative fancy, then we may fairly hesitate before we in cur the additional outlay of raising an expensive capital upon a column of an ill-fashioned design.—(Cheers.) This is an oratorical illustration which placed the matter in its right light. The Government measure appears to be brought forward to realise a theory.—(Cheers and a laugh.) You are called upon to deal with an important interest not from any popular appeal, or apprehensions of a great national grievance, but because. you are told that the repeal of the navigation code of England is to complete a great experiment. But we say that the time which has been appealed to this evening has tested that experiment. We believe and imagine that that experi ment has failed, and the argument which you urged with such effect twelve months ago in favour of a pro position which was necessary to complete an experiment that bad not then failed does not tell this session with the same effect when the Right Honourable Member for Ripon, who denied that reaction could ever occur, admitted that reaction and progress were analagous, and when the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) has deprecated a change of the agricultural system in con• sequence of the distress and discontent which he said it would occasion. —(Cheers.) You have brought forward your plan on theory, and it is necessary you should have a case to support it. What did you du? You made a case. With a foregone conclusion you nominated a Cou mince of inquiry, a Committee wh i c h you will permit me to say, has not conducted its investigations manner which has generally ra ised the character of the But Committees of this House. — (Hea r, hear.) B have you had this Committee of inquiry—no sooner sooner n soeneerisior had i j it gone about collecting eviden ce to u that had already been adop ted, thanitst_iwyasa decision that the case was not sufficien tl y substantiated by the incon venience which you alleg ed the commerce of this coun try was enduring. It was, therefore, necessary to give another colour to the changes which you were about to bring forward, and ultimately (I think I state it fairly), your case, which was to justify you with practical men, as your theory was to justify you with theoretical men, rested upon three positions—commercial inconve nience, colonial discontent, and foreign menace. t w elve months elapsed, and this subject was very deeply audj corefµlly considered, We are now zeta pm. Qui, patent to form an opinion than we were two years ago, and how doss the case stand? Your theory has blown up, and your cam has broken down.—(Laughter.) Your first case of commercial inconvenience was said to be in the high freights which were paid by the con sumers in England, in consequence, as you said, of the restrictions placed upon the shipping by the navigation laws. But the last thesis we heard maintained by an Hon. Member, who is supposed by some Gentlemen to be a great authority—l mean the Hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) was, that these restrictions have not raised freights at all.—(A laugh.) It has been shown that the cases in which they have that effect are exceptional cases. I did not expect to hear again until I heard from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Ripon, to night, of the celebrated cochineal case. " Ground nuts," I believe, the R ght Hon. Gentleman forgot.—(A laugh.) But he told us himself how these petty and exceptional inconveniences could be met. One Gentleman had given us to-night a list of enumerated articles which may be applied to the long voyage trade, to remove all those inconveniences. When the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for the Ueiver.s ty of Ox ford (Mr. Gladstone), emitted to bring forward those propositions which we all looked for, I was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman say, on the authority of some anonymous paragraph, that it was quite evident the shipowners would never consent to any change. I rep% t ted to hear that observation made by the Right Hon. Gen tleman, because I know it has produced a very injurioue ef fect in many quarters, giving evidence on the part of the shipowners of this country of bigoted obstinacy, and, coming from so high an authority as the Right Hon. Gentleman, naturally not b, ing double f for its accuracy. —(Hear.) I happen to hold in my hand the last report of the Shipowners' Society, dated the sth of March of this year; and what do I read in the conclusion of their address to the people of this country? They here ex press their readiness to discuss, at the proper time, fully and impartially, all questions bearing on the practical amendment of the navigation-laws—they consider them selves precluded from now offering any special sugges tions; but guided, they observe, by principle, they avow they will be ready hereafter frankly to state their opi nions, impartially to weigh those, of others, and to con cede with liberality when they cannot convince on all points not involving fundamental principles.—(Hear, hear.) Now, after such an expression of opinion, so recently made by so important a society on this sub• ject, I must express ny surprise that the Right Honour able Gentleman should have lent the high authority of his justly influential name to the expression of an opinion of so contrary and injurious a character.— (Hear, hear.) Well, then, what comes of the case of colonial discontent? I cannot understand, though I have listened with great attention to this debate, that the instances adduced this year on that head much enrich the factitious case of the Government. True it has been shown, and no one has denied, that there was on the part of the English colonies, a feeling more or less diffused that the repeal of the navigation-laws would operate some advantage in their favour. The Hon. Baronet referred to the memorial from Australia—a memorial which I believe has never been presented to the House. It is not a new document. I alluded to it last year in some observations I took the liberty of making, because it so happened that in consequence of that memorial I received from the harbour-masters of the ports in that part of the world statements which were afterwards given on oath before the House of Lords, from which it appeared that between the Ist of January, 1846, and the 30th of June, 1847, sixty-one ships cleared from London for Sydney, of which eighteen loaded with a cargo home, and the other forty three proceeded to other places in search of freight. 'Within the same period twenty-seven vessels cleared for Hobart Town; fourteen loaded home—the others came home in ballast; twenty-five cleared to Port Philip; twelve came home with cargoes, the other thirteen without. Between November, 1846, and June, 1847, twenty-one cleared for Port Adelaide from London, of which seven only ob tained cargo. I want to know who, in the face of such facts as those, can argue that our colonies are suffering from want of ships, or that any alteration in the naviga tion-laws can supply them with carrying at a cheaper rate. I will not dwell on the West India colonies, be cause the Government feel that that part of the case has already broken down. If this question was settled last year there might have been some argument on the part of those colonies; but the Government admit in the same breath that the feeling in those colonies is very much reversed. True that in Trinidad there is the old feeling in favour of repeal—by the bye, there was a me morial from Guiana in favour of the repeal of the na vigation-laws; but it is generally understood in this House that the moment the West India colonies found that the change in the navigation laws would not alter their relative position in the market with Cuba and the other Spanish colonies, all desire for such a change ceased.—(Hear, hear.) One important case—the most important—that of Canada, remains behind; but that has been treated to night in a manner that will not soon be forgotten in this country.—(Hear, hear.) True it is that the Legislative Assembly of Canada has petitioned the Crown in favour of the repeal of the navigation laws; but in the same document the same assembly has required justice to its industry—in the same document the same assembly has required the re-institution of that ss. duty which they enjoyed—(Hear)—and if that docu ment is in the hands of the Government, no argument in favour of repeal of the navigation-laws can be drawn that by the. surest rules of logic is not equally an argu ment in favour of the Si. duty.—(llear, hear.) But we have been informed by a high authority on this subject to-night, that if the ss. duty is not given back to Canada, in all probability Canada will cease to belong to the British Crown. What great responsibility, then, was there in that statesman who counselled you to disturb the arrangement you had made with respect to the im portation of corn from Canada; and is it possible that tiny one can believe—and still least of all I should have expecte 1 tho Right Honourable Member for Ripon— that any paltry change in your navigation-laws can reconcile the people of Canada to your rule, which they feel has taken away that protection from their industry, and has in fact virtually dis solved every political tie that subsisted between you?— (Hear.) It is well the people of England should know to-morrow the solemn opinion of one of their greatest public men. It is well they should know to-morrow that they must be prepared for rebellion in Canada—that they must be prepared to lose that proud possession of the Crown, and mainly because the people of Canada have been deprived of that just protection to their colonial industry which they enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.) But I cannot believe that the people of England can for a moment suppose their coming forward to offer the Ca nadians some shuffling change in the navigation code of England can be any compensation to the people of Ca nada, who feel so acutely on this subject, and who, ac cording to the Right Hon. Gentleman, are prepared to act so decidedly.—(Hear, hear.) Well, the colonial case is not stronger this year. It rests on Canada, and on a document which, if it proves anything, proves that the policy of the House of Commons is to protect the in dustry of Canada.—(Hear, hear.) And what is the foreign case? The Foreign-office has bean extremely busy on this subject, as if the Noble Lord wished to prove to the cmatinent that hereafter the House of Lords had little to do with the Government of this country. The moment Hon. Gentlemen come to a vote—which even iu this Parliament I have proved they have some times repented, for *Arcady the majority has dwindled down .to half the amount—(Bear, hear)— a Secretary of state instructs our diplomatic agents, from Vienna to Vent zuela, to communicate with foreign Go vernments on the reciprocal alteration of their maritime code, on the same principle that the year before we com municated with the Consuls of England for the purpose of obtaining the most authentic and accurate information respecting the bad conduct and qualities of English sea men.—(Hear.) And here I must say that the lion. Member for Huntingdon was very much misrepresented by the Noble Lord, for the Noble Lord argued the case as if my Hon. Friend had conceded that the masters and seamen cf our mercantile marine were guilty of the con duct and deserved the calumnious expressions which we find in the official pap , rs of the Government. But what was the answer of foreign states to the invitation of the Foreign-office? The dispatch of the Prussian Minis ter holds out no prospect of coming to any arrangement, no wish to enter into any negotiation; on the contrary, he adverts to the altered state of affairs, and says that, " in the position in which this country finds itself it is impossible for us at present to enter into any arrange ment with you;"—at the first blush, an excellent argu ment for not precipitating alteration and passing this measure. But I read that document in this way. To me it says, " Things are unsettled; but if the Whig Govern ment remains in office—if we succeed in our foreign po licy, and establish a national flag—if we appropriate the harbours of Schleswig-Holstein, of the Northern Stases, and mouths of the Elbe—if by the favour of the English Government we become an important maritime power— then we shall be prepared to open negotiations with you, and to stand upon our rights."—(Hear, hear.) It is un necessary that at this hour I should touch upon the other continental powers, though every case is I think an additional argument in favour of our hesitating, and against any precipitate movement. I must say a few words, of course, upon the remarkable case of the United States. I would ask the Right lion. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if his Government had been last year in the same position with the United States as it is at present, would he have brought forward this measure, or made the expression of opinionntethe of d foreign states a part of his case? I was other night with indulging in imaginative occa sionally in reply by a memb er of t but when I rectal to mind t he sometimes confidential, always interesting, and occasionally thrilling and even solemn manner in whic h the Right urable Gen- h the flightsai Government; iontlly th e ri n fl e t Gen tleman rerealrd the communications the most est conversat ions irregular manne r were brought f orward to with Mr. Bancr oft, w influence the debate, eared in a public document ; and w States—the with the U an d which never APP weknowof nitheidch in o f the Govern ment the slues tilen I recollect th at this year is, that it is a tabula rase, that all we have heat d of the United States and Mr. Bancroft is omitt e d f rom t h e elements of consideration, I say it is o ne o f t h e most re markable cases I ever recollect, and shows US t h e i tn • precipitately elywe on this questiou— (llear)—and fete deciding g reat should gain by portanee of not lteheata Itlwr.elß"aanc°rloltfht'wtals'esos;:stilliecnalte. settlement. I here which I will not read to the House, as every lion. Gentleman will soon obtain it. Its title is the " Report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the subject of American Manufactures," pre sented to Congress on the last day of February this year, when General Taylor, standing on the steps of the Go vernment-house at Washington, must have had that docu ment in his pocket, and no doubt its contents inspired that peculiar protective character of his inaugural address with which all Hon. Gentlemen are familiar. But one part of this report is very germane to this discussion, as it expresses in a solemn manner the opinion of the Com mittee, which for four years has given its tone to the opinion of America, on the navigation-laws, and re commends that uo change or modification should be adopted wider sny cixoutnitailmb—(ltrir , bur) V~ Touching but lightly, as lam obliged to do at this hour, I have given you reason to see how—when their t7ic,j had become un p o p u l ar , as i t h as, b y the consu i it 'of theeoryo. Noble Lord, with a great part of the public—their facti tious case has entirely melted away under discussion and the influence of time and trutb.—(Hear.) Of all the pleas brought forward for this great change, take any one singly, and who would recommend it ? On the plea of commercial inconvenience of the heavy amount of freights, a member of the Government has proved that they are not higher in England than anywhere else. Your only case is the case of Canada, that asks for a ss. duty. Would you recommend it on that single ground, or on the plea of continental menace and foreign compe tition? Your strongest continental point is Prussia, and Prussia does not exist as a Government.—(Elear, hear.) But it is not any of these singly, it 13 the aggre gate of these pleas that is to be the foundation of this revulution.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") You got up your case in a hurry, and you attempted to pass it last year before it was understood. Dust was thrown into the eyes of the public by your talk about the prin ciples of free trade, with which they were add bewil nd; about the discontent of the colonies and the menaces of foreign powers; and on every occasion they were told that it was necessary to what the Noble Lord usually calls the "settlement of the vestion."--(A. laugh.) And what is this perpetual settlement of the quesion? It is to settle the questions that you have yourselves unsettled.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord looks about for a question for the session, and he finds among his trading allies some crude jejune theory. He takes up the theory; there is immediate agitation; and having produced agitation, he comes forward as a great states man to appease it.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) That is the whole policy of the Whig Governmene.— (Cheers and laughter.) But then they have a great all) Kith whom they are perfectly satisfied—the Right Hon. Gentleman who has decided between reaction and progress, and is determined to stand by pro gress.—(A laugh.) But progress to what ? progress to paradise or progress to the devil ?—(Loud cheers and laughter.) The people of England do not want to hear any longer those indefinite windy phrases of progress. —(llesr, hear.) They want to know what you are pro gressing to—what you are at—what you mean to accom plish; and then they will calmly weigh whether that which you have promised is not more than you can pay. —(Hear, hear.) We want, in short, to know from the disciples of progress what they are after. The Man chester school are men, they tell us frankly what they are after.—(Hear, hear.) They have told us they will attack the Church, destroy the land tenure, completely change the electoral law, and do a number of other things that may be perilous, that may be fatal to the country, but at least, when advocating with them, we know what we are about; we deal with mantr foes. and we hope and believe that we shall defeat them.--(Loud cheers.) But these dilettante disciples of progress are very dangerous opponents; and I shall extremely regret that one such mind, practical and experienced as the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), is determined to take his stand where he is —(A laugh)—because I, from this moment, must express my reluctant regret, that where he is in consequence he will remain. —(A laugh.) The Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Ripon cannot acknowledge that public opinion is against this proposition of the Government, because he says he does not find the Members for the outports against it. Tho Right Honourable Gentleman seems to bold the right of petition in great contempt. He says, " I find the Mem bers for these outports voting for the measure," though their constituents are calling upon the House to reject the proposition.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman says, " Where are the two Members for Liverpool ? Are not their names in the majority ? The Members for Glasgow, they also support, notwithstand ing the petitions from that city, the measuro of the Go vernment." But it is possible men may have been elected by constituencies wihout any frank or detailed ex position of their opinions on the subject.—(Hear.) Men may have been sent to this House—as I am sorry to say my experience of the last few years shows can be done—pledged to support a particnlar policy, and when they have come here they may have opposed it.— (Cheers.) I do not know what passed between the Members for Liverpool and their constituents at the last election. It is possible that between them and their constituents no communication took place on the subject of the navigation-laws. If so, it was a great neglect on the part of the electors of Liverpool, and they deserve the treatment they have received.—(Loud laughter.) With regard to the Member for Glasgow, I have reason to believe that the misconception is of a more unfortu nate nature, because I have been informed that the Honourable Gentleman had a very frank communication with his constituents, and left them with an undoubted impression that he was coming to London to vote against this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt the Honourable Gentleman has good reason for changing his opinion; but when he is confronted here with the assertion that the opinion of Glasgow— which is most hostile to this measure —cannot be opposed to it because its Members have voted for it, I am justified in referring to these well known facts.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), in the third place, thought fit to change the whole tone of the debate by referring to a speech delivered by a Nolils. L - ird in another place. Ha has, as it were, charged the venue on the issue before us.—(Hear, hear.) It vas not the navigation laws of England, but the corn law of England, that was brought upon the carpet; avid it was not so much the act of a Government that does exist as the possible existence of a Government that does not exist that excited the fervid oratory and impassioned eli qaence of the Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear, ar.d a laugh.) The Right lion. Gentleman was some rah it ilicensistent in hit taunts, Ile said—" If you doubt the wisdom of the policy which I am proud to have had a part in carrying, aby do you riot come for ward and challeaae its propriety? Why not ask us to rairac our steps ?" And then, immediately aft( r, the Bight Hon. Gentleman says, "I look upon this division to night as a stand-up fight, upon the question whether this Government shall advance or whether it shall retro grade; and I regard the whole protection system as at stake to-night." If that be the case, if that ho the struggle you are now going to enter upon, the Right lion. Gentleman is scarcely justified in saying wo are avoi ling the contest.—(Cheers.) I can promise the Right lion. Gentleman that ho shall nut have to com plain that ample opportunities are not given him for vin dicating the policy for which he is responsible—(Hear, hear)—but I for one wish to avail myself of the expe rience of the last three years—it is a magic time; it saw tho foundation of your changes; let them be nearly completed, and then we can di side upon your policy by the very test to which you appeal. The Hon. Gentle man the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) has called the attention of the House to the consideration of the great stake that depends upon our votes this night. He has reminded you of the large amount of capital in vested in this trade. He has reminded you of the vast revenue expended thereby in the wages of labour. Let me remind you also of one statistical fact which is true, and which is most interesting. Take all the male opera tives in all the factories of Great Britain, all adults, and all beneath 18 years of age, and add them together, and the total computation will not in number amount to the number of the merchant seamen of England.—(Hear, hear.) The interest, therefore, is a great interest— ( Hear.) Called upon to effect this great change, let me remind you of some circumstances that have occurred since the commencement of that term of three years vihich has so often been referred to as the test of political and economic truth. Since that term commenced the poor-rates of England have increased 17 per cent.; since that term commenced, it appears by the lust returns of the property tax, the capital of England has b een diminished more than 100,000,00ut ; since that term commenced, it appears that the average increase in the savings' banks has dimi nished exactly one-half.—(Bear, hear.) These, too, aro facts; these, too, are details of great interest in the dis• cussion of these questions.—(Hear, hear.) If this be not the handwriting on the wall, I know not where kings and senates are to seek the sources of warning and admonition.—(Hear, hear.) I agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) that there is more at stake upon your vote to night even than the naviga tion code of England, precious as it may be. You can by your vote this night beat down that great statistical conspiracy that has so long tampered with the fortunes and trifled with the destinies of a great country.-- (Cheers.) You can boat down that great statistical con spiracy that commenced its labours by proving that the English peasant was a serf, and consistently continued them by demonstrating that the British sailor was a sot. —(Hear, hear.) If you by your vote to-night commend your patri.aie:labour to the grateful sympathy of a grate ful people, then will you, by the recollection of your past prosperity, by the memory of your still existing power, for the sake of the most magnificent colonial empire in the world, now drifting among the breakers, for the sake of the suffering commerce of Great Britain, by r tlie a ryrongsof a betrayed agriculture, by the hopes of Ie 1a 1 wil l you smooth the careworn coun tenance which may to morrow s a l i h and energy to native tenance of British toil, give t the torture d • not, by the vote you aro now coming to, arrive at a de (Loud cheers.) in dustry of a suffering empire .—(Loud s a n b d ie en to dea o v b o ta u i r n ed a to h a e d ar d i r n e g s! t h h: , labour, and at lest administer . hope to CAMPBELL House; , • t loud cries of " Divide 1" moved that the debate arne , s L M o r r . d let j .0 RUSSELL ATT choonpdeedd the ee Hon. Gentleman be adjourned. Mr. CA b M at as it was very desirable that a division that nig ht. would the eT t h p h l eo r u s m i s s oe t t si i oh n no h uf i oi s dr motion,come t o adjournment was withdra wn, and the House divided : For the third reading Against it ... 275 ... 214 ... --,-61 Majority The Bill was then read a third time. Mr. WAWN then moved the insertion of the follow ing clause :—And be it enacted, that no British ship en gaged in the foreign trade, which shall have discharged its clrgo at any port of the United Kingdom, shall be compelled, urth‘r the Act Gth Gee. 4, e. 125, to take a pilot on hoard, w hilo proceeding in ballast to any port of the United Kingdom. Mr. LABOUCHERE felt bound to resist it. After a few words from Mr. Hum and Mr. MACORE • oon, recommending the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion, it was negatived without a division. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Indictable Offences (Ireland) Bill and the Sum. and passed. (Ireland) Bill were read a third time RATE IN AID BILL. On the report on the Hate in Aid Bill being brought up, Captain JONES objected to the mode in which the G overnme nt were going to increase the taxation of Ire land at that moment. His belief was that the rate could not be collected, and that by farming it they endangered the whole system of poor-laws in Ireland. It would create dissatisfaction in the whole of the north of Ireland, which they would not easily overcome. Mr. DROTUZATON said be hoped thet the Ur t