The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-24 00:00:00

Mr. FOX MAULE differed in opinion from the Hon. G e ntleman who ha d j ust sat down.—(Cries of " Order.") The motion for the second reading was then agreed to. On the question that the Bill be committed, Mr. F. MAULE again rose, and said he differed from the Hon. Gentleman oppositeas to the course they might take upon questions of this nature. When he made a statement in that House that was called in question out of doors, he thought the most manly course to adopt was to explain that statement, and leave no doubt upon i the minds of any parties in reference to t.--(Hear.) Mr. COBDEN said, if he understood the . matter r ightly, the Liverpool Finan cial Reform Associatpn had Sated that a system prevailed which held . out an induce went for the colonels of regiments to made wit the clothing of their men, but the tracts: made no actual charge against the officers themselves._( Certainly the system held out such an inducement, a? , d he believed the country held that op inion.—(Cries of No, no. " ) He believed, moreover, the colonels themselves condemned the system, but , a t all events, if. he were a tailoring colonel —(Laughter)—or yeceiving cloth 500ing c a colonel r r ather, be would prefer 4 earectly, than receiving 7501. under the pre sent system. With regard to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, he must remind the Honourable Gentlemen that when the corn laws were under discussicn he and others were not so scrupulous as to answering the tracts of the Anti-Corn -law Leage, while so far from public opinion being against the Liverpool Financial Reform Associa tion, he could assure the House that kindred societies had sprung up in almost every town and village throughout the country.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. A. STAFFORD denied that any member of Sir Robert Peel's Government ever called attention to the tracts of the Anti-Corn-law League. De nouncing such tracts while the general question was under discussion was one thing, and a member of the Government calling especial attention to them another.—(Hear, hear.) At all events such a proceeding was not likely to expedite the business of the House, and he thought this debate would prove it. Sir DE LACY EVANS thought that the House had somewhat deviated from the subject before it. The question was whether this association had addressed itself to this subject in a spirit which was hostile and detrimental to the character of the British army, and he thought it would be found that those gentlemen in Liverpool who assumed to be thoroughly acquainted with the matter had put forth a variety of details, one-half of which were well known to be inaccurate.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir De Lacy Evans) wished a fair and impartial investigation into that as well as into every other portion of the affairs connected with the army, but he did not like to see a variety of attacks sent forth in the shape of printed tracts by persons who were un acquainted with the subject, and who had written in a spirit which he must say was anything but creditable to their candour. He thought that the Secretary-at- War had done no more than his duty upon that oc casion in making the statement which he had done. Mr. M. GIBSON said he drew this inference from what had passed—that the whole discussion had arisen from an ill-considered charge having been brought against a respectable association—(Loud laughter, and 4‘ Oh, oh," from the Opposition benches)—from a charge which had been brought in that House against an asso ciation.—(Laughter.) That charge was in the first in stance made hastily; and the Minister who made it had explained the grounds upon which he was induced to make the imputation. That was the only course which a gentleman in his position, he (Mr. Gibson) thought, could take with reference to a charge which, without sufficient consideration, he had thrown out against an association.—(Cries of " No, no.") The Honourable and Gallant General had fallen into precisely the same error as the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary-at-War; he had also made a hasty and ill-considered charge against a respectable as sociation.—(A laugh.) He would challenge the Hon. and Gallant Colonel—(Cries of " General")—he meant the Hoe. and Gallant General—to prove the inaccuracies of which he said the association had been guilty. He un • derstood that the statements with respect to the supply ing of clothes by the colonels were not denied. He believed that a committee of general offi cers, upon which committee his Honourable Friend, the Member for Montrose, sat—(Loud laugh ter)—had themselves admitted that the system might lead to the inference which had been drawn • and all the association said, if he understood mat ters right, was that the system was a bad one, and might lead to an improper influence, and did afford an inducement to officers to do certain things which ho was not aware the association charged them with actually having done. He hoped for the future that such hasty imputations would not again be made upon societies.—(Laughter.) The whole pro ceedings he thought had been brought upon themselves by their sweeping and ill considered censures.—(Oh, oh. The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Mon day next. NAVIGATION-LAWS. Mr. CLAY presented a petition from Hull, signed by 16 out of every 21 members of the Chamber of Com merce, in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws. Mr. LABOUCHERE rose to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee upon the navigation laws, but before doing so said he thought it his duty to make a statement to the House with regard to an im portant alteration which he proposed to make. He had stated to the House that it was his intention to admit foreign vessels to a share of our coasting trade, but that ho did not attach much practical importance to that alteration, be cause it it was impossible for foreign nations to avail themselves fully of the advantages which such a pro vision would give. He was now bound to state that it was not his intention to continue that assurance. His Hon. Friend the Chief of the Commissioners of the Customs was not prepared to say, at first, that the clauses would throw any very considerable difficulty— that no such difficulty and danger would result, or could with propriety be set in opposition to the course the Government might think it advisable to pursue with respect to a matter of great national policy like that of the navigation-laws. Upon the faith and in the full belief of that assurance he made the pro posals he had to the House. His Hon. Friend supplied him with various Customs' regulations which had been embodied in the Bill before the House, but in the course of the last few days he had received communications from his Honourable Friend to the effect that in going further into these regulations, and in further exam ining this question with the most experienced officers of the Customs, ho had come to the conclusion that if the carrying out of the regulations with respect to the coasting and general trade were . per sisted in, it could not fail to be attended with extreme difficulty—that it would be a most difficult mat ter to frame regulations which would not leave the revenue exposed to great danger, if they were to do away with the difference between the coasting and general trade of the country. He said this danger would arise more from British ships engaged in the trade than from foreign ships. Under these circumstances he did not feel called upon to advise the House to throw open the coasting trade in the way he had originally proposed. Let it, however, be understood that ho did not throw any blame on his Right Honourable Friend at the head of the Customs. On the contrary, he was proud to take any blame that might exist in respect of this matter upon himself. The Bill thus very much returned to the same state in which he proposed it to the House last session. The course he had adopted he should ima gine would in no way interfere with their at once pro ceeding with the discussion of the Bill. Mr. HUME wished to know whether, if the trade was opened entirely, the difficulty mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman would be obviated? Mr. LABOUCHERE replied that it would not. Great difficulty would result if foreign vessels were allowed to undertake a foreign as well as a coasting voyage. It could not be done with any safety to the revenue. Mr. GLADSTONE said, having objected to the clauses referred to by the Hon. Gentleman on the se cond reading of the Bill, he did not rise to dispute the desirability of the course he had adopted. Yet he could not refrain from making some remarks upon that course he had felt it his duty to pursue. The first was that he had been more successful in jus tifying the conclusion he had now announced than in s h ow i ng that there were sufficient grounds for the course originally proposed by him.—(Hear.) N o one who had heard the retraciation of the Honourable Gentleman could fail to be of opinion that the Chief Commissioner of the Cus• toms was originally against the clauses ref erre d to. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he saw great incon venience if Ministers of the Crown made it a practice to state the nature and result of conferences which they had had with persons connected with different departments, who, strictly speaking, were subordinate functionaries, as the practice tended to perplex the public mind as to who was responsible with respect to public measures in troduced into that House.—(Hear.) He did not intend to trouble the House with an amendment, but he could not forbear stating the course he had originally intended to pursue. lie should have proposed a clause which re lated to conditional legislation; and secondly, a number of clauses on direct legislation ; and he should have pro posed a division of the whole trade of the empire into two parts: one, the first of them, into that which re lated to the trade with foreign countries; and secondly, into domestic or British trade, including the trade coast wise and likewise the trade of the colonies. He should then have proposed to the House to enact by a law not dependent on any discretion of the Crown, that when any country was disposed to give to Great Britain per fect freedom in their foreign trade, they should receive in return perfect freedom in our foreign trade; and that when it was disposed to give perfect freedom in all ma ritime trade whatever, both foreign and dom es ti c , it should th en receive the perfect freedom of British vessels in the wh o l e trade, both coasting and foreign. He should also have urged, as the Right Hon. Gentleman would now recommend, the repeal of the restraint on the im portation of tropical accor p d r i o n d g u t c o e the Europe, because that was a restraint, but 33rlitrisetseoriu vessels d law , also.w hic h He fe -t e d not only the foreign p n ea a l tu a r b e so o - f uld have urged that the House qy all fiscal restraint, everything in tl i s ' e e on the British shipowner, both in the comm an ding t e h d e t i r g e the manning of his ship. Th e o bj ect of his .1 was not to obstruct or embarrass the Pro he Government. Lie was not unf r iendlytoce re ttion of the navigation-laws. He wished to see their ,tal effected, but effected in a way which would, as far as was able to judge, have avoided any shock to the great interests involved in British shipping.—(Cheers.) Mr. HERRIES was prepared, when he came down to that House, to go at once into Committee, being desirous not to retard the proceedings on the Bill; but the propoition of the Right Jim Geutleinau had ii2daed AI :1 s 4141.1 VS TeC ' 7i shot] lute] r axe 1 0 : nd i Z..osa laxat repel THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY surprised him quite, and had led him to believe that the House was not going into that Committee then with any prospect of a satisfactory issue. —(Hear, hear.) It was a very extraordinary occurrence in a Bill long projected, carefully prepared, to which the utmost attention of the Ministers must have been shown, that on going into a Committee on that Bill, the Minister should commence by telling them that he meant to make a very important alteration. Ha thought that the Government would have done much better to have withdrawn the Bill altogether than at the last moment to come down to the House with an im portant alteration, which totally altered its character. He was not, however, disposed to offer any opposition to the Bill going into Committee. But this much he might observe, that there had been three separate Bills, and all founded upon three very different positions. There was the Bill of the Government, the amended pro- position of the Government, and the proposal or his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), which, if introduced earlier, might have been useful for the amendment of the other two. He (Mr. Herries) always listened to any proposal which came from that Right Hon. Gentle man with much respect, and only regretted on the pre sent occasion he had not been more active. He repeated that he should offer no opposition to the Bill being taken into Committee, but on the proposition that the Bill pass into a law of the land—believing that it was es sentially and fundamentally an un-English Bill—he should,give it his most decided and strenuous opposition. Mr. ROBINSON stated his intention to oppose the third reading of it. The House then went into Committee on the On the first clause being read, Mr. LABOUCHERE proposed the introduction of words into it, to the effect that the Bill should come into operation on Ist January, 1850, which was agreed to. Mr. BOUVERIE then moved the following proviso as an amendment:—" That the several restrictions and prohibitions in the aforesaid Acts contained, as to the voyages in which ships of any foreign conntry may en gage, or as to the goods which they may import into, or export from, the United Kingdom or any British pos session, or as to the goods and passengers they may carry either coastwise from one part of the United Kingdom to another part, or from any British possession in any part of the world to any other British possession (except such of the said restrictions and prohibitions as are hereby authorised to be removed or varied by the pro per legislative authorities of British possessions), shall remain and be in full force respectively till it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of her Majesty in her Privy Council, and it shall be declared by her Majesty's order in Council, that British ships are not subjected in such foreign country to the like several restrictions or pro hibitions, as to the voyages in which they may engage, or as to the goods which they may import into or export from such foreign country, or any possession thereof . ; or carry coastwise b any part of such foreign country: provided further, with respect to the restrictions and prohibitions in the aforesaid Acts contained, (as to the goods which the ships of any foreign country may im port into or export from any British possession, her Ma jesty, by her order in Council, may direct, that the whole, or any part, of such restrictions and prohibitions, shall cease to remain or be in full force as to the ships of any foreign country, although the like restrictions and pro hibitions respectively, as to the goods which any British ship may import into or export from any possession of such foreign'country, shall not in all respects have been re moved."Thellon.G entleman disclaimed alldesire to embar rass the Government, and also leaning towards protection. He believed that as to these laws protection had not a leg to stand upon. The system of protection was radi cally opposed to the best interests of the shipowners, but he differed from the Government as to the mode in which the change should be effected. He did not pro pose his amendment with a view of retaining our restric tions, but to make it the instrument of forcing the re moval of the restrictions of other nations. The naviga tion laws of the United States were founded upon reci procity, and the House could not do wrong in following their example. It had been objected to the plan of Mr. Gladstone that his amendment would involve the Go vernment in endless negotiations with foreign Powers. That was, however, an objection which could by no means be made to his (Mr. Bouverie's) amendment, as his clause would be self-working. Such an objection ap plied the rather to the proposal of the Government. But of a score of maritime powers with whom we had trea ties there were not above three with whom we had the most favoured nation clause. He might be told that the Government had failed in obtaining reciprocity of tariffs, and that they would also fail in obtaining treaties for reciprocity in shipping. But the two cases were by no means analogous. He excepted from his clause the co lonial coasting trade and the inter-colonial trade, which it would be better to leave to th e L eg i s l atures of re spective colonies, and he would add a proviso giving power to her Majesty in Council to remove certain re strictions and prohibitions upon the trade of foreign ships 'with those colonies, even although those restric tions should not be removed by such foreign . nations. The Hon. Member concluded by moving his amendment. Mr. WILSON, in opposing the amendment on the part of the Government, did not believe that the Hon. Member was adverse to the liberal policy of the Go vernment with respect to the navigation-laws. The Go vernment plan was not only the best, but the only plan by which they could avoid repeated and intricate nego tiations with other powers. If they were to have con ditional legislation the Government must hold in their hands the power of retaliation, so that they might re store the equilibrium by retaliatory measures. That re ciprocity for which the Hon. Gentleman was an advocate must be regarded as a principle very near l y a ki n to re taliation. If we refused to other countries advantages which they denied to us, that refusal would be quite in the nature of a penalty for their non-compliance with what we conceived to be a reasonable demand. The plan of the Hon. Gentleman, and those wbo thought with him, appeared to be nothing less than a distinct prohibition— such, at least, be thought, would be its practical effect. The Hun. Gentleman proposed this, that England should not concede any commercial privileges except to those nations which proved to the satisfaction of the Queen in Council that they had made or were ready to make similar concessions to England. What was that but re taliating upon them on account of their not being free traders? The Hon. Gentleman had talked of similar re strictions, appearing altogether to forget that there was scarcely any such thing as similarity in the matter of restriction. It seemed to him that the Hon. Gentleman could scarcely have considered the probable conse quences of the proposition that he had made. He would take the case of Belgium, which was perhaps, more restrictive than any other country that could be named; yet, with all its restrictions, it possessed not one which could be [called similar to those which prevailed in this country. In the first place, Belgium had no colonies. She had no prohibitions whatever upon the long voyage trade. She did not prohibit the importation of goods from Asia, Africa, or America, through England. All that she did was to lay on dif ferential duties. In this way he might go on through all the countries of Europe, without finding one in which the restrictions were precisely similar to those which prevailed in England. Single instances might, perhaps, be discovered here and there, but upon the whole it would be found that dissimilarity was the rule, and resemblance the exception. The restrictions which England imposed were of the exclusive character. Many other nations restricted by differential duties, but this country did so for the most part by means of exclusions. Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman would say that we ought to permit a free trade with those, and with those only, which en tirely threw open their;trade to us. Suppose that were to happen with the United States, and that that republic were to repeal at once all their restrictions, what would happen as soon as we allowed the United States to go into our colonial trade? All the countries with which we had treaties would immediately demand like privileges. Holland would at once insist upon such an advantage on the ground of treaties. Holland by a treaty not terminable had a right to trade to Java and the In dian Archipelago upon the terms of the most fa voured nation. He did not forget it might be said that with some countries our treaties were terminable. He would put this question to the House—were they pre pared to disturb the whole of our existing treaties with foreign states for the purpose of carrying out the views of the Hon. Gentlemau ? In his opinion the course which the Government proposed to take would better carry out the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman than his own plan. Let them suppose this intended recipro city system established to the fullest extent, what would there be to prevent the cotton or the sugar of America being conveyed to this country via Rotterdam? and, surely that which could, under any circumstances, be done indirectly. had much better be directly sanctioned. Then let the House for a moment reflect upon the blow which they would strike against the warehousing trade of this country if they assented to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman. Our relations with Russia, Prussia, Spain, and France forbade the adoption of any such proposition; and, in his opinion, nothing would do more for our warehousing trade than the Bill which her Ma jaw(eriesirtreiyeva'ersd,hheearre.) Government had submitted t o t h e H ouse.— warehousedi n n t or foreign i h ng e n present tshhiisps.c stateuGn Goods roydosf excepting xn t htceeenplwdtaiendg, for ru goods ehh oa home might, e ra n v o a s d s o e u d b i t n , to be a r l e a s w h , i p t h pe e e; cßoinllsunmowptbioenfore th warehousing but i f h e trade might enjoy the benefit of articles intended for home consumption. The Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford proposed or suggested to divide the trade of this country into the foreign trade of the whole empire, including that which our colonies carried on with foreigners; and, secondly, into the domestic trade of England, including her intercourse with her own colonies; and, having made this division, the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed that a foreign state might be at liberty to give us the benefit of either division, and accept a similar privilege in return—that other countries might be free to give us one or both of those advantages. Now, such plans were open to very grave practical ob jections. What, for example, were they to do with the Dutch, as regarded Java and the East Indies? Suppose Holland were to concede to us that class which related to foreign trade, and that the United States of America conceded both, Holland might then demand, upon the ground of treaties, and without any further concession, to be put on the same footing as the United States. Upon the whole, then, he did not hesitate to say, that the Government plan was better calculated than any other to carry out even the views of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Mr. GLADSTONE said he should state in one sen tence why he could not vote for the proposed clause. There was this practical difficulty in the way of the plan of the lion. Member, that foreign restrictions were in commensurate with those which prevailed in this coun try, and the clause would, therefore, not attain the object in view. Mr. GIBSON observed that the only question was one which lay between the British shipowner and the British public. The shipowner told the public that they must use no vessels but his. It was not a haggling with foreigners about a little more or a little less. The object was, to get rid of restrictions upon the civil rights of her Majesty's subjects. He was glad to find that 09132 g 119 a, Aleuabcra 144 rsAched the reciprocity stage. It was like the stage of convalescence. He once had I been in that stage himself, but he was now perfectly re covered; and be doubted not that the reciprocity gentlemen would soon be as much free traders as he was. They had lately, through their Minister at the Court of Sweden, insisted upon the grant of rights under treaty for the advantage of this country. Whatever privileges, with regard to na vigation, they might grant to any foreign country, whether conditionally or gratuitously, Sweden might claim at their hands; and the United States, and all those countries whose treaties with England contained the favoured nation clause, might claim any privileges which might be granted to Sweden. He thought, there fore, that it would be most difficult to carry out practi cally any attempt at reciprocity, conditional legislation, or retaliation. With respect to the principle of orders in Council, be doubted whether it was wise to leave the regulation of trade to the Executive, or to permit them to levy duties on the import of commodities without the consent of Parliament. He thought it was far better, if any imperious necessity arose for interference with the trade of the country, or for the increase of taxation, that, as a general rule, application should be made to Perlis: ment for the regulation of such great and important inte rests. He found, from a paper he held in his hand,that the effect of existing Orders in Council was absolutely to forbid the colonies of England from commercial commu nication with one-half the world. The British colonies in America and the West Indies were interdicted from such communication with Belgium, Sardinia, Naples, the Papal States, Tuscany, Greece, the Ottoman Empire, Brazil, Peru, the Republic of Uruguay, and other coun tries; and they were not permitted to communicate directly with Spain or France. There was one excep tion with regard to France. The Governor of the Mau ritius wanted a little ice to cool his champagne— (Laughter)—and therefore French ships were allowed to carry ice to the Mauritius from the adjacent island of Bourbon. He would ask whether such a policy was calculated to cement the ties of affection between the mother country and the colonies? He considered, on the contrary, that it was calculated to make those colo nies desirous of separation, that they might attach them selves to other countries which would allow them greater privileges. It was true that the existing orders in Council would be terminated by this Bill, but he wished to have some assurance that they would not be restored. He would vote against the amendment of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Mr. R. PALMER would oppose this Bill now, as he bad done on a former occasion, because be believed with Adam Smith, who was a great authority with Hon. Gen tlemen opposite, that the navigation-laws were well cal culated to maintain the shipping interest. Unquestion ably, if the flourishing condition of the shipping inte rest of this country was any proof of the conduciveness of those laws to effect the object they were intended to promote, the question might be safely rested upon that test. He confessed that he did not think the amend ment worth supporting, because he believed the object of :that amendment would not be insured by its provi sions. He considered that they ought, in legislating upon a question of this kind, to look at the interests of this country, and not at what foreign States might do or might not do. He was not frightened by the state ment that Prussia or America had held out threats as to the course they would take if we did not accommo date our navigation-laws to their wishes, because he was satisfied those countries would do exactly what they thought best calculated to promote their own interests, whether we altered our navigation-laws or maintained them.—(Heear, hear.) He thought, therefore, that if the House considered the navi gation-laws tended to promote the political and ship ping interests of this country, they ought to uphold them without any regard to the threats of foreign powers, who could not injure England in commercial matters half so much as England might injure them. Suppose the case of a foreign country possessing harbours, rivers, and ma terials for building ships, and otherwise in a position fa vourable for establishing a great maritime power; did they believe that such a country, being desirous of creating a commercial and warlike navy, would net adopt navigation-laws if it deemed them likely to pro mote their views? If the shipping of such a country had to compete with us, they could in no other way so advantageously introduce themselves into the markets of the world as by adopting that course of policy. How, then, would the legislation now pro posed operate upon countries so situated? They bad been told that no reliance could be placed on the alteration, by France or Spain, of their navigation laws ; and by the legislation now proposed a direct advantage would be given to the ships of those foreign states which chose to retain restrictions after this coun try had parted with them. It was clear that, when they had abolished their navigation-laws, France, maintain ing or even increasing its restrictions, would have just the same advantages in competition with English ships, whether in this country or in the colonies, as those na tions which traded with us on the freest principles. But would English ships have the same privileges in France? No; the advantage would be all on the side of the French ships, which would have the preference in their own ports, and would be admitted on the most favourable terms in ours. The experience of the period since the navigation-laws were adopted had shown that the mer cantile navy and the commerce of a great country like England could increase and flourish under such a system; and it appeared to him that these laws were in the nature of an insurance, which it was worth while to keep up, even at some cost of national interest. Mr. BRIGHT observed, that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to Adam Smith in support of his views; but he (Mr. Bright) would be sorry that Adam Smith, or any other Adam—(A laugh) —should be held up for ever as a guide of the policy of this country. Adam Smith justified the navigation laws, not upon the principles of protection advocated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because he thought they gave strength to that naval influence which this country had been so anxious to possess. If, however, the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer) had read the evi dence given before the Committee, or had attended to the facts brought forward in the course of this discus sion, he would have found that the danger anticipated by Adam Smith was purely imaginary. There was no country from which England had anything to fear as re garded naval superiority, except the United States, and those States would give, and had already given to the, ships of this country, all the privileges and advantages we proposed to give to them. If our throwing open our navigation should be unfavourable to our naval supre macy, the opening of their navigation by the United States must be equally unfavourable to the maintenance of their naval power. He would oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because, if they waited to open their ports until 'other nations opened theirs, he did not see why the same argument should not have held good with regard to corn and other articles, in which free trade had been adopted. He hoped the Government would withdraw the retaliatory clause which had been alluded to, for he believed that, in no probable circumstances, would they be able to carry it into operation. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, in reference to the obser vation of the Hon. Member for Manchester relative to the foreign correspondence which had been produced, that the Government had thought it their duty to furnish the House with all the information which they could procure, and to take every means to throw light on the views and intentions of foreign powers respecting a sub ject of this great and national importance.—(Hear.) With regard to the question of reciprocity, that had been fully and ably dealt with by the Hon. Member for West bury, and he thought he should only be weakening the case by endeavouring to go over the same ground. How ever plausibly the principle of reciprocity might sound, any Hon. Gentleman attempting to put his reciprocity views into the shape of an Act of Parliament would im mediately u discovercorse._(Ha, h er the extreme Ttremheoupgrh on principleacticald difficulties h ulti e wa esin s opposed to the strict reciprocity plan, yet, being fully aware of the great facilities it might afford to Govern ment in carrying out a Bill lik e t h e p resent , h e most attentively considered the question in all its bearings, for the purpose of seeing whether, consistently with his duty, be could engraft reciprocity on the Bill, but he abandoned the attempt in despair.—(Hear.) Mr. BERRIES had heard with surprise the emphatic declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman that be had thought it his duty to furnish the House, previous to the consideration of this question, with all the information he could collect respecting the intentions of foreign Governments, for he recollected that last year the Bill was discussed in June, and the first application to foreign states with a view of ascertaining their opinions on the subject was dated only in December following, being six months after the introduction of the last Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The communications which had taken place had succeeded in obtaining only from a very few powers— for instance, from Sweden and our excellent and respec table ally the King of Sardinia, any distinct explanation of what they intended to do. With respect to the reta liation clause in the Bill, the amendment now moved, and the suggestion of the Right Hon. Member for Ox ford University, he thought it ;_had been satisfactorily proved that they were all liable to objection, and pre sented only a choice of difficulties. He looked upon them all, however, as a homage paid to the principle of reciprocity—(Hear, hear)—but he apprehended that the most-favoured-nation clause stood in the way of the complete working of any of those proposi tions. With respect to America, it had been stated that by the laws of that country as they now existed the con sequence of the passing of the present Act would be im mediate reciprocity on the part of America. The Secretary for the American Government adverted speci fically to an Act which he said would accomplish that object, but any one reading the Act would perceive that the American Secretary was mistaken; and though it was contended by the promoters of the present Bill that there was another Act which would effect the purpose desired, no reference was made to it in the communica tion from Mr. Buchanan. But if America had already passed all the necessary Acts, any application to that countrywould have been superfluous, and therefore he was inclined to doubt that such was the case. It was stated that Mr. Bancroft represented that there was a general disposition on the part of A mer i ca to mee t t hi s country in the relaxation of the navigation laws; but that was not consistent with the statement that an American law existed by which, if England relaxed her navigation laws, the American navigation laws would immediately be relaxed. There appeared a sort of mystification in this, and something requiring further explanation. He thought the Hon. Member for Man chester had put the present question in the fullest and fairest form, when he had said that we ought to legis- late for our own well-considered interests, and not in re ference to other countries; but he differed from that Hon. Member as to the particular course that should now be pursued Iv the House. Tho retaliation clause would lead to dangerous disputes with other countries, if attempted to be carried out, but he looked upon it merely as a blind.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE, in reference to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Member, wished to say that, during the whole in,ercourse ho had bad with Mr. Bancroft on this subject, it was impossible for any man to have con ducted himself la a 1:119/0 straightforward Aud 41419 W" EVENING, MARCH 24 3 1849. able manner than that gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He stated this to prevent any misconception, though he did not suppose that the Right Hon. Alen:ber intended to impute to Mr. Bancroft anything more than a desire to do the best for his own country. He did not think the doubts of the Right Hon. Member as to the satisfactory nature of the American communication well founded. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that the American President had the right, under the circumstances stated, to withdraw the restrictions without going to the Senate for that purpose. Mr. HERRIES observed that he never intended to cast any reflection on the character or conduct of Mr Bancroft. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON could not agree that America had conceded all the advantages we were now asked to concede ; what consideration could America give us for the enormous advantage she would necessarily derive from this measure? As for the argument that it would increase the warehousing trade of this country, he could hardly conceive of any measure more calculated to injure it • at present nearly the whole of the produce of our East Indian empire was brought to this country, and hence supplied to the continent, but it would not be so if continental ships were to be allowed to participate in the Ritis Indian trade. The shipowners had been taunted with their forebodings of ruin in 1826 as likely to result from the reciprocity system introduced by Mr. Huskisson, and the subseque44 increase of the shipping in our great ports—in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Greenock—had been noticed; but foreign shipping had increased far more considerably than English. What the shipowners had feared was, that they would lose the carrying trade with the north of Europe: and how stood the fact? Why, between 1824 and 1846 the British shipping employed in our trade with Sweden had fallen off 26 per teat. ; in that with Norway, 71 per cent.; with Prussia, 33. In 1824 there passed the Sound 4,363 British ships and 7,476 foreign; in 1844, 3,900 British and 12,164 foreign.--(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Alderman Thompson) agreed that this measure would give a great shock to the shipping interest 4 this country; he thought the principle of-"the amend"- ment now under discussion was, upon the whole, sound, but there would be great difficulty in carrying it out, and therefore he had considerable doubt whether he ought to vote for it; but, if this proviso should be introduced, it would not induce him to look with any more favour upon the Bill than at present. Mr. WAWN considered that the Bill offered a pre mium upon the building of ships abroad. Members for manufacturing towns were voting for it; how would their constituents like to have s duty imposed upon the im port of their raw material, and the foreign manufactured article allowed to come in free? _ Mr. BOUVERIE would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, after the very small encouragement he had received; his amendment might be put and ne gatived. Mr. WAWN said he would divide. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment ... ... 15 Against it ... ... 132 • Majority against it ... —ll7 Clauses 2 to 10 were ordered to be struck out. On clause 11, which re-enacts the restriction on the coasting trade of Great Britain, being read, Mr. GLADSTONE considered that this clause was inconsistent with other parts of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade had told them that, in the opinion of the highest authorities connected with the revenue department, there would be no danger in admitting foreigners to carry on the coasting trade on an equality with British shipping. That being the case, he did not think this clause ought to be retained in the Bill. Take the case of the north-east coast of Scotland providing oats for the Ldndon market. These oats would come into the market in competition with the produce of Hol land and Denmark; but the Dane and the Dutchman would bring their oats in the cheapest shipping they could get, while the Sootsman would be compelled Lo bring his in the dearer British ship. Mr. LABOUCHERE would only say, that restric tions on the coasting trade had always been retained by every foreign country, and as a matter of prudence, he did not think the . Government would be justifiable in proposing to throw open this trade to foreigners. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad spoken of a great shock being given to the mercantile interest, but he (Mr. La bouchere) believed that those interests would be recon ciled to the present measure; and he was most unwilling unnecessarily to increase any alarm that might exist by admitting foreigners to the privileges of the coasting trade. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13 were also agreed to. On clause 14, which proposed to empower the Legis tures of neighbouring colonies to regulate their coasting trade, Mr. DISRAELI objected to the term neighbouring colonies " as one that would lead to confusion. Mr. LABOUCHERE said all the enactments of such colonies could only become law when sanctioned by the Queen in Council, and thus all difficulty would be ob viated. Mr. GLADSTONE had also an objection to the term " neighbouring colonies," though he did not lay very great stress upon it, as he had an objection to the entire clause. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, to ob viate the difficulty which had been raised, would propose to introduce words to the effect that the Queen in Coun cil shall have power to declare what were neighbouring colonies. The clause, as thus amended, having been put, Mr. GLADSTONE said he objected to the whole clause. He thought that subordinate legislatures, which were of the nature of corporations, should not be allowed to legislate upon affairs bearing upon the property of the subjects of foreign states. However great might be the liberty which they allowed to the colonies, still the Imperial Legislature must stand between them and foreign states on all questions of controversy that arose; and he could not see on what principle the power of legislation should be given to those colonies on matters affecting the property of fo reign states. Very great difficulties might arise out of the passing of such la-vs as were authorised by the clause, and in such cases who were to construe them? It they were to be construed in the colony, then they would place that colony in diplomatic relations to foreign states. If they were to be construed in Downing-street, the construction might be considered by the colonists as a very great grievance. The home Government would in fact be compelled to deal with foreign states, as re garded their shipping to our colonies, with reference to colonial laws passed with out t h e i r k now l e d ge. They could not call them to account, and yet they would have to stand between them and foreign states on all questions of claim put forward by the latter. This was a propo sition to which he could not give his assent, unless it was shown that some great object was to be gained. This was not an accumulative power, but one which it was not in the option of the Government to put in motion, and, therefore, W h en Ministers should be asked by any foreign state what was their intention with re spect to their inter-colonial trade, they would not be able to give any satisfactory answer, and this diversity of legislation would necessarily lead to great embar rassment. Mr. LABOUCHERE said the object of these clauses was to give the colonies the power of dealing with their own coasting trade in the manner best suited to their own purposes. The ingenuity of the Right Hon. Gen tleman had acted as a trap for his judgment. He said that it was a strange thing to allow the colonies to deal with matters which might involve this.country in dis putes with foreign powers. But there was only one way in which that could happen. A colony might piss a law to admit one foreign country to trade with it and exclude another; and which might be against the stipulations of a treaty with that other country. But in that case the Queen would refuse her assent to any such law. As the law now stood with regard to the power possessed by the colonies of imposing duties on foreign articles imported into them, precisely the same difficulty might arise by the colonies admitting the produce of one coun try and excluding the produce of another, and which might be in direct contravention of treaties between the latter state and this country. But that had never been done. The colonies had no interest in doing it ; and the Queen would always have the power of disallowing such acts. Mr. GLADSTONE observed, that nothing was more clear than the distinction between the regulation regard ing the importation of foreign goods and the admission of foreign ships into our colonies. The origin of foreign ships was known, but the origin of foreign goods was not. In 1843 Lord Stanley addressed a letter to the colonial Legislatures, telling them that a distinction of duties on foreign goods would not meet with the appro bation of the Imperial Legislature, because there was no mode of determining to what country they belonged; but foreign ships were et vi termini the property of fo reign subjects. Mr. SCOTT could not perceive anything more em barrassing than the state of things which would follow the passing of this clause. Suppose a colony were to admit a foreign power into its coasting trade, and that that power should afterwards be at war with the mother country, 'what course would the Government then pursue? Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that no act of the colonial Legislature could have any effect without the previous assent of the Queen in Council. Sir R. PEEL did not think the Right Hon. Gentle man had answered the objection. He understood the objection of the Hon. Member to be this—supposing two foreign pewees should have entered into a reciprocal coast ing trade with our colonies, and that the Queen in Coun cil should have given her consent; and then, supposing one of those powers should be at war with this country, what would be the relation of that power with the colo nies of this country? Mr. LABOUCHERE apprehended that the circum stance of any power being at war with this country would at once exclude the ships of that power from any of the ports of her Majesty, and would override all commercial arrangements that might have been entered into between that power and any of the British colonies. Sir ROBERT PEEL—But those colonies would know nothing whatever of the foreign relations of this country. They might be desirous of establishing a coasting trade with foreign powers without know ing anything of the probability of a war. The mother country, however, would be aware of her relations with those powers. If that were so, was it not better to reserve the power to the mother country of determining what foreign states should carry on a coasting trade with her colonies? Seeing that the Crown was to determine what were to be neighbouring colonies, and that it reserved to itself the power of as senting to the acts passed between any two colonies, besides having a retaliatory power, would it not be more consistent that the mother country should have an un reserved power of determining between what colonies and what foreign countries a coasting trade should be established. Mr. DISRAELI apprehended the objection of the J ight Hon. Gentleman with respect to any arrangements between the colonies and foreign countries was not tonoble. Zinn woo oialy winiciNl tights, A &Ow ration of war would, by the law of nations, instantly de stroy all engagements, coinpaels, and conventions entered into between our colonies with fureign powers; and by modern practice the declaration of an embargo by the metropolitan Government would settle the question. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob served that if a war took place before the Crown gave its assent to the colonial enactment, the case supposed would not arise. If, subsequently, then the case would be the same, whether the arrangement took place by a colonial enactment or by an order i❑ Council at home. Sir G. CLERK considered that instead of this being a relaxing clause it. was a restrictive clause, and he could not see the advantage of it to the colonies. Mr. LABOUCHERE said all he desired was to leave it to the colonies to deal with their own coasting trade as they pleased. No practical difficulty was experienced in consequence of the separate powers possessed by the East India Company with respect to their territories. Mr. GLADSTONE held that the cases would only be parallel if the authority in question were vested in a Go vernment carried on by the natives of India. But India was governed by this country • it was governed by a Court of Directors, and by a Board of Control represented by a Minister in that House. As the Bill stood, it gave entire freedom of trade to the vessels of foreign Powers; and he objected to any clause giving colonial legislatures the power of putting foreign trade in a less favourable position than that in which it was placed by the general provisions of the Bill. Mr. LAROUCHERE put it to the candour of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the fairness of the House, whether such a construction should be put on the clause. When this country reserved to itself it own coasting trade, it was surely right to allow those colonies which lay in juxtaposition to declare themselves to be as one colony for the purposes of the coasting trade. Mr. BERRIES agreed with the Right Hon. Member for Dover (Sir G. Clerk) in thinkinc , that the clause was wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the measure. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the Bill now preserved the coasting trade to England ; and the principle was to preserve it to each colony for itself. So far as it might be essential that neighbouring co lonies should be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be one colony, the measure was restrictive. But no colonial legislatures could exercise the powers conferred on them by the clause unless the Queen in Council de clared the colonies to be neighbouring. The initiative was in the Imperial power. _ Mr. HENLEY Wished to know whether the power given to the Queen in Council was a virtual power, a mere make-believe, or not? He preferred the proposition of the Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as less likely to occasion, bled feelieg between the colo nies and the mother countrY. Mr. GLADSTONE would propose to negative the clause, and was prepared to move an amendment, " That it should be lawful for her Majesty in Council, on ad dress from the proper legislative authority of any British possession, praying her Majesty to authorise the con veyance of goods and passengers from one pail of such possession to another in other than British ships, to issue an order in Council to that effect, in such terms and on such conditions as should seem good to her Majesty. The Committee divided, when there appeared— For the clause ... ... 158 Against ..‘` ... 104 Majority ...--54 The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 15. On clause 16, Mr. HASTIE moved as an amendment, that all the words of the clause after " duly registered" should bo omitted. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the object of the amendment was to abrogate that pdtion of the law which required British ships to be manned by a crew of which three-fourths must be British seamen. He re peated the objections to the proposition which he urged on a previous evening. It would lead to inconvenient and even dangerous consequences to establish the rule that a foreign-built vessel, with a foreign captain and foreign crew, and with nothing British connected with her except the owner and the flag flying.nt her mast head, should nevertheless be entitled to the:protection of the British navy. Mr. Duncan, Mr. Moffatt, and Mr. Clay supported the amendment, urging that when the British shipowner was about to be exposed to the competition of the whole world, justice required that he should be permitted to enter into the struggle on equal terms with his rivals. Mr. BRIGHT also supported the amendment, and said that a captain of a British ship had told him that British seamen were a most turbulent set of men. Mr. ROBINSON admitted that the British shipowner, when deprived of protection, had a right to claim relief from restriction, but at the same time the question raised by the amendment involved the high consideration of national defence. Sir F. BARING contended 'that the adoption of the amendment would practically throw open the whole trade—not excepting the coasting trade—to foreigners. There then would be nothing to prevent a naturalized foreigner—the act of naturalization cost only 10s. 6d.— from employing in our trade a foreign vessel with a foreign master and foreign sailors. Mr. GL ADSTONE wished to know whether, at pre sent, a naturalised foreigner might not build a factory of foreign materials, by foreign w orkmen, place over it a foreign superintendent, employ in it foreign operatives, work up in it foreign materials, and export every farthing's worth of the fabrics produced to foreign countries ?—(Cheers.) He apprehended that the Right Honourable Gentleman did not think such a state of things was an evil, but, on the contrary, that it would conduce to the wealth and prosperity of England. Would the result be different if a naturalised foreigner should employ a foreign ship and foreign crew in our trade? He believed the appreprehensions expressed by the Government were purely chimerical; but, at any rate, when we were exposing our shipowners to competition with the whole world, the principles, not only of free trade, but of justice, required that he should be free from restrictions.—(Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maintained that by the adoption of the amendment the coasting trade must necessarily be open to naturalised foreigners, who might employ foreign ships and crews. After a few words from Mr. W. BROWN, Mr. LABOUC HERE said he believed that the amend ment, if adopted, would lead to great practical evils— that it would excite alarm and panic among British ship owners, and would afford no settled relief to the mercan tile marine. He believed that our seamen were not in ferior to those of any other nation, and he hoped that, as losig.as British ships claimed to be so, they would be manned by a larger proportion of British seamen. Alderman THOMPSON supported the amendment, but: was afraid it would bear hardly on British ship oirvnees: If- the amendment were carried, there would be Ali end to everything like British registers. Mr. SCOTT observed that, by the 18th clause, the Queen in Council had the power of doing away with this 16th clause. Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was considered desirable that the Queen should have the power of relaxing the law in certain cases. Mr. MI rCHELL said that considerable value was attached to British registers, and his own conviction was, that no sailors were so efficient as our own; but he felt inclined to support the amendment, in ordered to test the truth of the different stories they had heard. Lord PALMERSTON begged the House to consider the embarrassments which would be caused in case of war by adopting the amendment. Suppose two foreign nations at war, and then let the House imagine the faci lities which the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman would afford to the merchant vessels of one of the belligerents to assume fraudulently the character of British property. Let them also consider the disFutes that would arise when British ownership was claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the political difficulties into which this country would be drawn by ships being en tered as British ships, but owned by foreigners, and manned by foreign sailors, while this country would be called upon to claim the vessel as British property. These difficulties it would not, in his opinion, be wise to incur by adopting the amendment. Mr. BOUVERIE said that, under the present law, a foreign captain might be naturalised for 10s; and there fore the difficulty suggested by the Noble Lord existed at present. tiir G. GREY—The impression of the Hon. Member was quite erroneous. The Secretary of State was bound to require a certificate of past residence in this country, and also an assurance of the intention of future residence. Lord PALMERSTON would just add, that if it were so easy for a foreigner to evade the difficulty, it was equally easy for a British shipowner to evade the diffi culty on the other side by a similar process. After a few words from the Marquis of GRANBY, The House divided, when there appeared— For the amendment 53 Against it ... 197 Majority against the amendment —144 Mr. HASTIE moved the omission of all words after "duly registered," in clause 16, the effect of which would be that it should not be necessary to navigate a British registered ship with a crew three-fourths of which were British seamen, or with one British seaman to every 20 tons. Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the proviso to which the Hon. Member objected was intended to re lieve the stringency of the previous clause. It did not render it incumbent to have one British seaman for every 20 tons, but was contingent on the circumstance of three fourths of the erew not being British seamen. Mr. BRIGHT thought that the clause requiring three fourths of the crew to be British seamen was imperative. The proviso in effect meant that when the master of a vessel had twice as many men as he wanted, he might take as many more as he liked.— [Mr. LABOUCHERE-It is not compulsory.] Then what was the use of it?— (Hear, hear.) The effect of the clause was to create an impression among the sailors that there would be a sort of monopoly among British ships, and that for every 100 tone there must be five British seamen, and that while the American vessel could come to Liverpool with three er three-and-a-half men to every 100 tons, the English ship should be burdened with more hands than she wanted. The clause should be left out, for there was no earthly use in it. Mr. LABOUCHERE promised to consider the objec tions which had been urged against the clause if the Hon. Gentleman withdrew his amendment.—(Hear.) Mr. WA WN hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman would well consider the subject, and would be just before he was generous. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause agreed to. On the 17th clay se, Mr. DISRAELI proposed, as it was understood the Bill could not go through Committee that night, that the Chairman should report progress. Mr. LA BOUCHERE 11,,,d no objection to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman if he would allow that and the next clause to go through Committee. Clauses 17 and 18 were then agreed to. On the question b. ing put, . . . - Mr. DISItAELI—Betore you agree that the report 49414 ke roceincl I wish t 9 make 90 or tW9 91;1304117 tions on the remarkable circumstances which have at ; tended the progress of the Bill ihte night. I, its common with In , st Hon. Gentlemen present, came down to the House expecting that occasion would have been taken by one of the most eminent Members ot . the House to develope one of the most important principles which concerns the trade and navigation of this country, namely, the application of the principles of reciprocity to the Bill now under consideration. I think I was jus.• tified in the anticipations in which I had indulged. It had been no rumour, no transient idea, floating for a moment through the atmosphere of Parliament, that reached me. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), on every occasion that offered itself, informed the House and the country that he would take an opportunity of stating, in detail, the reasons which he had allud, d to, rather than parti cularly intimated to the House, and that he would, b - fore the Bill arrived at the stage it hal now reached, offer to the House on occasion of deliberating on that im portant proposition, and of adjudicating on a subject which so much interests the public out of doers. The House, sharing in the interest which stimulated me, was disappointed in my expectations. I confess, Sir, I was very much surprised when I heard a Right Hon. Gen tleman on the opposite side of the House (Mr. La bouchere) make a communication almost as important, certainly as interesting, and I think much more sur prising. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the moment we went into Committee—l believe even before it—stands up and informs the House that he is going to withdraw one of the most important portions of the new Bill, and in tact that which is the only feature that distin guishes it from the Bill of last year.—(Hear.) When I remind the House that of the 32 clauses contained in the Bill, the alteration of the Right Hon. Gentleman announced so suddenly caused the omission of ten, and the serious modification of four, making 14 in all, they can easily understand the surprise of those who had given any attention to the details of the subject; but no sooner had the Right Hon. Gentleman informed the House of this great sacrifice on the part of himself and of the Government, than the other Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Gladstone) rises, amidst the breathless atten tion of the House, to compensate us for the loss we hed already experienced, by seizing on the occasion to en lighten us on the all-absorbing topic of reciprocity, an nounces that he also is about to-make a great sacrifice, and that he, on his own part (imitating the example of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite), is about to forego the great principle of reciprocity, which he has once and for all abandoned.—(Hear, hear.) I must do him the justice to admit that in making this announcement he entered into many arguments which must make us re gret that he did not give us the full development of his reasoning. lie indulged us also with the reasons whieh had induced him to adopt the resolution that had so much surprised us—the first being, that if he had insisted upon that resolution he was afraid he would only be supported by a slight majority of the House; and the last, that he was unwilling to embarrass her Majesty's Ministers.- 7 -(Cheers.) By what means the Right Hon. Gentleman thought he could embarrass a Government so powerful as the present—even by a slight minority—l am certainly quite unable to compre hend.—(Cheers, and a laugh.) We ell know the scho lastic ingenuity by which the Right Hon. Gentlenlan, treating the intervening reasons between the first and the last, might easily reconcile them. But, Sir, I con fess this was a scene to me almost unparalleled.—(Loud cheers.) To behold those two eminent and Right Hon. Gentlemen abandoning the children of their fond adop tion—to see them making those mutual sacrifices— (Cheers)—l own when I saw it I was strongly reminded of a celebrated day in the history of the French revolu• tion, called, I believe, " the day of sacrifices," when the nobles and prelates of the realm vied with and imi tated each other in throwing their coronets and mitres down into the dust. If I am not mistaken it has since been called " the day of dupes." I have only to hope that the House and the country, when they recal the surprising incidents of this evening, may not have reason to find they had some share in the application of a lesson on which I shall not further indulge.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) There was one observation of the Right Honourable Gentleman offered as a reason for the erroneous calculations he entered into with respect to the coasting trade, on which I must be permitted to say a few words. The Right Hon. Gentleman has ex onerated the Chief Commissioner of the Customs from any blame respecting these calculations. I feel interested in the public reputation of that Gentleman. He is one of my constituents.—(A laugh.) But while I feel grate ful to the Right Hon. Gentleman for exonerating, Sir T. Fremantle, I cannot help feeling also that it would have been more magnanimous on the part of the Government if his name had not been introduced in the debate.— (Cheers.) However, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) may please to put it, he and his colleagues are responsible for the error.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Labouchere.) Yes, the Right Hon. Gentleman is very willing to accept it now; but why did he attempt to ex cuse his blunder by introducing the name of a gentleman who never under any circumstances should have been forced under our notice?—(Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to consider the propriety of his course; the only difference between your last Bill and that which is now before us consists of the clauses in which he so egregiously blundered.—(Cheers.) What is the result of your communications with foreign powers, or what was the object of those communications? As practical men, we aspired to nothing but to go into Committee and review the details of a w ell-considered measure. But now, having arrived at this stage of the proceedings, with the results which are before us, we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that this Bill has sunk under a paralytic stroke. This certainly is not a source of triumph to us, though to some present it may be a subject of jest and merriment. Out of doors it is a subject of serious and mourtiful consideration. There is great distress out of doors—many interests are griev ously suffering—l shall not now enter into the causes of those sufferings; lam not disposed to enter into the question of those causes. There are many men out of doors who have been inclined to enter into the consider ation of those causes in a spirit of submission, and who are still inclined to submit without a murmur; not that their fortunes have not been injured, but that legis lation, with regard to their dearest interests, has been precipitate, and that it scarcely ever has been matured; that their interests have been sacrificed, not to necessities foreseen by great statesmen of wisdom and prescience, but they complain of this, that their fortunes have been destroyed, and their happiness deteriorated by mea sures being undertaken suddenly without thought—by measures having been blunderingly and hastily passed, though those laws affected the greatest interests of the country. The agricultural interest has deeply suffered, not that I am now going to denounce the laws by which that object has been accomplished, but what I complain of is, that those measures were passed by Ministers who did not propose the repeal of the corn- laws from convic tion, but in consequence of being panic-struck. A short time before they advised such a proceeding they found or thought themselves surrounded by a combination of circumstances with which they supposed they could not cope; they changed their opinion in a hurry, and a great interest was sacrificed upon a very insufficient occasion. — , (Hear, berate) Your victims would have been more content if this had been done in a legitimate manner, and after due deliberation. How different would be the position of stales, if the question had come before the people fairly, and been decided after general elections, and brought forward upon the responsibility of la Government \vhieli' .had professed opinions favourable to such a change:, I say not a word about its policy; but what I feel is that the occasion was precipitate.— (Hear, hear.) Othe r great interests have likewise been sacrificed. The prosperity of our colonies, and especially of our sugar colonies, has been destroyed; they have been ruined, and their ruin has been consum mated by the votes of those who have spoken against the side on which they voted. Against the policy of our legislation respecting corn and sugar I am not now say ing a word, but what I assert is, that you have not only passed those laws but ruined the parties interested by the ' precipitate spirit of your legislation. Although this may not be a favourable time for a discussion of this charac ter, yet I cannot refrain—influenced by recent circum stances—from reminding the House that year after year the successful supporters of these precipitate measures had advocated an opposite policy; suddenly, in the teeth of their own often repeated convictions in opposition to men of light and lead in the country, they changed —not in fluenced by any new or striking conviction, but they changed because they wanted to keep a Government in office. In saying this, I express a feeling that prevails out of doors. lam not now objecting to the change, but I denounce the manner in which it has been effected. Here, in the present Bill, another great interest is to suffer—the siege has been longer, and the attack more vigorous. We are now in the second year of this projected legislation against the shipping interest, and is there anything in this pro ceeding which did not characterize your previous legisla tion in similar cases? There are many answers to the questions that have been put with respect to this Bill. It cannot be doubted that it will be impossible for you to proceed in this course of legislation. Industry has been disturbed and tortured by your experiments, and can you now wonder that the people complain when they find their most important affairs dealt with by statesmen who have merely sought to catch the gale of the moment unqualified for the task they undertake, with no mastery of the subject, and therefore with no rational prospect of success.—(Hear, hear.) In the courses which you pur • sue you are not merely destroying material interests, but laying in a stock of political discontent which will do more than any opposite policy could effect to diminish the revenue, to disturb the industry of the country, and even to shake its institutions to their centre. Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. LABOHCHERE rose at the same time; the latter giving way, the former said, I scarcely know whether 1 should endeavour to take precedence of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but, after the reference which has been made to me by the Hon. Mem ber for Buckinghamshire, I presume it will be felt that I ought not to shrink from following him in the debate. He has made two charges against me, one is, that having undertaken to express my reasons in favour of a modi fied and conditional legislation, I failed to fulfil the ex pectations which I had so raised ; the other was, that in stating certain reasons I had given such as were incon sistent with each other. I propose briefly to reply to each of those charges. I submit that my reas ons are not inconsistent with each other. There were only a few Members in this House who would eupport my proposi tion on its own merits, and if I had chosen that alter,ta tive there would have been no benefit—there would have been no progress made towards determining the issue of this question by taking to a division on that point. s On the other hand , I was supported by a numb e r o f gentlemen whose acceptance of my proposition was not bona fide. They merely wished to melee a toil of it. and to employ me as a tool during the progress of the measure in Committee, and then abandon toe and my pt.,. positi‘m on the third reading of the Bill; and I hold my self now in no respect responsible for n. 4 alf.o,i,;g the course which they wished to prescribe, My reasons then ate not inconsistent.—(llear, hear.) It is not ,true that SVC PlOdge4 which fiillo4 t 9 fad; 4 PPPQPI tc• 04960 who atten'ed to what occurred, which the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire did not; of his neglect I make no complaint—but he did not attend. Now, I appeal to those who were present, to say if I did not most dis tinctly state that I should exercise my own discretion as to the conduct of this proposition in Committee, and my reason was that I felt unwilling to vindicate the argu mentative superiority of my proposition at the risk of hazard to the great interest on behalf of which it had been made. I had no desire to see the plan of the Govern ment rejected, if the effect of that rejection should be the continuance of the present law. I conceive that the general plan of the Government way prove an important benefit, and I never intended to express the slightest diff-rence from them. In proof of this, I can call some witnesses. I can call the Honourable Gentleman himself as a witness, arid I can ask him if he Lad not thought the course which I am now taking favourable to my purposes and unfavourable to his, whether I should have to endure the sarcasms which he has launched against me, and whics I assure him are borne with perfect good humour ? I appeal, then, from his present displeasure to his better judgment, and I look confidently to its being admitted that it was not injudicious and not unbe coming in me, who conscientiously differ from him to pursue the course in which I have been engaged, or in expressing a belief that our recent legislation, so far from being amongst the causes of our distress, may prove the means of alleviation, and that, under the mercy of Go], we may soon witness the mitigation of that distress amidst which, I think, we may now discern the dawning of a day of returning prosperity.—(Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE—The Hon. Gentleman the Member tor Buckiughamshire began to address this Committee under circumstances of a very unusual cha racter. I will engage to say that no circumstances halt so novel have come under the notice of this House for some time. At the close of a long discussion in Committee on the Bill he intimated a desire to move that you report progress, and then he took advantage of an interval which arose for the purpose of raising all possible topics, and attacking all persons whatever.— (Hear, hear.) I confess it occasioned in my mind no small surprise at finding him so much more ready than usual to take a part in this debate. I should have thought he would probably have preferred to secure the opportunity of a few hours in which to polish his pe riods and arrange his sarcasms —(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear")—and that he would not, at the pre sent stage of this proceeding, have adopted the unprece dented course of attacking the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. As to the observations which he made upon the Government, I have no wish to occupy the time of the House in replying to them, although he taunted me with the alterations which I have found it necessary to make since the introduction of the Bill. There certainly has been a change in one important par ticular, the coasting trade, but I will here only say that if he, being a Minister—no very improbable event, con sidering his great talents—should hereafter find it neces sary to propose to Parliament an extensive and impor tant measure of legislation, he may, in proposing and defending it in this House, think himself very fortunate; and he will by no means fare ill if be be not called upon to propose any greater alteration than it has been our duty to submit to the House. I hardly ever remember a subject involving topics of such great variety and diffi culty in which it has been the duty of the Government to propose fewer and less extensive changes—scarcely any measure has received less o alteration. I can as sure the Hon. Gentleman that it was not in a spirit of levity, as he supposes, that this measure was brought for ward by her Majesty's Government. We well knew the difficulties of the task we were undertaking; but we felt, also, that with regard to the most important in terests of the country, it was our bounden duty to face those difficulties, to lay the measure fairly before Par liament and the country, and to do what we could to carry the measure to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. In that course we shall persevere, undeterred by the taunts which the Hon. Gentleman h as th oug h t it right to make upon this occasion. —(Cheers.) I will not, at this late hour, advert to the other topics to which the Hon. Gentleman referred. There is only one other ' point on which I feel bound to say one word. He stated that he thought I had not acted fairly in mention ing the name of Sir T. Fremantle to the House. I should be sorry to have it thought that I had acted un fairly towards an individual of so much respectability, intelligence, and public spirit as the gentleman in ques tion. I fully admit that the entire responsibility of the first adoption and subsequent withdrawal of the clauses referred to belongs exclusively to her Ma jesty's Government; and I only mentioned the filets which had occurred with the full consent of Sir T. Fre mantle, in order to show the more clearly how the matter stood.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HERRIES asked whether the Government in tended that the House should go into Committee on the navigation-laws again on Monday, in preference to going on with the rate-in-aid question? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that they proposed to take the Mutiny Bill first on Mon day, then the Committee on the navigation-laws, an d if that was over in a reasonable time, he proposed then to go on with the rate-in-aid question. '1 he House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. The Larceny Acts Amendment Bill went through Committee, and was reported. The Recovery of Wages (Ireland) Bill, and the Pro tection of Justices (Ireland) Bill, were respectively read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. BOUVERIE, the following Gen tlemen were appointed a Select Committee on the Clergy Relief Bill:—Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Stafford, Sir \V. Clay, Mr. Lacy, Mr. Ileadlam, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Peel, and Mr. Horsman. On the motioa of Mr. E WART. the following Gen tlemen were appointed a Select Committee on Public Libraries :—Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Disraeli, Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Charteris, Mr. Bunbury, Mr. G. A. Hamil ton, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Mines, the Lord-Advocate, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Tbicknesse, Mr. Mackinncn, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. Cardwell, and Mr. Ewart. On the motion of Mr. H. DRUMMOND, the follow ing Gentlemen were appointed a Select Committee on the Real Property Transfer Bill:—Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Wood, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Solicitor- General, Mr. Adderley, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Sir John Pakington, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Christopher, Mr. William Miles, Mr..Bou verie, Mr,. Drummond, and Mr. Stuart Wortley. Lord NUGENT gave notice, that on an early day after Easter he would move that a Committee be ap pointed to consider the question of charging the main tenance of the destitute poor upon the general revenues of the country. The House adjourned at ten minutes to One o'clock. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, 3fAucit 23. STOCK EXCHANGE.--The share market was dull and depresse d to-day, and pi ices are again lower. The sales are—Aberdee n ' Preference, 6 per cent. In perpet., p.—Caledonian, Preference , 7 per cent., 11% —Great Northern, 91. 3s. 9d. c. di s .—Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 3 1 ,6 dis.—Lancaster and Preston, Quarters , —London and North-Western, 134 —Ditto, Quarters, New, 41. I"' 9d. p.--111idiand Stock, 79%—Ditto, New Halves, 77. —Newcastle and Carlisle, 101 V,—North Union (A), 216—South-Eastern 0 0 ' 4 1' Thirds, 714—York, Newcastle, and Berwick Extension (N° 3 ', and 2), 2% dis.—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), 6 per cent. guarante ed c. dis. MANCHESTER, MARCH 23. , reeds, STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—East Lancashire, 4% -- „„, Fifths. 3 1 .fi —Sheffield (No. 1), Quarters, 7 7-16—Leeds and Pew;r ;;;;; 46—Sheffield and Lincoln, 14 c. dis.—West Riding Union, 44 1 "'"' - 7 East, Lancashire, New, 7 i4 c. dis.—Sheffield, Preference, 10%— _ Cheshire Junction, 13 dis YORK, MARCH 22. STOCK EXCHANGE —The busine , s transacted to-day was as fol lows :—Great Northern, W. 3s. M.—Sheffield, Rotherham, and Goole, N. Div., guaranteed 5 per cent., 84 —Shrewsbury and Birmingham, Preference, 9% —York,Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Pur chase), 714 GLASGOW, MARCH 22, . ' STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The following are to-day's transactions :-- Aberdeen, Preference, 50s.—Clydesdale Junction, 59%—Glasgow. Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 5 per cent. guaranteed, 106—Ditto, Haire! (No. 1), 6%—North British, Preference, 245.—Scottish Central, 204 • ALARMING ACClDENT. — Yesterday noon, as a horse with a large float (or low cart) belonging to W. Swift: jun., was bringi ng a l oa d o f a b out three or f our tons a' guano, from Messrs. Tobin and Company's stores in Rathbone-street, down the steep hill of Upper Duke street, the great weight overpowered the horse an d forced the ponderous load against the pr em ises 01, Mr. Abbott, upholsterer, at the corner of Duke street. The side stones, flags, and pallisades were broken , the horse's head was a little cut by going, through one of the plate-glass windows, and one el the shafts was broken by the tremendous concussion against the dead wall between two plate-glass windows. Two ladies who were passing had a narrow escape with their lives; one of them was so very ranch alarmed that she fainted. We understand that the lives of the public are in constant jeopardy et this great thoroughfare, where five streets meet, by the manner in which the carts are loaded and driven down Upper Duke-street, and the police ought to have in structions to summon all parties for either overloading or furiously driving.—Liverpool Mercury of yesterday. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills a Sure Re medy for Coughs, Colds, and Oppression of the . C es h a et4t. —These complaints being accompan iedin b o e r more or o I d pted in fever, the most prompt measures should reduce the febrile action of the anpduraplolasye t irritation of the affected parts. for l let the sufferer then no thing surpasses Holloway's remove all weight or pain fo s r ys w te h ir c , h medicine, which will speedily , respiration, and effect a hes t, or a troublesome cough, have immediate recourse to a f l ew ' doses of this inestimable in the head, pains in the c acertainnd the rcure.eb y , a and all affections of the lungs Establishment, Druggists,244 Strand,aod Sold by they are equally at Professor Holloway , London. promote an easy , efficacious. BIRTHS. On the 18th inst., at Tackley Rectory, near Woodstock, the wife of the Rev. L. A. Sharpe, of a son. On the 19th inst., at Stoneleigh Abbey, the lady of th e Hon. Henry Pitt Cholmondely, of a daughter. On the 21st inst., at Woorikirk Parsonage, Wakefield, th wife of the Rev. G. D. Miller, of a daughter. On the 21st inst., at T un b r id ge W e ll s , t h e l a d y of fieery Bro tdwood, Esq., M.P., of a sou. MARRIED. On the 22d inst., at St. Mary's, Southwark, Charles Augustus, youn ges t son o f J ames Coles, Esq., of Old Park, Clapham, t o M ary A nne, on l y d aug h ter of Charles W° l Esq., of the Paragon, New Kent-road. DIED. On the 21st inst., Edward Prosper, youngest son of the late W. Vink, Esq. On the 21st inst., at Thorp Arch, Frances, relict of Georg . Carroll, Esq., of J. unduff, county of Wicklow. aged 70. On the 9th inst., at Oxford :lodge, Cheltenham, Sa rah, relict of Samuel F. Waddington, Esq., agel On the 21 st inst.. at Brast d-park, Kent, Frederick, youngest child of P. P. Fir'b, Esq On the 19th inst., at Bath, the Rev. J. B. Ogle. '_ v...-----.- London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , Ot No. 112, Strand, Printer, at nuf Nun (Mice, No• I Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, na tlt3 GetilitY ° Middlcsa, Saturday, March 24.1549. '-' till tha due wit of 1 , trei for and and aid ble gag per ralt and lath witl ant atm tinu of 7, mag to 01 ferei Wht the 1 witl eith , mia of li outl ag fat ha Ti ex 4