The Sun. — London, England, 1821-04-06 00:00:00

etlir Powers of the..almdSt total prohibition d trade ? -M.r.,IVALIAcE had n 6 recollection that any €,:ch representations had been made. The P e ti. Lion .was ordered t o b e pr in te d . TIMBER DUTIES. On the-Motion of Mr.WALLAcE that the Re= Port of the Committee On the Acts relating to c.,aties on Timber, should be recommitted, the `:'e.resolved itself into a Committee. . • • A lr• WALLAcE noticed at some length .the ob 3,7ti."'s -whi c h h a d b een made to the proposi ii:" it bad been his d u ty t o su b m i t to t h e L°Lic• Thes'e were most contradictory in their nat ure. By some. he was accused of favouring th e'tr4de to the North of Europe too much, while Others accused him of undue partiality for that to North America. From these Conflicting °I)01:ons, he was led to conclude that the pro- I?ition.which had been brought forward was ti Pcnthe whole pretty fair to all parties con cerned. With the view he took of the subject he co uld offer no new c oncess i ons , an d h e did not fee t disp ose d to accede to the proposition which 111-.loble Lord...opposite had submitted t o th e - ;i 43113 e on a f ormer n i g ht. He was unwilling to Nord any un d ue a d vantages to t h e tra d e - of the debt ow i ng b y N orway to this country, to 1, -- : k e up which be supposed all the bad debts to O eel scraped t o g e th er , did no t mater i a ll y b ear TI - , t° question. If 'such d e bt wer e ow i ng , it was it , to rtlbe- supposed that it could be paid in woo d ; c af; tls t he settled throu g h th e me di um o f a nego hafT°o between the two Governments. Norway it ad a full share of our Timber Trade. This IteaPprelrended could not be denied, when it was t` -e° that s h e h a d h a d a t hi r d o f our whole trade o th e 'North of Europe. He was disposed hhow some favour to Norway in th e ar tratigetnt‘nts to be mad e , b u t l ie was no t di spose d th- afford her such advantages as would lead to totni exclusion of the trade of Russia and :, 11 , s sia• The Hon. Member then made compa tf"ve statements between his proposition and the of the Noble Lord, thereby shelving that e latter „.," gave considerable advantage to :a y over over Russia. The system which had been recommended by an Hon. Baronet was nothing 1110 re nor less than a system for excluding the nnber of our Colonies from this country alto f.ett,l'• your interests, and the interests 1 7 tile Colonies, had a claim upon their protec tit.", 'and it would be the height of injustice if pie C ommittee refused to grant that protection. ae felt confident that he had said sufficient to convince Hon. members that the Resolution was y i T e w hich Ought to b e agree d t o , both with a t ' e w to th e con d uct t h ey were bound in fairness P u rsue,- as well as to the true interests of all "",ties connected -With the Trade. ir f N PARELL said, that nothing whi c h h a d t i llen f rom the Right Hon. Gentleman went to to lall ge the opinion which h e h a d p rev i ous l y en rtained upon this question. .lie considered his l tr ' 4 l ,o sition to impose a direct tax upon the coun itY) arid that partly for the purpose of giving an opp or t un it y o f i mport i ng d ea l s. If hi s 1-:°lciple was good in this respect, he would per see the propriety of extending it further in ti,ii?til'aging a fr ee f ore i gn t ra d e . If h e too k off tlie .16 -e s upon for e i gn d ea l s , w h y no t a l so ta k e of f 1 41 ' e duties u p on li nens —(H ear , h ear ! ) - - H e he l * 11. 0 reason why the duty upon h em p s h ou ld clo ti e Pt up at its present high rate. All these rA sh s would b e re d uce d w i t h t h e most beneficial (.4; i t t i s to trade in gene ra l. Th e Ri g ht H on. gr o le rtlau supported his p ro positi on upon t h e • et - : .1 " of exp e di enc y, an d upon th e great pro -41,; i° o (which he considered to be due to the do o Tg cnd colonies. But with reg ar d t o thi s 4o v ' r ine of expediency, it was not supported by 11 0 ' °f th e f acts of the case. There had been sii t i e4s ,e made out to ca ll f or th e imposition of Ilp o ;,"ties -for the sake of conferring b ene fit juso..' t he Colonies. Nothing had been said to for 3 ' the sacrifice whi c h th e coun t ry must ma k e li ent 'e sake ofaffording protection t o th e s e par erel'ar interests. Th e b oun t y g i ven wou ld 100 ( t a tax not amounting to less 'than 3 or ' t .()° /• a year.. Th e y oug ht as soon as possi tr e ° recur to s oun d principles as-regard e d thi s fid ititYand at some future period the dutiesshOuld t i l a ced upon -a footing of equali4ation. Feel -I)4''s,-;,at the present opportunity ought not to Ris e , "Y 'without their endeavouring, in some de bt°, to accomplish that object by acting upon kii,l4l' principles he should move, as an amend, 41i it 5 the Resolution,that after the word "And," se r 4 /I*° l rds shall be left out, and the following in- Ist ' n e f (4 .',° their place Thaffrom and after the :la.nuary, 1825, the duty upon all Foreign be iturported into the United Kingdom, shall (Iti tt , Per load of 50 .cubic feet. And that the u pon all F ore i gn D ea l s i mp o rted into the b all ited Kingdom, from a n d a ft er the same period, 'kti k i e 21. ss. p er l oa d o f 50 cubic feet ; the 'th e to be charged on the cubical cont en t s o f .tunhe r ." i nt er .13ENNET observed, th a t h e bed no personal kr () es t in this questionstood on neutral B h e ti " • pt he was anxious to lend his aid to T ra , e ) Port o f t h ose great P rinciples of Free tlife which c ou ld a l one extricate us from our li res e e tli t tie s . I le urged Parliament to take the his tine r i l opport un it y o f putting at least one Oldll of our trade out of the trammels of the to ni „sYste. The system, p ursue d w i t h respect Sil k "'e Timb er T ra d e was .not like that of the fosjrade, f or in stance, long established and IviZed r • It commenc e d on l y i n 1807, and then, to i )n " Specific decla ra ti on, that it was intended tottemporary. The Committee ought to re horpcot, that they were legislating for England, tillestcr Russia rer Norway; and that the only d ined l°n was, in what way timbi , r could he oli q at the cheapest rate. The Honourable of °ll rn ti ..7 an proceeded to ridicule the ' - absurdity` 14x :" . 1 tug the People of this country pay a kei.75400,000/. 'or 50 0;000/. to put in . the -o ther of the Canadian lumber-men, or those t 4,..'e-ulnher-Ineni the Ship Owners at home. sCvll.entered' into a variety of calculations )es,, d that 1 ?3 , the operation of .the duties im '4 , 1807 1 . 11 e had driven the Norwegian, the best timber, out of the on. Gentle at the proos of. roan- Would hav p e the n effect the- of kee ßight p-' , • ing it out of the. market. He then maintained that the scale of duties recommended by his Noble Friend was much preferable to that re commended by the Right _Hon. Gentleman. His own proposition (as we understood the Hon.:Gen leman) was to reduce the duty on the whole of the foreign timber one-half----that was from 31. to 305.; and to lay that dutyon American timber; which would give about the same amount of revenue as the present proposition. He admitted that it would drive bad timber from America out of the market; but that, he contended, was desirable. The Honourable Member, after some further ob servations, concluded by giving his support to the Amendment. Mr. KEITH DouGLAss said, he thought it would have been better if the Hon. Baronet (Sir 11. Parnell) reserved his motion tilt the whole question had been discussed. The system now proposed was only experimental, and it might be corrected by future regulations if found incon venient; he approved of it generally, though ; with respect to deals, he thought too great an advantage had been given to the Americans. He concluded by opposing the Amendment. Sir M. W. RIDLEY could not refrain from ob serving that, looking at all the evidence, it was wonderfully affected by self-interest. One of the questions proposed was—" Is there any debt due from Norway to the British merchants ?" Yes, a large debt; and the Norwegians are anxious to pyit in timber. In :hat answer there was as much self-interest as in any other answer in the evidence. Those lumbermen,to use the language of the Honourable Member for Shrewsbury; were a most valuable body of men ; but he did not wish to sacrifice the interest of the public to promote theirs, neither would he look entirely to the interests of the consumer, without any regard to that of the seller or importer. [Here there was some interruption, in consequence of an Honourable Member baying fainted.] Sir M. W. RIDLEY resumed.—There -were some purposes to which the Canada Timber was more applicable than the Baltic, and .he there fore thought it would be worth while to consider whether the effect of the proposition of the Right Hon. Gent. (whose professed object was to pro cure Timber at the cheapest rate for the con sumer) would not be to drive the Canada Tim ber out of the market, and compel the consumer to use Baltic Timber for purposes to which it was not so well suited as American timber. In his opinion, the proposition would have this effect, and that a duty of ss. instead of 105. would he productive of advantages to the consumer. The Canada timber was not subject to dry rot in that country, and that it was in thismust be attributed to its being floated down the river, and imme diately shipped in that state, and deprived of the free circulation of air ; but a small imposition of duty might prevent this hurry in shipping it. Looking to the interests of the consumer and the Canada importers, nothing could be more prejudicial than the proposed duty of ten shil lings,- which would render it impossible to con tinue the trade, the consequence of which would be an injury to the general interests of the coun try. The ships employed in the British North American trade, consumed annually about 300,0001. worth of the produce of Great Britain and Ireland : but if the present proposition were acceded to, the number of the ships would be di minished by one half, the effect of which would be, a loss of 150,0001. annually to. Great Britain and Ireland. As he had to choose between the -pro position and the amendment, he should, though not approving of the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, support it in preference to the amendment, because he thought it less injurious to the shipping and the general interests of the country. Mr. SYKES also thought the proposition of the Rt. lion. Gentleman would seriously affect the Ship-owner, but he supported it because it was less injurious than the amendment. He looked at the interests of the Ship-owners as bound up with the general interests of the country, and he did not wish to give them advantages unconnected with the general interest. Ile apprehended that the necessary consequence of the proposition would be the transfer of the American Trade to Norway, which must seriously hurt the Ship ' owners of this country. The American Timber ' Trade was carried on by British shipping, but . ' three-fourths of the Norway Timber Trade' was ' carried on by foreign ships, and the other quarter by British. Even if all British ships were employed in the Norway Trade, it would be carried on by one-third of ,the number of ships employed in the American. If this country wished to retain her Colonies their produCe ought to be protected. —He did not think the only object to be to procure articles at the cheapest rate possible, because if that were the object the Corn Laws ought to be repealed, as Corn could be., purchased ,at Dantzic at 965. per quarter.— [We regret that our limits prevent our giving a more ample report of the Hon. Member's speech, which was replete with sound argument, and strongly pointed out the intimate connec tion between the shipping interest, and the national welfare, independence, and respectability.] Lord ALTHORPE conceived the American Tim ber Trade not so beneficial to the inhabitants of Canada as to the Ship-owners, because timber was cut down in that country for the purpose of clearing the land. He could not agree with the amendment, because he thought as long as the Colonial system was kept up, so long ought pro tection to be afforded, in such a degree as not to dO more hurt than service to the subjects of this country. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said, that Norway being put upon the same footing with Russia might give .cause of complaint to the latter.; but he coulckee nol..eason for complaint, on the part of Russia, unless a greater duty were triposed upon her- produce..than upon that of Norway. The Right Hon: Gehtleman had said, that what he (Lord A.) had proposed. on a for mer night would benefit Russia; because if the article could not be procured from Norway, it must come from Russia; but the Right lion. Gentleman forgot that Prussia and Sweden might enter into competition. He should on some fu ture occasion propose a graduating-scale of-duties, but at present should do no more than, vote against ,the amendment. . Mr. F. itontNsoN observed, that the opinions which had been expressed on this' question,were widely diilerent, and the inference he drew. front. , . then' all was, that the proposition of hiS Right lion. Friend was the best that could be adopted. Our Colonies, he conceived, ought rather to be considered 'aS an integral part of the kingdom, than as an appendage having only a reniote in terest in common with the mother cotititry: As to the 'shipping interest, he trusted Pai-liament and the country would never be so'uncri - ateful as to forget that to it we owed the glory of that navy " Whose flag had brav'd a thousand year. " The battle and the breeze.". He denied. that either their interests, or those of the North American Colonies, were compromised by the proposition before the Committee. 'The Right Honourable Gentleman defended the po licy of encouraging the importation of timber from Canada, on the ground that a great quan tity of it was consumed at present in the manu facturing districts in making packing cases, and in various other uses. With regard to the seCond branch of the subject—the duty on Baltic tim ber—be thought the scale of duties proposed by his Rt.Hon.Friend (Mr. Wallace) was thabest that could be suggested. If long Norway deals were to be excluded, by lowering the duty on short deals, there would be no possibility of getting them by any other means than by ,sawing, up, logs, which would be a great inconvenience as well as loss to the consumer. It was alleged that this duty would have the effect of throwing all the trade in deals into the hands of Russia; but though the quantity of deals lately imported fuom Norway had been greatly diminished, that did not seem to have increased the importation from Russia or Prussia; and since this effect had not been produced by the former duty, there was no reason to apprehend it from a new duty. Mr. BARING said, the question before the House was clearly one in which the British .Co lonies and the North of Europe were at issue. Having attended to the evidence before the Corn, mittee on this subject, he could say that it was candid in almost every point. With respect to the interest of the .consumer which ought to ' be considered, it was clear upon general princi ples of political economy,• that the best articles in trade ought to be taken at the best price. His Honourable Friend contended, that the extent of the National Debt ought to lead to a departure from sound principles of policy,. and the reasons advanced, as an additional in ' ducement to th e house to adopt that d e p ar t ure , was the claims of the colonists and the ship ping interest to protection. He did not think the inteiest of Canada was strongly supported by the Timber Trade. Having formerly paid at tention to the settlements in America, and espe cially the province of Canada, he was enabled to say, that of .all public nuisances the lumbermen .were the worst ; they led a dissolute life, and proved a perpetual annoyance to the settlers. lie denied' that the Colonies would be oppressed by the proposed tax. The Timber Trade in this country was unavoidably subject to duties and restrictions. The best policy would be to adopt the motion of his Hon. Friend. 'He deprecated the system which led the Government to keep sailors and : ships in the Canada Trade, without profit and employment. To compel men to go to Canada fortimber;when they could pro cure better nearer home, was carrying the sys tem of employment too far. The Hon. Member confessed himself a friend to free trade, at the. same-time he came to a conclusion that it was safe to abide by the decision of the Committee, who had bestowed some time and study on the subject. lie therefore supported the:proposition of the Right Hon.. Gentleman. . Mr. RICARDO observed that the Committee on Foreign Trade had laid down just prin-. ciples, but produced aßeport at variance with all those principles. No country was more forth/ nately placed with respect,to timber than this, for the good timber was _tear us, and the bad. was remote, and Duties and Acts of Parliament were necessary to make us chuse the bad. The Member for Shrewsbury had shown that the country was taxed to the amount of four hun dred thousand pounds annually for the benefit of the Ship-owners. For his own part, he would rather agree to a direct tax to that amount, than to such a motion as the present, ..for -the capital granted to the ship-owners might in 'that caaa 'b e better employed. It had been said :that Nor:: way had her full portion of the trade. In dealS, but what he maintained was, that the trade should be, left perfectly free. The House had nothing to do with the shipping interests, or with the colonial trade, or with any interest but that of the consumer, which was always the public interest. It was right that the people of England should have a power to purchase every thing where it could be bad on the cheap-. est terms, and to employ themselves in that trade which was most to their advantage. It had been said, that if we imported deals from Norway, she could not take our manufactures, but that was of no importance; our object*was to get deals cheap, and th ere we could get them. An other.argument was, that in case of a quarrel with the Baltic, they might refuseto supply us, and therefore we should not destroy the :Cana dian trade ; but the wood must still con tinue to grow in .America, and from . thence we . could have it at the • high price, whenever circumstances reduced us to the alternative. He (Mr. Ricardo) - expected, On the present occasion, the support or the Presi dent of the Board of Trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that if we were beginninga , a new system, a different principle_ from that'of the present might be acted on. NOw he (Mr. Ri cardo) conceived that we were only beg!nning the trade—that w e were perfectly unfettered; for the Report stated that this country was uncler no en, gagemen t with America, and was therefOre at liber ty to pursue the course most profitaLle to itself. Mr. MAIuiATT—I have listened with great attention to the diScussion before the Committee, and more particularly. to the doctrines of our new school of political economists; but must cOnfeSS that they have : Produced very little conviction on my mind.. hitherto ships, colonies, and . con9,, merce:have been, considered as inseparably sleeted with each other ; but, according to the new. system, 'we,are to sacrifice. our ships and colonies, ih „older that our commerce may go on the:, better without them. - lYhenever these philosophers will illustrate their theory by experimental proof; if, for example, they wilt take off two legs from a threeAeg ged stool, .and make .it stzind on .- Abe remaining one leg more firmly_ than it •before'did on _all the three, then, but not tilt then ; will I. become one of their disciples. Our trade with our own Colo nies and in our own ships; we can always Call our own, beeatise we hold it independent of the will of foreign Powers ; but in twisting to a trade with foreign nations we are leaning on a broken reed. Have we already forgotten the Continental System, which last war cut us off from all CommunicatiOn 'with every port in Europe ; and the Non-intercourse and Non-importation Acts of .the Government of the United States, 'which excluded us from all Ame rica ? Or do we flatter ourselves' that what has been, may not again be? . if so, we reason in op position to experience and the evidence of facts, and to the true rule of jiidging of the future by the past. Have we any reason to believe that the. jealousy expressed by foreign powers of our commercial greatness, which they envy, and of our naval power, which they dread, is at all abated? On the contrary, has not increased cause of dissatisfac tion been recently given on' our part, to the great European Potentates, by our declaration to every foreign court, that the principles laid down and act ed upon in their attack upon Naples, are repugnant to the fundamental principles of the British Con stitution ? It seems impossible that ptir good un derstanding with these Powers can long continue, unless they adopt our notions of Government, or we adopt.theirs, events neither of which are very likely to happen. With such prospects before us, we are called upon, in defiance of every principle of sound policy, and with total disregard to the main tenet-lee of our maritime greatness, to abandon a do lonia' trade in British ships,in order to encourage a fdreign trade in foreign ships, and are desired to trust to the liberality of foreign powers for cor respondent advantages in return, as if history was filled with examples of national gratitude ; though if such there are they have escaped all my researches, while examples of the ingrati tude of nations, for whom we have expended our blood and treasure, abound almost in every page. In order to put us out of conceit with our naviga tion laws, we are told that we have not grown great from our, restrictive system, but in spite of it. This is a perversion of argument. The prosperity of every nation depends upon the wis dom of its political institutions. Our navigation system has been so long established, that its effects have had •ample time to show themselves. Had they been bad, our commerce would long ago have been ruined ; but, as they have been good, we have prospered under them, and have risen to the greatest height of commercial pros perity and naval power that ever was attain ed by •any nation. To argue otherwise, is to deny the 'existence of cause and effect ; to shut out the light of experience, and the evi dence Of facts ; and to contradict the highest au ho rities amongst writers on political economy. Dr. Adam Smith, speaking of the Act of Navi gation, says, ." although some of 'the provisions of this famous Act, (as he emphatically terms it;) probably originated in a spirit of na tional animosity. yet they are all_ as wise as if they had been dictated by the most deliberate -.wisdom ;" and, in a subsequent passage, he-adds,. 44 . that as defence is of more importance than opulence, the Act of Navi gation "is" perhaps, after all, the wisest of all the . commercial regulations of England." Another high authority on political subjects, one of our own Members; in a treatise on Colonial po licy that he published some years ago, after agree ing .with Dr. Smith that ou'r navigation law is not favourable. either to the extent of fo reign commerce, or to the growth of that opu lence which arises out of it, concludes by saying, that " it. is now known only by its good effects." This nation now labours under great pressure, and men who suffer are apt to; spew' their impa tience by readily listening to any proposal for a change, without considering whether that change - may not be from bad to . worse ; let us act a wiser part, and 'riot Mistake the• source of . all the - prosperity and greatness that yet re mains to' us, for the • cause of the difficulties Under which - we'- labour, or we shall aggravate them 'till they'' become insupportable, and_ren der them irretrievable.-- . —Let us not cut away the sheet anchor, which will enable•the vessel to ride out the gale in safety, and leave her-to drift a random among the rocks and breakers with which she is surrounded. Having said thus much on general principles, I shall now advert to the par ticular points before the Committee. The motion of the Hon. Baronet who began this debate, appears-to have received so little cuantenance, that I shall pass it over without any observations. The motion of tho Noble Lord I shall oppose, because it -gives additional advantages to the Northern Powers over the . British Provinces in North America. Great Britain adopts various rules in reo - ulatitr her duties on different cOmmo _ (:ities. Some .pay by weight, some by measure, some by tale, and same ad valorem.. Deals have always paid by tale, and the Noble Lord would now assess them in their cubical contents. This I object to, in the first plaee, because any sudden or yiolent alteratiori of a long established system is always attended with great injury to the interest of individuals, and therefore oright only to be adopted for very strong and urgent reasons. In the next place, the avowed 'Object is to benefit Norway, who already enjoys more then her share of the deal trade; for her import, on an average of the four Years 1816,1817,181 K, and - 1:819, was 13,000 out of -1 . 0,000. load's, being more than that of iink of the' Northi.4ti Powers, While th4t of .the . British Colonies was only 5,500. —The scale of . 41utTes proposed in the schedule lowers the duty on•'Norwar-Acals 1/.155. and' raises'tfihton Crinada:A.L.ls' per load ; considerable disadvantage to. Canada, Which, if increased, would driv.e .116i' deals out of the market altogether . ,, ; ,and,. therefore, of two. evils, I shall choose' the leasL'. The .conti- guity of NorwalyWAlriVcountry ,gives her a greai advantage, over „the .other ‘ ',,Northern PowerS the small size- of 11'0.177 deals is a disadvantage, according 'l6 our mode 'of, levying the duty by talc; but I •coutend that we bave no- thing to do with these considerations. Ozi the same grounds we might be called upon to make endlesS alterations ifi our eizi3G lag system. For instance, oran ges p a y d ut y by tale ; ..and-- the rinhabitants:,..of, the tern Islands Might as reasonably complain that their small oranges pay as much duty per thou: sand as the large 'Oranges from Portugal; and requestthat in future theyssheuld all be measured., and. the duty taken according to their cubical con tents, as the Norwegian's make this apFilitiatitni with respect' to their deals. This- . priacipla applies to a • great- nuniber of other articles,, and Wont(' lead to endlesS ren:oustrances and. difficulties. I persist in the intention oF which I gave notice, of Moving arr .- Amend: meat to the schedule before • -the, • Coea- . mittee, by opposing the intended. reduction in . the duty, on Baltic Timber. Ido this in 'con formity to the evidence given before ibe Co m :. mittee on Foreign Trade, which uniformly states, that this reduction will be attenci.24 with no advantage to the British • con. smiler, but lead to an immediate advanCe in the price of the timber abroad ; and some of Them de clare, that-such an advance has already takia place in anticipation. Now, I am; not for.sa , crificing British revenue for the benefit. of : reigners, and am much mistaken if tiid•Citcta , cellor of the -Exchequer has any, sparse , duty so to give. away, under present- eircuot. stances. The great preponderance of the evi. , dence also proves that a duty of 10 shillings ; per . load on timber from the British 'Colonies in North America is as much as The trade can bear ; and that a reduction of 10 shillings from the,. Bahia timber at the same 'time be going : , much too far. This is the opinion of ten wit,-„ nesses; only four think differently; s and four others are against any alteration whatever. I have two sheets of extracts from their evidence, but content myself with giving this abstract of it, rather than occupy the time of , the Coat mittee by reading it at length. One of them asks where any duty is to come .from ? the load of timber, which costs 18 shillings in America, pro ducing only five shillings here ; and the freight being so low, from the distress of the Ship owners, that they lose money by every voyage r These considerations will, I trust, induce the Committee to support me in this amendment. Before I sit down, I wish to notice. one or two observations that have been made in, th e course of this debat e . The Hon. 711 ember for Shrewsbury reproaches those who advocate the cause of the Ship-owners with supporting a bad trade carried on in bad ships ; and they. have also been called rotten ships.. In order to shew how far they merit these epithet's, I have examined •Lkyd's register-book, and - find that of 434 ships that - arrived from Quebec last year, 183 are of the very first class, standing letter A; 249 are of the second class, - letter E, (vessels. fit to carry any cargo to any. part of the 'world)- and only two stand the third letter, Titg truth is, that- we have now no rotten ships, and very few old ships; because, as even good ships cannot all find employment, the had can of course expect none, and therefore' are broken up much sooner than usual. For this reason the ship ping in use at the present moment is of a su perior description to what it was at any for• mer period. The Right lion. Gentleman. WhO proposed these Resolutions . stated on a former occasion that we had a -great number of super fluens seamen. The data on which he reasoned are just, but the conclusions he drew from them were erroneous. lie argued frOm the compara 7 tive tonnage of British shippinur In' the year 179'2 and 1820, but did not consicai that in 1792 every ship was manned and employed,.. but that at present great nUmbers are not employed, and Consequently not manned, for which he s ivade no allowance in his estimate. I greatly doubt -whe ther wet have a single British seaman more now than we had in the year 179'2, and think it int - - portant to explain this point. Mr. T. WiLsoN rose to cor •zt a rmsappre. !tension under Which the Honourable )Iculber for Shrewsbury laboured. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman, that though he had an intereSt. iii the subject, yet he was as independent as any Member in the Ilouse. He contended, that,the view taken \of the subject by the two lionotir able Baronets opposite, was the true,-view .of the subject. Ile could notagree with. the,Mem ber for Portarlington„ that it was -a matter of in difference *whether the return for foreign timber Was Made' in goods or specie. -lie had , livdd long enough to know that a bird ,in hand s was worth two in the bush, and he should feel dis . - posed to trade with a country which would take his own- goods in exchange, rather than demand it in specie. . . Mr. F. !Awls supported the A-mendstient.' • Mr. WALF.AcE replied very bAefiy... Mr. J. P. • GRANT gave notice, that when the Report was brought up, he would move 'that it .should be re-committed, for the purp(:Ae ()Is we finilerstoOd) of taking into consid•eiation„ the , propriety .of fixing a duty of 3/. ss. on s deals, to.be calculated cubically, and on Canada deals 10s. Or 15s. Mr. WALLACE wished the lion, move his Atoe'n:lment..' M r . J.- P. GRA . 4..cr, said, be was ready to'ed.so now ;_ but be mders . tdod the forms of the Boise would not permit him. Whilst Stratigers were withdrawn i ~we under stand Ihejlvise divided .four FIRST—On Lord A Ithart...s 'niont in favour of ti4Or way Deal.:— , ; 7 - - 24 Noes _• •N,- 'Alajoriti for 0:e ;EcoNn—On 111Ftrryittt's :: 7 - taingt featloing the Duty on Foreign 'Ember : Ayes - - - - 17 Noes - • - - - - 71 • . . enr ljeseintion !i•aey's Metinn' A 9 reduce tile posed Dtftys r.*:ibr..'r f:oln to 10?..d ; and to take ofr or: irud fl • .1 the Fo:eign Duty Ayes - - . - - - - 1.5 Noes • iajority for th:, • 1:;• Res' 1;;on For r, T il-LOn 'Sir Henry Parnell's .3 - ibtitriAr equalize all the I)tities et the cad of five years— Ayes - - - 15 ---riS, Noes - - • Majority for the original Res6iiii.uin :The other Orders of the Dgyi.ere then (Es , posed °food theilouseatljoVenelG I'wo.o7cLocK.