The Sun. — London, England, 1851-07-25 00:00:00

e th• hat 1, le day i into rwise, 160 Bre is ie j ig ' 0 sii° pre' isdio - Luis of ,d s to Elous o Df ch i. goes' angel LLTO i hould might aitWe , a bad aide°, v ideo. ra the the (, th e 11 WO peti al or >r the mole, LatiCal If that from DD3 ish f aO7 Ma' spiri- 11 for i parly vain New said, Lts as bjeOt. L WS. an L ying roper, as o f na !d to efer. , ssels r to .ts to ted:' ;rest al of ,ould bow' osite ed a their nay. ) per ) the Alen 16s. ileut e re' sl to atoll not ould itish Oisit THE SUN, shipping had decreased, and that foreign shipping had proportionably increased. He then read a suc cession of returns to show that in the seaports of this country the tonnage on shipping had decreased, as com paring 1849 with 1850, and in the same period that there was a great increase of foreign tonnage. This fact was worthy of consideration. The balance against this country was 406,000 tons outward, and the balance on the inward against this country was 548,000 tons. In this first year of trial the experiment had failed. It had been injurious to British - shipping. and beneficial to foe.. reign shipping. He entered into further statements to show a similar result for the year 1851, showing a diminution, in the total number registered at Lloyd's, of 280 ships. It might be useful to look back to the pro gress of our tonnage for a few years back. He took the years from 1830 to the present time, in averages of five years. From 1830 to 1835 the amount of tonnage was 2,242,000; from 1835 to 1840, 2,691,000; in 1845 it rose to 3,449,000; in 1849 it was 4,099.000; and it 1850 it was 4 078.000. He had shown that the new system had in jured freights, had reduced their shipping in British ports, and also the tonnage of British shipping. He would also undertake to show that their exports from this country had decreased since the prineipaa of protec tion had been abolished. He would do this by referring to the period between 1826 and 1849, which he would divide into six periods. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to the periods in question, and showed by the declared value of our exports during the period when protection existed, that, our exports had greatly increased, year by year, and that they had not progressed in the same ratio in the years when the free-trade system came into, and was in fact in operation. He did not mean to say that this progressive increase had resulted from pro tection, but he wished to show to those who objected to protection that it had not operated to prejudice our ex ports. He then adverted to the difference between the official and declared value of our exports, for the purpose of showing that the declared value, compared with the official value, was rapidly diminishing. He would now come to the object of his mission. His purpose was to bring under the consideration of the House the injury done to the shipping interests by the alteration in the navigation-laws. One of the clauses in the new law was inserted with the view of inducing the foreigner to act in a spirit of reciprocity with the British in reference to duties. The shipowners complained that this reciprocity has not been adopted by foreign countries. It had been suggested that the Government ought not to have given up the power they possessed on this subject, until they learned whether foreign countries would reciprocate with them. But this suggestion was not acted upon. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to the course taken by the Earl of Derby in respect to the clause in question, recently in the House of Lords, and urged upon the Government that the reciprocity principle was the only true one to act upon. Prussia had been referred to, and it was said that if we did not alter our nevigation-laws she would retaliate upon us. But Prussia declined to reciprociata with them, on the ground that the German nation was not yet complete. Holland had given us almost nothing for the sacrifices which we had made. The French entertained opinions on this subject, which he would read to them. The Right Honourable Gentleman then read a paper, to the effect, that it was for the interest of France not to leave her mercantile marine in the position that England was leaving hers, and which placed that marine in peril, when competing with the shipping of America. As re garded Spain, she was of no consideration in a question of this kind. The same observation would apply to Por tugal. With respect to America, the words of Mr. Ban croft, when speaking of England, were, " If you do much, we will do much—if you do all, we will do all." But it was shown that America had declined to reci procate with them. He should say that by the repeal of the navigation-laws America had taken from this country many advantages that she before enjoyed, and that the commerce of this country was materially in jured. He then entered into the statistics of the mer cantile marine of America and this country, and agreed that this country materially suffered by the navigation laws, and that all that was owing to the want of foresight on the part of the present Government. It was well known that all the evidence that had been obtained showed that the interest of the British was very much deteriorated; and he should say that this evidence was given by unprejudiced persons.—(Hear.) Was there anything more unjust he would ask than to reduce the British merchant 30 per cent., fur such a line of procedure was equivalent to taking 30 per cent. from the property of any landed proprietor.—(Hear.) By this system the British Government impose on their own subjects a taxation (for otherwise he could not call it), from which all foreigners are exempt. This was any thing but just or fair, and for that reason he felt it his duty to offer those opinions, because he considered that the British merchant should be allowed to purchase in the cheapest market as well as the merchant of any other nation.—(Hear.) He considered that England and her colonies should be considered for, instead of allowing America to enjoy advantages that were refused to the mercantile marine of this country.—(Hear.) He did not require of the; Government to repeal the navigation laws, but what he wished was to place this country on an equal footing with other nations, for directly or indi rectly this country was labouring under many disadvan tages.—(Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE felt glad that the Right Hon. Gentleman had introduced that subject, because he was prepared to prove that the navigation-laws had tended rather to advance the commercial interest of this country than to deteriorate them, and he knew that from the evi dence given by most respectable shipowners, before the Committees of the Lords and Commons, which showed, that through their exertions they had very much ad vanced their own interests, despite the opposition of foreign countries. He would call the attention of the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Young) to that tact, and as ho saw him in his place, he hoped that he did not forget the evidence of some of the most respectable ship owners in this country. Now what had been the result? Why, at the time when those resolutions from which he had read this extract were published, the British regis tered shipping was 24,000 ships, with a tonnage of 2,600,000 tons, while in 1850, the number of vessels re gistered rose to 34,000, and the registered tonnage to 4,233,000.--(Hear, hear.) That was to say, that, since the time when the General Shipowners' Society assured the country that the shipping interest was irretrievably ruined, the registered tonnage of British shipping had increased by upwards of a million and a half. During the same period the number of registered seamen in the United Kingdom had also increased, for while, in 183, the number was 154,000, in 1850, they had risen to 225,000. He would only trouble the House but with one more refereuce to what took place at that time in respect of the state of the shipowners. It was one which he had great pleasure in quoting, because it had reference to a debate which took place in that House on the subject at the time when the Right Hon. Gentle man who had proposed this resolution to the House filled the situation which he at present had thaionour to fill. The debate arose on the presentation of a peti tion by Mr. Alderman Waithman from the shipowners of the port of London, complaining in exactly similar terms as the one the Right Hon. Gentleman had pre sented that evening, of the undue competition to which the shipowners were subjected by the alteration which had been made in the navigation- laws by Mr. Huskia son, that this competition had irretrievably ruined the shipping interest, and praying that the House would make such an alteration in the law as would in some degree remedy the evil. In reply to that petition and to the speech in which it was introduced, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), who, as he had stated, was President of the Board of Trade, used exactly the same arguments which he would have the honour of addressing to the House on the pre sent occasion.—(Cheers and laughter.) He read to the House statements showing the increase in tonnage which had taken p lace sinc e the change; spoke of the g rea ter activity which prevailed i n a ll b ranc h es o f t h e trade, and stated that it was not reasonable to suppose that if the statements of the petitioners were true, that men of business would la y out their capital in greater profusion upon what was a minor and worthless trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman on that occasion also quoted an extract from a report which had been presented to Congress by Ur. Cameron, on e of the most ce lebrated of the American commercial state smen of the time, the ob ject of which was to show the advantages which would inevitably result from a relaxation of their maritime laws, and strongly recommended a perusal of it to Hon. Members. The Right Hen. Gentleman still was fond of quoting the opinions of American statesmen, but some how or other they were of a different school to those he quoted—(Hear, hear)—but, however that might be, the incident he had stated to the House *bowed that the complaints of the shipowners were exactly the same then to what they were now, and that they could not be attributed to the recent change which had taken plane. 'To his mind, and from all he could learn on the subject, that change had had quite a contrary effect from what those petitioners said, and he would demonstrate that it had been the means of giving a general extension to the commerce of the country—that the shipowners of their own country had received their full share of the benefits of that extension—and that the shipbuilding in terests had not been injured by it. As to the general extension of commerce which the change would effect, he need not detain the House long in establishing that, for the very complaint those parties made was, that where it had taken place foreign ships had visited these shores in increased numbers. It was not, therefore, pre• tended that commerce had not increased, but then it was said that this extension of it had been purchased at the expense of the shipping interest of this country. So far from that being the case, he found, on referring to the returns, that the amount of the tonnage of shipping in the loreign trade entered inwards and outwards in 1848 was 10,600,000 tons; in 1849, 11,500,000 tons; and in 1850, ]2,200,000 tons; showing an increase of tonnage em ployed in 1849 over 1848 of 1,100,000 tons and of 3850 over 1849 of 7 00 , 000 . But then it was said this in crease was purchased at the expense of their own ship ping, and in proof of that the trifling diminution of the tonnage in British shipping employed in 1850 as com- Pared with 1849 was referred to. It so happened, however, that there was a similar diminution of the tonnage in the United States shipping which cleared at the ports of the United States, and the fact of such diminution in either case was nothing to be wondered at, for there could be no doubt that it arose from the new channels of trade which the recent change had opened up to the shipping interest, and which prevented a portion of the shipping from en tering the home ports, being more profitably employed otherwise. He found, however, that for the six months ending the sth of July last, there had been a considerable increase in the tonnage entered inwards and outwards, as compared with the corresponding period of last year. For the six months ending sth July, 1850, the tonnage entered inwards was 1,600,000 tons, while during the cor responding period of the present year, it Was 1,700,000; the tonnage entered outwards for the same period being, in 1850, 1,977,000 tons, and the present year, 2,090,000 tons, showing a considerable increase of the entries both inwards and outwards. He had said that there was a do wean in the tonnage of the United States shipping, and he found that for the six months ending June, 1849, it was 2,753,000; for the six months ending June, 1850, it had falleu to 2,632,000, while in foreign tonnage there was an increase from 1,675,000 tons, to 1,728,000 tons. He also found from looking into the Sound duties which had been paid on the shipping employed in the Baltic trade, that during the last three years the proportion of British to foreign ships passing through the Sound was greater than at any former period. But the Right Honourable Gentleman next told them that they were losing the Indian trade, from recent changes, .but he found from accounts which had been published by the East India and China Association, that within the last two years the tonnage inwards and outwards of British ships in that trade had increased 25 per cent. The Right Honourable Gentleman had, however, passed over a most important feature in the subject. He meant those new trades which for the first time had been opened up to the shipping interest of this country. He found that during last year 213 British ships, of 68,000 tons, had entered the ports of the United States with cargoes, where they could not have traded before, so that the increase of tonnage in that case alone was nearly half the diminution which during that year had taktre place in the home ports. There were numerous instances of a like nature. A most active trade with Australia had sprung up, and even with France au increase had taken place. He found that in one month 18 ships had arrived at San Francisco with cargoes from Aus tralia, and an active trade was b e ing carried on. The Right Honourable Gentleman complained that there was a great decrease in the freights, but if that were so the increased trade enabled shipowners to carry at a cheaper rate. As to the shipbuilders being ruined, the case had turned out exactly the reverse. In 1810 only 10,000 tons of foreign-built ships had been entered, and during the past three months only 511 tons had been entered. Here an Hoer. MEMBER observed that 40 Members were not present in the House, upon which strangers were ordered to withdraw, but upwards of the requisite number having been found present, Mr. LABOUCHERE resumed. He challenged con tradiction of the statement that, generally speaking, so far from decay or inactivity pervading over ship-building yards, they were in a state of great activity. From a re turn of ships built in the United Kingdom during the last three years, be found that the number of ships built in 1848 was 847, with a tonnage of 122,000 tons; in 1849 the number was 730, with a tonnage of 117,000 tons, and in 1850 the number was 689, with 133,000 tons. The average tonnage in the first ; was 140, in the seeond, 161, and in the third, 194 ton‘. It is quite true, as the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford had observed, although the number of vessels built had decreased since 1848. the average tonnage was larger. At Sunderland, one of their greatest ports,would it be de nied that the business of shipbuilding there was in a state of unprecedented activity, and that more and better ships had been built during the year 1850 than at any period since Sunderland had become a ship building port? In support of this statement, he quoted the authority of a respectable local paper. In 1848, the tonnage of ships on the stocks was 15,000; in 1849, 23,000; in 1850, 28,580 tons. In consequence of the complaints made by the shipbuilders and shipowners of the port of London, he had deter mined to ascertain the state of the London shipbuilding yards, and through the Surveyor-General's office of cus toms he obtained information as accurate as could be ob tained on the subject—information, he might add, which had not been furnished by private individuals, but by ship-builders. In 1848, there were built in the London yards three ships of iron and seven of wood; the ton nage of the former 1,300, and of the latter 3,100. In 1849 there were built seven ships of iron, and ten of wood; the tonnage of the former 1,656, and of the lat ter 7,356. In 1850, the number of ships built was thir teen of iron, and seventeen of wood; the tonnage of the former 4,562, and of the latter 9,935. Thus in the year 1850, no less than thirty vessels of 14,000 tons had been built in the London ship-yards, or double the amount of tonnage built in 1849. He might bo told that these ships were built not for British merchants, but for foreign ship-owners or Governments, but he used the fact as an argument to show the improved condition of the ship-building interest, and not in reference to ship owners. An extraordinary improvement had also taken place in the quality of the vessels built, as well as in the amount of tonnage. From all sides he had been fur nished with evidence of the increased science applied to ship-building—of the great efforts made to procure the best ship-builders, and of the general improvement that had taken place in the trade. The Right Hon. Gentle• man read extracts from a letter written by some ship owner in Liverpool, detailing the improvement that had taken place in that town, and stating that a repeal of the navigation-laws had given such an impetus to the trade of ship-building, that many of the educated classes were bringing up their children as ship-builders. He should next consider the consequences of their relaxa tion of the navigation-laws. From all great maritime countries they enjoyed some substantial equality. It was said that they had not much to give us. That might be, but they certainly had much to take away.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to Holland, they had gained an important advantage, for the Dutch had placed British vessels on a footing of equality with the national ships. Since the change in the navigation-laws, they had en tered into a most advantageous treaty with Sardinia— advantageous to the country as well as to Sardinia itself, and worthy of the distinguished statesman who was at the head of affairs in that country. They had not only obtained reciprocity, but an important stipula tion for introducing into the Sardinian ports their own manufactures at low rates of duty.—(Hear, hear.) It was with gratification he had to state that foreign countries generally were disposed to meet us in the same liberal spirit in which we had acted. The only excep tions to this were the three countries of France, Spain, and Belgium. With respect to the arrangements be tween these countries, he was prevented from saying more at present. Negotiations were still going on be tween them and this country, which he trusted would terminate satisfactorily to all parties. Bet when French authority was quoted against him, he must say that, de siring to speak with every respect of the public men of that country, he could not accept them as authority on this question. Looking at the capabilities it possessed of becoming a first-rate shipping country, it did not at all occupy the position it should do. He believed at this moment it did not possess a single mercantile ship above 600 tons burden.—(Hear.) In fact, by her absurd sys tem of restrictions, France had absolutely excluded her self from the commerce of the world. Her iron duties alone were sufficient to do that, for if she could not build her vesels cheaply, she could never occupy the position she ought to do.—(Hear, hear.) But he would not rely on British authority as to that. He found the Chamber of Commerce at Bordeaux, in its report for 1847, stated that the nets of protective and prohibitive duties, which was cast around the mercantile and shipping interests, were the cause of the decay and death of their mercan tile marine. —(Hear, hear.) He now came to the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. If it had any meaning at all, it meant that they should address the Crown to place foreign shipping under any absurd re strictions which might be imposed by any foreign power on British vessels. For instance, if Spain excluded Bri tish vessels from Cuba, we were to retaliate by exclud ing Spanish vessels from Trinidad. This was in effect to ask us to punish ourselves and our colonies for the sake of punishing Spain. He could not believe the House would ever consent to such a policy. But he might be asked what then was the intention of giving this power to the Crown if it was not meant to be used? Was it to stand a dead letter? Certainly not. He said it ought still to be maintained, in order that the Crown should exercise it for the promotion of great national objects.—(Hear, hear.) He certainly did not expect that any foreign power would modify its policy simply to please us. But if any foreign power should single Great Britain for exclusion, then it might be a mat ter for consideration how far this power should be brought into operation. No foreign power, however, showed any inclination to act in this spirit. On the contrary, they had placed us generally on the footing of the most favoured nation. There was one point on which he could not help saying a word. He believed that, of late, a great improvement had taken place in the building of our ships. Another point for congra tulation was, that an Act passed last session for the examination of masters and mates was beginning to pro duce a marked effect. Up to the month of January last 1,304 masters and mates had applied to be examined; 269 failed at the first examination, but most of them Passed successfully afterwards. Mr. Towsen, the exa • miner of Liverpool, a well-known and highly-respectable man, said that since his appointment several schools for naval tuition had been established, in which parties were anxious to perfect themselves in navigation before pre senting themselves for examination, tied naval schools He were being esta bli shed i n var i ous parts o f t h e countr y. hoped that he had proved our commerce had not suf fered from the changes which had been made, and that sourenprospects h e didwere never believee r more encouraging British seamen a ever t) t e - t b o e B b e r is h as r b v e o e u n l dbe made beaten to t h e facton t h e t i h r ownat three-fourthselement. e allusionvery crewha in British webad foreigners.s otherwiseeam en, u a loie ho p edndr flag on e-f ut might r th t only be hoisted in s hi p s not belon g in g ships s w rn e u d st wou ld always be maintained , to thiscountry. Th e same regulation prev ailed in the U nited States. Their vessels r must be manned b y two-thirds American sailors and one third foreign, a nd he believed in a ll cases preference was given to Feiglieh seamen, who were not only the best but the cheapest in the world. In conclusion, he would say, that if the House believed the policy it had he trusted they would not interfere with it in future . He had t h e agreed to in the past had been satisfactor y , greatest confidence of our success on the trade being thrown open. He could never understand how B r i t i sh industry in all other departments could compete suc cessfully with the world, and British shippin g masters and shipbuilders should fail.—(Hear, hear.) All the evidence before the House proved the contrary. With regard to the motion before the House, he held that it would be a most impolitic course, in a mere spirit of retaliation, to imitate the absurd restrictions of other countries, and on this ground he hoped the House would reject it.—(Hear.) Mr. G. F. YOUNG said be hoped he should not be out of order in prefacing the remarks he hid to make by acknowledging the reception he had experienced on re appearing in a place which was associated with so many agreeable recollections, and he trusted that, having of late been compelled to take a more prominent part than he wished in the discussion of commercial matters out of dooors, he would not be considered presuming in venturing so soon to take a part in this debate, on a subject with which he had been connected all his life.— (Hear, hear.) Ho would follow the Right Hon. Gentle man as closely as he could, in the order in which he had presented the various topics touched upon by him. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad very adroitly assumed at the commencement of his speech, what he ought to have proved—namely, that if there were difficulties affecting our shipping interests, they must be but temporary, be cause in the end they must share in the general prospe rity of the country. We had already had proof of the LONDON,_ fallacy of such an assumption. This was the anodyne offered to the distressed agricultural interest, at the be ginning of the session. —(Hear.) They were told that they must soon be relieved by participating in the general prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He would not then enter into that subject.—(Hear, hear.) Other op portunities would present themselves of discussing it. He would tontine himself entirely to the shipping in terest, and merely content himself with the statement that the prosperity assumed by the Right Honourable Gentleman did not exist, either in the agricultural, the colonial, or the shipping interest, and he had. very great doubts whether the vaunted prosperity in the manufacturing interest really existed. At the proper time he should be prepared to show the grounds of that belief. The Right Hon. Gentleman had argued in fa vour of the system of reciprocity, which was just com menced in 1816, and fully carried out by Mr. Huskisson in 1826, as having been advantageous to British ship ping. He had returns—[which the Hon. Gentleman quoted in detail]—which proved the very reverse was the case. With the United States we had reciprocity during three years, and the consequence was, there was a decline in the amount of British tonnage, and an in crease - of United States tonnage, while, with the Baltic states, where we had no system of reciprocity; but a system of protection, our tonnage had largely increased in proportion to the ration of the increase of the ton nage of these states. He thought the Right Honourable Baronet had failed in showing that reciprocity would advance the interests of the shipowner. He then said there wore three points, which exemplified the ad vantages of the new system. First, the general exten ,ion or British navigation. With regard to this point he did not deny that such was the case, but it was to be observed, that it was advancing under the system of protection, and if that advance had been less rapid since it had been abandoned, that would show the disad vantage of the system. They never said that British navigation would decline, they knew it was not in the power of a Minister to destroy the energy of the people of this country, which had, to a great extent, sustained the shipping interest; but, notwithstanding that, he felt convinced it could not maintain the disadvantages of the unequal competition to which it was exposed.—(Hear, hear.) He did not wish to trouble the House with sta tistical statements which were generally wearisome, and would, therefore, in referring to them be as brief as possible. They had been told that British tonnage had increased. What were the facts? The amount of English and foreign tonnage in 1848, was 6,548,000 tons, and in 1849, the last year of protection, it amounted, as compared to the preceding, to 6,919,000 tons, showing an increase of 393,955 tons. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the predictions of the ship owners with regard to the increase of foreign tonnage was fallacious. In forming an opinion upon this point, it was necessary to distinguish between the amount of tonnage in ward and outward. It seldom happened that foreign ships going outwards were laden but in part, and in cases where they took little more than ship stores their full tonnage appeared in the returns. The case was different with regard to the amount of the ton ❑age inwards, for they entered our ports with full car goes, and the amount of tonnage inwards was, therefore, the best criterion to test the real importance of the foreign shipping, and the movements of the mercantile marine. —(Hear.) In 1849 the British tonnage increased 318,677 tons, while in 1850, the first year after protec tion, it declined 184,000 tons. In 1849, the foreign tonnage increased 75,000 tons, while it advanced to 364,587 tons. These were the amounts of tonnnage of the respective ships from foreign ports. That was not all, the experience they had of the system since 1850 enabled him to corroborate what had been pointed out by his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries), and to arrive at the same result, computing in the same way. In the five first months of the present year British shipping had declined to the amount of 85,000 tons, while that of foreign shipping increased to 80,000 tons. From 1842 to 1849, the average amount of tonnage inwards, of British and foreign shipping, amounted to 345,000 tons, hut in 1850, the total amount, instead of being what it should have been estimated upon, the average of those years, 345,000 tons, amounted only to 42,000 tons. The average amount of foreign shipping was 187,000 tons, but, in 1850, it became 354,000 tons, while the British declined 311,000 tons.—(Hear, hear.) He wished also to call attention to the progress of American shipping, not in a spirit of jealousy, but as a matter worthy of consideration.—(Hear, bear.) Mr. Huskisson clearly stated the true object of the navigation-laws when he said their object was to create a mercantile marine, and next, to prevent any other nation from engrossing too much of the commerce of the world. In 1815 the tonnage of Great Britain was 2,681,000 tons, and that of America 1,368,000 tons; but in 1850 the amount of British tonnage was 4,232.960 tons, and that of America 3,535,000 tons. It appeared that America in four years added to her mercantile marine 967,000 tons, and if America went on increasing at the same ratio as she had done for those four years she would shortly have a larger mercantile marine than this country. He had shown that the assumption of the Right Hon. Gentle man, that there had been a great increase in the aggre gate tonnage of this country, was fallacious, while the increase of foreign tonnage refuted his second assump tion, that the British shipping took its fair share of the increase, whereas it had actually decreased. He wished, further, to draw attention to a fact, which would show that they should not rely too mnch upon returns of the tonnage of British shipping. It was found, in 1827, that a great number of vessels appeared upon the re gister at Lloyd's which had no existence, and that they amounted to 41,000 ships, representing a tonnage of 396,900 tons, and he had every reason to believe that the register of shipping at the present moment was not in a better condition. In the returns with regard to the foreign trade, the steamers trading to France, Holland, and Belgium were returned. There was a list of all these steamers, and the amount of their tonnage, which stood at 20,257 tons. These vessels aggregately made so many voyages ia a year that they represented 150,000 tons of shipping. He did not allude to this fact as mak ing a charge of deception, but merely to induce caution. Cho Right Hon. Gentleman said he would prove a great improvement in building British ships. He could - not, however, agree with him in that ; for in shipbuilding, from 1848 to 1850, it had decreased to 74,403 tons. In tact, the trade of the shipbuilding was greatly depressed throughout the kingdom ; and, in fact, there were but two merchant ships building in the port of London. The Right Hon. Gentleman alluded to the ships built for the Royal Mail Company, but that would have taken place whether there was protection or not. He would admit that the steam shipping of the country had in creased, and was in advance of all other countries. Shipbuilding, irrespective of steam-ships, was, however, in a state of deplorable depression, no doubt. This was assertion against assertion, and the public must give judgment between them. He would undertake to have a declaration from all the shipowners of the country, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the views he entertained on that interest. On the opening of the trade to India, the American flag found it more profitable to engage in that trade, and leave the short trade, which was less remunerative to us, It answered their purpose to take freights to California at a high rate, and thence to proceed to Australia, and China and India. The returns of their in ward tonnage might appear small from the number of these circuitous and long voyages, as appeared with ours ; 1,100 ships went to California, this caused an tete rflow of shipping in the Indian trade, and caused a depreciation of receipts. In this competition who would go to the wall? Of course, the British. The Americans in their progress from California could take goods at any freight. In a case of an American ship, of five and six hundred tons, which cost 42,000 dollars, that made a freight of 46,000 dollars to California, and from China to this country got 21. a ton, and then took a cargo back to America, getting a preference of freight, because the Americans favoured their own countrymen. He contended that the system was not one of fair compe tition, but was a bounty for foreigners over the British shipowner. The trade of the British shipowners had greatly diminished of late years. Mr. Dunbar has been referred to, but he could assure the House that that gen tleman would have been glad if he could have secured 3 per cent, upon his laid out capital during the last year. He should be glad if the Right Hon. Gentleman would apply for information on this and such like subjects, from some honest and independent shipowner, instead of seeking for information from persons who really had not the necessary knowledge on the subject. It was a pain ful thing for him to be obliged to admit that the shipping interest was in a prostrate position; and he was quite sure of this, that if the Right Hon. Gentle man were to look into the facts of the case, ho would see reason to modify, if not to alter his views in refer ence to that important subject.—(Hear.) It was his painful duty to state to the House that the interests con nected with the British shipping were on the verge of ruin; and if the House thought they could uphold the mercantile marine in this country under the present sys tem, they were very much mistaken, and they would find out that mistake when it was • too late.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then complained of the manning clause in the amended Act relating to the navigation laws, and said that this clause was in violation of the free-trade principles upon which the Right Hon. Gentle man acted. Why was he, as a British shipowner, to be restricted as regarded he men by whom he was to man his ship? Why was he obliged to take Englishmen, while he could get Swedes or other sailors at half the price? He would illustrate the difficulty of the British shipowner:, in this matter by an occurrence which was within his own knowledge. Two captains of vessels, one a Swede and the other an Englishmen, entered the counting-house of a shipowner, an acquaintance of his. In reply to his friend, the Swedish captain said his pay was 51. per month, that of the sailor 30s. a month, and that the sailor was fed upon stock fish and biscuits. The British cap tain in reply to his friend, said his salary was 101. a month, with 51. for cabin requisites, 50s. a month to the sailor, who was allowed one pound and a half of pork, or beef, n day,—(Hear, hear.) Now, was it right to oblige o the British s hipowner to contend against the foreign ship owner, taking f rom hi m th a t p ro t ec ti on w hich he formerly had u n d er the navigation-laws, and yet o b l i ge hi m to man his v esse l s w i th Br i tish sailors at dou bl e t h e expense which .i he on wouldbe hoard?liahl to li if th h ou e g w h e t r t e hey enabled to edu cate foreignsailors e- cate the sailors. In the city of Boston no sailors were sent to sea who were not acquainted with the rudiments of education. He thanked the House for the kindness they had shown him, and he hoped he had used no ex pressian that was calculated to give offence to any one. Mr. WILSON said the Hon. Gentteman had argued upon this question in direct opposition to the principle upon which the motion before the House rested. He argued that reciprocity had ruined the shipping interest, and the Aka of the motion was to extend the recipro city principle all over the world. The Hon. Gentleman ought to remember that when the law was passed we were, as to some of the morn important branches of our trade, in the same position as we occupied in 1821, when Mr. Huskisson first proposed his reciprocity treaties. He forgot, too, to mention to the House, that Russia and Prussia had given us FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1851. notice that upon the expiration of existing treaties they would be prepared to place us on more favourable terms. The Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make a dis tinction between inward and outward shipping, for the purpose of this debate, contending that inward shipping only ought to be regarded. Ho would admit that some years ago, when we had such restrictions imposed on our shipping as the Hon. Member wished to revive and to perpetuate, his argument might have been held good, for then only a comparatively small part of our shipping was outward.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman would remember, however, that our outward shipping had largely increased since 1849, which most satisfac torily established the success of the new law. It was quite impossible that a large manufacturing country like England should have us much tonnage engaged in out ward as in inward shipping; for the latter brought in the large bulk of raw materials, while the former took out the smaller bulk of manufactured goods. The Hon. Gentleman must also know that less must always go cut than previously came in. He took the average of the three years preceding 1850, and contended that the average of the shipping entered inwards and out wards in each of those years exceeded the average of the subsequent years. Now he (Mr. Wilson) found that the ,average tonnage entered inwards and outwards in the four years prtePdieg 1850 was 7,470,000 tons, whereas in 1850 it was 8,039,000 tons. But the lion. Gentleman referred to what had taken place during the last nine years, and endeavoured to show that during that time there had been a smaller increase in our ex ports than in the preceding nine years; but he found that previous to 1842, the year to which the Hon. Gan tleman referred, instead of there being any material in crease, there had been for some years a decline in our exports rather than an increase: for in 1835 the exports of this country were 53,000,0001,, whilst in 1842 they were only 47,000,000/. [Mr. YOUNG—That was a year of peculiar depression.] He admitted that, but what had been the fact since 1842? That the exports had increased from 47,000,000/,, or taking 1843, from 52.000,000/. to 71,000,000/. in the last year. But the Hon. Gentleman did not take a fair way of making a comparison; he took the average of the last nine years, including the low sums at the early part of the free-tade measures; but he would find there had been a steady amia' increase during that period; but, by taking the average, the Honourable Gentleman got rid of the large sums at the end, It could not be denied that there had been an increase in the last nine years unparalleled in the history of any other country in the world. The Hon. Gentleman said there had been a largo increase of foreign shipping during that period, but there had also been, as he had shown, a great increase of British shipping. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to America, the only country towards which we need look with any anxiety as to the commerce of the world; but he thought the Hon. Gentleman had exhibited a comparison of the commercial marine of America with that of England in a very unfavourable light to this country; for he (Mr. Wilson) found by an official return made to the Govern ment of the United States the quantity of shipping en tered inwards and outwards for the whole of the Ame rican ports and for the whole shipping of the world was 8,709,000 tons, whilst the quantity entered outwards and inwards in this country was not less than 12,020,000 tons. How much did Hon. Gentlemen think of the 3,503,000 tons of foreign shipping in the American trade consisted of ships belonging to this country? No less than 3,854,000 tons, while all the rest of the world could muster 659,000 tons only. Reference had been made to the advantages enjoyed by America in the building of ships as compared with this country. From the finance accounts it appeared that in 1848 the tonnage of ships built in the United Kingdom was 122,000 tons; in 1849, 117,000 tons; in 1850, 133,000 tons; and, if he was rightly informed, there was a still greater increase this year, so far as it had gone, than there was in 1850. With respect to the comparative ability of this coun try and of America to build ships, be held in his hand a short letter, in which the writer stated an opinion he had previously expressed, that, quality for quality, Bri tish ships could be built cheaper than American, and, in support of that view, he directed attention to a ship named the Ann Dickson, which had been built at Sun derland, fully 10 per cent. under what it would cost to build such a vessel in America. That letter was signed by Mr. Aylwin, who, on his return from America, frightened the shipowners of this country out of their wits. The Hon. Gentleman said, what a large amount of the tonnage of this country was tonnage of steam vessels ; but a steam-vessel would perform three or four voyages for one that a sailing vessel would perform, and the tonnage of every steam-vessel, therefore, ought to count for the tonnage of several sailing vessels. The Hon. Gentleman also referred to inroads made by the Americans on the East India trade of this country. From accounts of tonnage outwards and inwards em ployed in the East India trade for the last three years, it appeared that in 1848 there were in that trade 840,000 tons; in 1849, 928,000 tons; in 1850, when the British East India trade was said to have been absorbed by America, the tonnage rose to 1,015,000 tons. During the last six months the tonnage of shipping inwards and outwards in the East India trade, as compared with the tonnage iu that trade during the corresponding six months of 1849, was 486,000 tons to 439.000 tons, showing an increase of 47,000 tons in the East India trade alone. It further appeared from accounts brought by the last Indian mail, that British shipping was scarce in India, and that freights had risen from three guineas to 4/. and upwards. He believed it had never occurred till this year that the East India Com parry had experienced difficulty in getting any quantity of coals landed in India. It had been necessary to bor row 10,000 tons from the Oriental and Peninsular Steam boat Company, and to tell the Indian Government that it must rely on arrangements to be made on the spot. Trio contractors had not been able to supply the East India Company, owing to the difficulty they had expe rienced iu procuring vessels of suitable size to carry the coals. With respect to the specific motion before the House, he thought it unreasonable that only 18 months after the new system had been introduced fault should be found with foreign countries, because just at the mo ment this country changed those countries were not ready to change. If this country refused to take the goods of Spain, Belgium, or France, those goods might easily be sent to Rotterdam, whence they could be ex ported to this country. They might make laws, but they would only be evaded. With Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Hamburgh, and the Hanse Towns, and above all with the United States of America, we had full and entire reciprocity, and when we enjoyed reciprocity with the great maritime countries of the world, it was hardly fair to select small states like Belgium and Spain in order to mourn over the want of reciprocity with them. He could not help deprecating the course of remark which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had adopted in speaking of the Dutch. He wished that every Go vernment had behaved as openly and as generously with regard to the navigation-laws as the llutch.—(Hear.) They copied, clause by clause, our law of 1848. Con sidering the prejudices of the Dutch in , favour of re taining the trade with Batavia in their own hands, he considered they had behaved with great generosity in opening their Batavian trade as freely as their home trade to British ships.—(Hear.) Our vessels could go now from Liverpool and London to Batavia as freely as from Rotterdam, and this was a valuable privilege. And he understood that British ships were entering into competition with Dutch ships for the carrying trade from Batavia to Rotterdam and Amsterdam.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had adverted to the trade of France, and had read a passage from a French writer, who trusted that his country would not follow the example of the English nation. In 1842 the French tonnage was 3,609,000 tons, and the English 7,347,000 tons. In 1850 the French had increased to 3 . 950,000 tons, being an increase of only 341,000 tons, while the English tonnage had increased to 12,020,000 tons, being an increase of 4,673,000 tons. The enormous increase in the commerce of France dur ing the last few years formed the subject of a re cent boast by M. Thiers, who showed that the com merce of France had increased during the last eight years to the extent of 19,000,000/. sterling, from which M. Thiers drew the inference that the policy of France was more beneficial to its commerce than that of Eng land. But during that period the commerce of England had increased in value —not the official, but the actual value—to the extent of 67,000,0001., and, taking the offi • cial value, it had increased to the extent of 118,000,000/. sterling. [Mr. HERRIES intimated that he had referred to the French shipping.] He (Mr. Wilson) did not un derstand how the commerce could increase without the tonnage increasing, and vise versa. The other day he had sent to the Custom-house in order to see what were the proofs of the great competition which it was said our shipowners had to encounter. He found that there wore at the present time loading for Asia and Africa, includ ing all the countries eastward of the Cape except the Australian colonies, 52 ships, amounting to 30,899 tons, of which only four were foreign ships, with a tonnage of 1,972 tons, and two of those were Dutch, availing themselves of the advantage of carrying direct from this country to Batavia the cargoes of British ma nufactures.—(Hear.) There were loading for our Austra -1 liars colonies in the port of London 32 ships of 16,000 tons, not one of whieh was a foreign ship.—(Hear, hear.) The whole number of British ships loading in the port of London was 179, with a tonnage of 67,512 tons, while the number of foreign ships was 82, with a tonnage of 15,000 tons, almost the whole of which traded to the Baltic, and on short voyages, while the long voyage trade was still kept by British ships.—(Hear, hear.) The name of Mr. Dunbar had been referred to, but a recent letter of that gentleman's published within the last fort night, showed that he was not at all favourable to going back to the former system of protection. He would admit that a considerable portion of the shipowners were suffering distress, especiaily those in the small ports who were engaged in the coasting tr ade. But how did that distress arise? The other d a y a man c ame to him from Hastings, and said he was ruined. He used to have four ships sailing from Hastings to London, but now he found that the railway was taking all the goods. The inland coal trade was also operating on the colliers of Newcastle and the northern ports. There was no denying the existence of a rapidly increasing competition in the shipping trade, but that was a competition between British owners, and not between the British and foreign owner. There was, for example, a com petition between London and Liverpool. Man chester goods were brought to London by railway, and thence shipped to Calcutta, and this naturally caused dissatisfaction in Liverpool; but this was a com petition between Englishmen and Englishmen, and not between Englishmen and foreigners.—(Hear, hear.) It had been proved before the Committee sitting on steam communication with the East, that the shipbuilding was in a state of great activity—that no builder would bind himself to time with regard to steam-ships, on account of the abundance of work, and that from the same cause the workmen had become exceedingly troublesome.— (Hear, hear.) In every great change there were some individuals inconvenienced; and he had no doubt that small shipowners had been injured in this case; but, looked at as a whole—considering the great increase of our American trade, the increasing trade in our building yards, and other prosperous sympto ms , he thought the House should pause before they adopted any princi ple of retaliation, or had recourse to the old exploded system with which the country bad so long been bur dened.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI thought no apology was necessary on the part of his Right Hon. Friend who had introduced the amendment for recalling the consideration of the House to the state of an important class of national in dustry; and, whatever might be the opinion entertained respecting the causes of the distress or depression of any considerable portion of her Majesty's subjects en gaeed in any kind of trade, he could not but think it extremely impolitic that Parliament, after sitting s i x months, should prorogue and decline considering th e occasion of that depression or distress.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the opinion of the policy or im policy of any laws that House might have passed, or abrogated, without reference to their influence on any particular branch of industry, surely no one would maintain but that it was in the highest degree impolitic —that, whatever difference of opinio❑ there might be, there should at least be one point on which all should agree, viz., that the House of Commons was the tribunal to which the complaints of that suffering branch should be addressed, and where, if possible, a remedy should be devised.—(Hear, hear.) No one would pretend that the state of the shipping interest was one of prosperity. (Hear, hear.) They might account fur the distress and depre•sio❑ that existed—they might offsr reasons for the distress that was acknowledged—they might say that the industry affected was in a state cf transition —but they could not deny that it was now inn pe culiar position, or contradict the assertion that it was suffering from the experience of their novel legisla tion.—(Hear.) And he begged to remind the House of the peculiarity in the conuition cf the shipping in terest, that took it out from all those other branches of industry that might be cuff ring depression. There was acknowledged to be a considerable dimi nution in the profits of capital employed in that in dustry, attended, at the same time, by a diminution of the means of employing labour.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in all other instances—take the case so frequently, and perhaps unnecessarily, referred to that night, the case of the agricultural interest—they were always told that it was acknowledged there was a great diminution of the profits of the capital invested in that industry; but no one could pretend that the employment of the labour of that industry was proportioned, or at all diminished to the extent of the loss of profit. They acknowledged that the owner of the land might not receive the same return for his capital as before, but they could not deny that the labour on the land was well employed and well paid; and they often referred with triumph, and some plausibility, to the returns supplied by the Poor-law Board, as proof of the fact.—(Hear, hear.) But in the case of the shipping interest, while the profits on capital were diminished, the means of employing labour were diminshed also.—(Hear, hear.) And it was acknow ledged that there was a dimunition in that power of up wards of 500,000 tons as regarded the employment of British shipping—(Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that in this, as in other instances, they had been too precipi tate—that they had been too hasty in the course they had pursued. He had no doubt that in the case of the shipping, as in that of the agricultural interest, they ought not to have recourse to any rash, violent revision, but that they should have recourse to those re medial, those equitable, and those countervailing mea sures that the circumstances of the case required, and which they ought to have well considered before they embarked in the path they had so rashly pursued.— (Hear.) What was the amendment proposed by his Right Hon. Friend? It was not an amendment that called in question the policy of repealing or maintain ing the navigation-laws. It was, on the contrary, a measure which in the very law passed by the Govern ment that repealed those laws was suggested as a re medial measure, to be had recourse to if the shipping in terest of this country found they were exposed to undue foreign competition. And, he must say, nothing had more amused him in the course of this debate—if, on a subject so serious, when so much was at stake, and when British capital was so much suffering, anything could be amusing—than the mode in which this clause referred to in the amend ment had been treated by her Majesty's Ministers. The amendment of his Right Honourable Friend was, " that an address be presented to her Ma jesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to di rect the proper steps to be taken for giving effect to those provisions of the Act of the 12th and 13th of Vic toria, chap. 29, for the repeal of the navigation-laws, whereby her Majesty is empowered to adopt towards any foreign country to which a preference is given, di rectly or indirectly, to national vessels over British ves sels, such measures as may appear to her Majesty justly to countervail the disadvantages to which British trade and navigation is so subjected." This was the amend ment, and the President of the Board of Trade rose and informed them in the most authoritative manner that at this moment negotiations were pursuing with no less than three powers, in order to obtain for the suffering British shipowner the advantages that might be supplied by the prescient and provident clause which had been forced on her Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt the Noble Lord the Secretary of State had only very recently employed a part of his much occupied and anxious time in penning dispatches, the object of which was to obtain for the British shipowner the effect of this salutary provision. But what said the Honourable Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Con trol ? Disregarding the solemn announcement of a Cabinet Minister, that up to this moment negotiations had been prosecuted with three powers— forgetting the presence of the very Secretary of State who had the conducting of these negotiations, the Secretary of the Board of Control, not in the secrets of the Cabinet, came for ward to deride the clause, described it as one ab solutely absurd, and as one with which it was impossible to effect anything.—(Hear.) But if it was absurd, if it was utterly useless, it, under all the circumstances, it was inefficient, how could ho vindicate the statement of (he President of the Board of Trade, or justifyithe la bours of the Noble Lord?—(Hear, hear.) Now, he was not of the opinion of the Secretary of the Board of Con trol. He had more confidence in her Majesty's Go vernment than a subordinate member of that Government appeared to possess.—(A laugh.) He had faith in the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade and the Noble Lord; he gave them credit for their intentions, and he believed they had confidence in the policy they were pursuing. Nor, after what had occurred only re cently in that House, could he bring himself to believe that the policy indicated in this clause was anything but an ef ficient and salutary one. It must be in the recollection of many gentlemen that a petition was presented not long ago by the Hon. Member for Huntingdon from the merchants and shipowners employed in the trade of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was signed by every mercantile firm almost in the country connected with that trade, having appended to it the names of about 150 firms in London, Liverpool, Bristol, Poole, Tyne mouth, and other ports. And what was the statement of that petition ? It was stated that the whole of the fish trade from Newfoundland and Labrador was fast leaving this country, and that the Spanish Government imposed a differential duty on imported cod fish as be tween British and Spanish vessels of not less than 3s. per cwt. The effect had been, that whereas, in 1841, eight Spanish ships imported into Spain 20,000 cwt. of fish, there were, in 1851, sixty-four Spanish ships which imported 150,000 cwt., and to that extent proportionally the trade had left English merchants and English ship ping. —(Hoar, hear.) Why not, then, seek in those pro visions of the Act for the repeal of the navigation , laws that remedy which, ho supposed, it was sincerely, in tended to secure to British shipowners ? The Noble Lord opposite knew that, in 1837, when Portugal levied a higher duty on English ships as compared with Portu guese ships, recourse was had, under the old Act of Wil liam IV., to retaliation, and that then Portugal repealed the higher duty, and British ships were placed on the same terms as the shipping of that country. But as to the course now to be pursued, he confessed he took a different view, perhaps, from that of some of his friends who had already spoken. If they were called on to dis cuss the policy or impolicy of repealing the navigation laws, he would for himself say, under all circumstances, and at every opportunity, that that repeal was a hasty, ill-considered, and perilous measure ; but that was not the question before the House that night. Tho amend ment proposed by his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. !lorries) referred to the retaliatory provisions of the Act of Victoria. He admitted with the Secretary of the Board of Control that the retaliatory clause was one full of difficulty ; but it was framed in the way in which it stood from no want of warning. The Government were told from that (the Opposition) side of the House that it was not wise to part with the power they possessed. and that they should hold out to other countries that the boon would be conceded to them for a fair equi valent. But, notwithstanding all warnings, the Govern ment thought fit to frame the clause as it stood, and they were responsible for the difficulties now encountered so graphically described by the Secretary of the Board of Control. The Government were also responsible for the duty of securing to the country those benefits which that clause was intended to convey. Let him then re mind the House of the difficulty which had occurred with respect to the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend since the debate commenced. Ministers had announced that under the clause in question they were engaged in active negotiations with three powers. Under those cir cumstances he did not see how his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Stamford could press to a division a motion which might interfere with those negotiations. Under these circumstances he thought his Right Hon. Friend, having obtained a full discussion of the question —(Cries of "Oh, oh!") He had no doubt that gentle men on the back benches on the Ministerial side of the House, who were not in office, and therefore not respon sible were prepared for anything, even for interference with negotiations now being prosecuted; but the Oppo sition had some responsibility.—(Oh, oh.) Therefore, when the Government virtually stated that the proposed amendment would interfere with negotiations with three powers, he could not see how, after that, the amendment could be proceeded with, and he hoped his Right Hon. Friend would not press his amendment to a division. Colonel THOMPSON said, . that when Honourable Members opposite talked of British industry suffering, they seemed to forget that his constituents were en gaged in British industry ; and that any restriction on the freedom of commercial communication would be an in- jury inflicted on them. Lord J. RUSSELL did not understand, after the speech of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with what view the amendment had been brought forward.— (Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman said with great truth and justice, that when the Government was en gaged in negotiations it was not fitting, without some ground of distrust, to take those negotiations out of the hands of the Government, or to interrupt or prescribe their course. That argument was quite conclusive ; but as there had been a question already before the House with regard to Spain, the Honourable Gentleman could not be ignorant that negotiations were going on, and yet, aft er some wee ks ofprepare tion, and grand and magniloquent announcements, it was now, for the first time, discovered to be improper to in terfere with pending negotiations.—(llear, hear.) The whole argument of Hon. Gentlemen opposite was an attempt to prove that the Legislature had done wrong in modifying. the navigation-laws; but if they were satis fied that they had received a complete answer—that their wholo case had broken down, and that all statistics and investigation proved that they were completely in error, he was glad to find that that confession on their part was about to be ratified, and recorded by a deci sion of that House.—(Cheers.) After some observations from Mr. WAwN, who spoke, we believe, in favour of th© amendment, and from Mr. MUNTZ, who protested against the supposition that be cause a man was doing a great deal of business ho must necessarily be prosperous, and who asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer why he did not carry out his principles, and take the duty off tin, the galleries were cleared for a division, as several Members on the Minis terial side objected to the withdrawal of the amendment, but no division t,,ok place, and the amendment was after vrards by leave withdrawn. On the question that the Customs Bill be then read a third time, e, Mr. hl LINTZ said ho wished to know why the irquiry which he put had not been answered? Mr. LABO'UCHERE observed that the subject was one well worthy of consideration, but at that period of the session it could not be advantecreettsly discussed. Sir J. PAKINGTON then said that he wished to make a statement respecting the claims of persons inte rc:Aed in We-,t India sugar, the nature of which state ment was intimately connected with the Bill then before them. Lord J. RUSSELL complained of such a course being then taken. Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that ho was taking any unfair advantage, and said, as they were not then dis posed to hear his statement, he should move that the de bate be adjourned. Mr. CARDWELL stated that his Hon. Friend wished to bring under the notice of the House the case of the West India proprietors and others who desired to re fine sugar in bond, and though that was a matter of considerable moment, he could not reconcile it to him self to stop the progress of so very important a Bill as that which then stood for a third reading. The House then divided, when there appeared — For the adjournment ... 50 Against it 158 Majority ... .•• --108 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. DISRAELI complaining that Lord John Russell should have stated that the whole night had been wasted in a fruitless dis cussion. He, on the contrary, considered that the sub ject which his Right Hon. Friend had brought forward was one which deserved the discussion which it had re ceived. The subject also which the Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) wished to have discussed was one of great interest and importance, and was very germane to the matter of the Bill before the House. He protested against the tone used by the Minister on this occasion. The House had something else to do than pass the mea sures of the Administration; and he hoped the Noble Lord would, upon reflection, do all he could to accom modate his Hon. Friend in bringing forward his motion on the subject of colonial sugar. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not the least objection to the motion of the Hon. Baronet being brought forward, but, the Bill now before the House not having met with any opposition up to its present stage, he thought it would be very inconvenient to stop its progress now at the third reading. He had received many complaints from persons who were suffer ing from the delay which had already occurred in the passing of the Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL explained that he did not say that the night had been wasted. What he said was that the night had been occupied. After a few words, which were quite inaudible, Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that in moving the ad journment of the House, which he should now do, it was not his wish to interpose any unnecessary delay, but he did so to have an opportunity of again appealing to the Noble Lord to comply with the request he had made, and to allow the third reading to be taken to morrow, as he (Sir J. Pakington) was anxious to have a debate on his motion before the Bill should be read a third time. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Bill had already been de layed a considerable time, and he could not consent to postpone the third reading. After a short conversation, the House divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment ... 22 Against it ~ ... 146 ✓ Majority ... . . —124 The Customs' Bill, the Militia Pay Bill, and the Ge neral Board of Health (No. 2) Bill, were each read a third time and passed. METROPOLITAN SEWERS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of the Metropolitan Sewers Bill. Lord EBRINGTON hoped he might be allowed, during the progress of the Bill, to repel the unjust at tacks which had been made upon him and his brother Commissioners.—(" Oh!" and laughter.) Captain FITZROY complained of the unfair course which the Government had taken with respect to this question. Three months ago he asked the Secretary for the Home Department to state the nature of the Bill which they intended to introduce, but could obtain no satisfactory answer. Since then he had repeated his ap peal again and again unsuccessfully. He always sus pected that Government would introduce a Bill for con tinuing the Commission at the end of July, when it would be impossible for the ratepayers of the metropolis to offer effectual opposition to it, and that was precisely the course which had been pursued.—(Hear, hear.) The Commissioners had shown the greatest inaptitude for business, and the consequence had been the wasting of the funds. Three• fifths of the rates had been consumed by the Commission. [Lord EnaiNorroN—“ No."] The fact was stated in a petition from the ratepayers of St. James's, presented two years ago; it had never been contradicted, and he defied the Noble Lord to refute it. The ratepayers were now by this Bill to be saddled with the additional expense of 1,0001. a year for the Chief Commissioner. The only consolation they derived under the circumstances was from the fact that the Chief Com missioner was not to be a Member of the House, and therefore there was a probability of his being a man of business.—(A laugh.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the object of the present Bill was simply to continue the Commission for the shortest possible time, and to do as little as possible. His Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) a short time ago stated to the House that he hoped the in quiry now being carried on before the Committee on the supply of water to the metropolis, might lead to some arrangement with respect both to the water and the sewers which would be much more satisfactory to the in habitants of the metropolis. Looking at the possibility of such an arrangement proceeding from that Committee, his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought it advisable to postpone the introduction of a Bill on the subject in order to see what the Committee would recommend. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee however, having stated that there was no probability of the Com mittee reporting before the end of the session, the Go vernment had thought it right to bring in a Bill continu ing the present Commission for ono year only, in order to leave it open to them to introduce any change they might think necessary in the system of administration in the course of another year, and in the meantime making such amendments in the constitution of the board as would make it work a great deal better; but doing as little as was consistent with that o bject.—(llear.) The principal amendment proposed by this Bill was to give power to appoint a paid chairman who was not a Mem ber of Parliament, and upon whom it would be obliga tory to attend all meetings of the board, which, he thought, would be a great improvement. He hoped, therefore, the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill now and go into Committee on Monday. Sir B. HALL said he could allow nothing of the sort. The subject must be discussed before allowing the Bill to proceed further.—(Hear, hear.) Lord D. STUART denounced the attempt to smuggle through the second reading of the Bill at that late hour as exceedingly imprudent. Mr. WAKLEY said that the Right Hon. Gentleman talked of the Bill doing as little as possible. Did he consider it doing little to continue for another year a public nuisance? For it was a nuisance affecting the whole metropolis. The fact was that the public wished the Commissioners were at the bottom of their own sewers.—(Laughter.) Lord EBRINGTON said it would be in the recollec tion of the House that he had over and over again chal lenged Hon. Members to bring forward this question in a form in which it might be fully discussed. He repeated that challenge now, and would be ready to meet his ac cusers whenever the House gave him an opportunity. The Bill was at length read a second time, and or dered to be committed on Tuesday, at Twelve. The Sheep, &c., Contagious Disorders Preventive Bill was read a second time; as was also the Commissioners of Railways Act Repeal Bill. The Representative Peers for Scotland Bill was read a second time. Mr. HAWES moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the arrangement of claims of the New Zealand Company on the Crown, and for regulating the affairs of certain settlements established by the said company in New Zealand. The object of the Bill, as we understood the Hon. Member, was to convert the lien of the New Zea land Company upon the land funds of the colony into a lien upon the general revenues of the colony, imme diately after the civil list. Mr. GLADSTONE considered that as this was a mea sure involving a grant of money, because it created 5 charge upon a public fund, it ought, in conformity with the rules of the House, to be introduced in a ComEnitt! e of the whole House. He objected to the Bill because_', l : proposed that Parliament should saddle the colony as he 113te".. a charge upon its general revenues in a manner , lieved, quite without precedent in the history o Parlia lonial legislation, at variance with thep.:c d ,g es f our m mo ment had given to the colonies on the s ob dangerous to the co nnex ion between the colonies ani. the mother country. • that the Bill should The SPEAKER was of op F uole House. originate in a Committee of thieniwo hd The motion was, therefore, wit rawn, and noti ce given (we believe) of moving for a Committee this d ay , a Quarter befo Three o'clock. The House adjourn“l2.__" EVIDENCE.—On Th urs d ay L ord THE LAW °l' ii a s a mended in Committee o f th e H ouse of Brougham's 13 i" , • Comm te d. A new clause h as b een added to save was prin !a c riminal prosecutions, by a ll ow i ng a copy of eons,nse a for which 6s. Bd. is t o b e pa id , to b e received former conviction, evidence. The principle of this Bill, w hi c h w ill r in convi i n a short time become an Act o f P ar li ament, is to admit par ti e s to suits in the superior courts to be examined as wit nesses in court. If a party is to be examined on his own be half, he must give prior notice to the opposite aide. Such examination is not to be allowed in cases of adultery or breach of promise of marriage. The Earl Fitz william appears as a petitioner in the Encumbered Estates Court for the purpose of selling a pro perty in the liing'a County. Sligo 4 ~; ‘..1 ;- r' 4* ',. \ t• - • -- 4. t „. 1 ~, ..1.,.."....,4 1. ..); it„... t' - ' , ....t ''' •1 11 ' , ":L.7 -- - PA RL lAME N I' . X;;;' al;f l it74 § tv ilii 7 Oitii BILL. 1 ' ''9N S. V) c HOUSE OF LORI i ECCLESIASTICAL TIT S NON -C Leitrim -'1 Nelson .. St. Germans Wicklow DUEL ew•castle MARQUISES. Drogheda lieadfort EARLS Aberdeen Bruce Charlemont Delawarr Fingal] DUKE. Leeds MARQLIB. EARLS. Kenmare VISCOUNTS. Canning Gage BARONS. Ashburton Arundell PROXIES. Limerick VISCOUNT. Massareene Monteagie Metre Stourton Suffield Vaux Wharneliffe De Tabley Denman Dunfermline Stafford Stuart de Deelea BARONI. Brougham Carew (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons ) THURSDAY, JULY 24. MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL. (IN THE COMMITTEE.) Clause 6 (guardians of unions to divide them into dis' pensary districts) :—Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the following Proviso:—" Provided always. that in every dispensary district and other charity where only one medical officer shall be appointed, every such officer shall be required to possess the qualification of either PO"' sician' or of apothecary pod surgeon :'—Question put, " That the proviso b 3 there added." The Committee divided:— MINORITY-AYES, G. Bankes, George O'Brien, Sir Lucius Chichester, Lord J. Scully, Francis Magan, SY. H. Soma's, J. P. TELLEM. Reynolds, John Whiteside, James MAJORITY-NOES, 65. Clause 7 (Dispensary Committees):—Amendment pro posed, in page 4, line 3, after the word " therein," to insert the words " and subscribers of one pound annually, or donors o° That those pounds, resident in the district :" Question put, hat those words be there inserted." The Committee divided : MINORITY—AYES, 27. Barrington, Viscount Dunne, Colonel Muilings, J. R. Bowles, Admiral Ferguson, Sir R. Naas, Lora Brooke, Sir A. B. Fitzpatrick, J. W. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Burrell, Sir C. Frewen, C. H. Spooner, Richard Chichester, Lord J. Hamilton, Geo. A. Stafford, AugustuS Child, Smith Hamilton, J. H. Verner, Sir W. Conolly,Thomas Hayes, Sir E. Whiteside, James Corry, Henry Jones, Captain TELLERS. Denison, Edmund Lockhart, W. Duncan, George Maxwell, J. V, ,P. esey Hon. T. Herbert, Henry A. MAJORITY —NOES, 38 . Armstrong, R. B. uatcheii, John a ell, Jacob henry, Alexander Power, Dr. Rich, Henry . Booth, Sir R. G. Hobhouse, T. B. Roche, E. B. Brecklehurst, J. Hodges, T. L. Scobell, Captain Clements, C. S. Johnstone, Sir J. Scully-, F rancis , Cockburn, Sir A. Johnstone, James Seymo ur, Lord Corbally, M. E. M'Cullagh, W. T. Somers, J. p . Cowper, W. F. Megan, W . U. Somerville, Sir W. Crawford, W. S. Monsell, William Thompson, Colonel Dlvett, E. Morris, David Wawn, J. T. Fertescue. Chichester Muntz, G. F. Goold, Wyndham Norreys, Sir D. TELLER.. Greene, John Ogle, S. C. Bellew, R. M. Grenfell, Charles W. Plowden, W. H. Lewis, G. C. CUSTOMS BILL. Order for Third Reading read; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a third time: , Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That ' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct the proper steps to be taken for giving effect to those provisions of the Act 12 and 13 Vic., c. 29 (for the repeal of the navigation-laws), whereby her Majesty is empowered to ad op t towar d s any f ore i gn country, in which a preference is given, directly or indirectly, to national vessels over British vessels, such measures as ma y appear to her Majesty justly to count erva il t h e disadvan tages to which British trade and navig a ti on i s so su bj ected, " instead thereof:—Question, " That the word s p ropose d to b e left out stand part of the question," put, and agreed to Question again proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time;" Debate arising; Motion made, and Q uest i on put, " That the Debate be now adjourned." The House divided : MINORITY-AYES, 50. Archdall, Captain Goold, Wyndham Sibthorp, Colonel Baldoek, E. H. Grogan, Edward Somerset, Captain Bankes, G. Gwyn, Rowel Spooner, Richard Baring, Thomas Hamilton, G. A. Stafford, Augastai Barrow, W. H. Hamilton, J. H. Stanford, J. F. Beresford, William Henley, J. W. Taylor, Colonel Blandford, Marquis Berries, J. C. Verner, Sir W. Booth, Sir R. G. Hudson, George Vyse, R. H. Buller, Sir Y. Knox, Colonel Waddington, David Burrell, Sir,C. Lennox, Lord A. Waddington, H. S. Clive, H. B. Mahners, Lord C. Whiteside, James Cobbold, J. C. Maxwell, Hon. J. P. Williams, T. P. Codrington, Sir W. Mailings, J. /t. Willoughby, Sir H. Disraeli, B. Napier Joseph Young, G. I'. Dunne, Colonel Noel, G. J. Edwards, Henry Packe, C. W. Fox, S. L. Renton, J. C. Gaskell, J. M. Sanders, G. TELL7III. Newdegate, C. N. Pakington, Sir J, MAJORITY—NOES, 158. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Osborne, Ralph Fitzroy, Henry Owen, Sir John Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord A. Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord Clarence Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, Via. Geach, Charles Parker, John Gibson, T. M. Pechell, Sir G. Gladstone, W. E. Pigott, Francis Goulburn, Henry Pilkington, James Graham, Sir James Pinney, William Grenfell, C. Pascoe Ponsonby, C. F. Grenfell, Charles W. Power, Dr. Grey, Ralph Win. Price, Sir Robert Hall, Sir B. Pusey, Philip Haste, Alexander Ricardo, J. L. Hatchell, John Ricardo, Osman Hawes, Benj. Rich, Henry Hayes, Sir E. Robartes, T. J. Headlam, T. E. Ron:1111y, Colonel Herbert, Sydney Rumboid, C. E. Heywood, James Russell, Lord John Hindley, Charles Russell, F. C. liobhouse, T. B. Scholefleld, William Hodges, T. L. Scobell, Captain Holland, Robert Scrope, G. P. Howard, C. W. G. Seymour, Lord Hutt, William Smith, Vernon Jerinyn, Earl Smith, J. A. Johnstone, James Somers, J. P. Kershaw, James Somerville, Sir W. Labouchere, Henry Spearman, H. J. Langston, J. H. Strickland, Sir G. Legh, G. C. Stuart, Lord D. Lewis, G. C. Stuart, Lord J. Lindsay, Colonel Thompson, Colonel Littleton, E. R. Thornely, Thomas Locke, Joseph Tufnell, H. Lockhart, A. E. Villiers, Charles M'Cullagh, W. T. Watley, T. M'Gregor, John Walmsley, Sir J. Magan, W. H. Wawn, J. T. Mangles, B. D. Westhead, J. P. Martin, John Willyams, H. Martin, C. W. Williamson, Sir H. Matheson, A. Wilson, James Matheson, Colonel Wilson, Matthew Melgund, Viscount Weod, Sir Charles Milner, W. M. Wood, Sir W. P. Mitchell, T. A. Wyvill, Marraaduke Moffatt, George Young, Sir John Mostyn, E. M. Murphy, F. S. O'Connell, M. J. Ogle, S. C. 4bclY, Sir T. N. Acland, Sir T. D. Adair, Hugh E. Aglionby, H. A. Anderson, Arthur Anson, Colonel Armstrong, Sir A. Armstrong, H. B. Baines, M.. T. Baring, Sir Francis Bass, M. T. Bell, Jacob Bellew, R. M. Berkeley, Henry F. Berkeley, C. L. G. Bernal, Ralph Bouverle,:E. P. Boyle, Colonel Bright, John Brocklehurst. John It rotherton, J. Brown, W. Bruce, Lord E. Millbury, E. 11. Butler, I'. S. Buxton, Sir E. Cardwell, Edward Carew, W. 11. P. Carter, J. B. Cavendish, C. C. Charter's. Francis Cholmelcy, Sir M. Clements, Charles Cobden, Richard Cockburn, Sir A. Cocks, T. S. Collins, T. Cowper, W. F. Craig, Sir W. G. D,lwes, Edward Denison, J. E. D'Eyncourt, T. Drumlanrig, Vis. Duncan, George Dundas, Admiral Dundas, Sir D. Ebrington, Lord Ellis, John Elliot, John E. Estcourt, J. D. B. Evans, John Ewart, William Ferguson, Colonel Ferguson, Sir R. rarixas. Ilayter, W. G. Hill, Lord Marc= MEDICAL COMBINATIONS AGAINST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES. There has long been a feud between certain of the Life Insurance Companies and the members of the medical profession. The latter object to answer with out a fee the queries propounded to them by the in surance companies touching the health of those of their patients who may seek to ensure their lives, and some of the insurance companies object to the pay ment of any fee. This pamphlet is a statement of the case of the insurance companies. Now it strikes us that the case lies in a nutshell. Who are the parties deriving benefit from the Information furnished by the medical men ? Clearly, if any party, it is the insurance company ; and therefore, if the informa tion is valuable, it ought to be paid for ; if of no value (which nine times out of ten we believe to be the case) it ought not to be sought. Suppose, in• stead of an insurance of a life, it were proposed to insure a title, would any office think of asking the opinion of a lawyer without giving him a fer Neither ought it to ask the professional opinion of a medical man without also tendering him his hono rarium. The source of the squabble seems to to that the insurance offices make it a rule to s a n P d PlY. then the medical attendant in every instance, less they 1 when they get information which is object to pay for it; whereas if they f w parties de these queries to the medical attendanctis, such informs of the fee Yid : to put siring to insure, only in cases in whi ent tion is really required, the P 9 a t bi l ; m edical profes would be no great burden, and ei, the sion would be satisfied; irides: somewhat similar writer of thi s con pamphlet seems to come to a elusion, for he suzg 7ould be satisfied in every ease nwvolving a personal examination, about to be entered into, assnr of"aTrehfaetreifncmeetdoictfeige:sn' its amount by the ex • y be g a n t demandedan' e l ated d un i n d i i n s t i eeryn guis hciansge then tent of the transow n b it to the • submit with a reasonable fee r should m c har ge;—which ante companies . t serious injury t 'victio! o the assured. they miht do But if t he extra • still t° e guinea is .st jest fall back upon the remedy which compsoies. wu h ee en o t f h a e they hold in their own hands— -1 tt d that of deciding on . cases , the me v alue aen almostp Experience withoui 13 - infinitesimally small, c com panies would incur but a trifling additional risk hasproved their L h by ' accepting and rejecting proposals without them." We concur with him in his estimate of the infinitesi mally small value of these reports in the majority of instances, and would suggest that, as what is not worth paying for is not worth having, companies should for the future abstain from requiring such reports. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—LIVER COMPLAINTS, JAUN. DICE, & c.—The whole host of dieorder s denominated liver complaints may be attributed to cold, aniety, want of exer elsß, spirituous drinks, excessive use of mercury, &c. These causes act powerfully on the liver, and obstruct the due per• formance of its natural functions and secretions, and the healthy action of the liver is of such vital importance to the general health, that these interruptions, if not attended to, too often terminate fatally. Should jaundice occur, it serves to remove all doubts with respect to this disease. TWO or three of Old Parr's Life Pills every night for a few weeks. will restore the patient to perfect health. The causes of these diseases are before specified, which, as a matte . ! of course, should be carefully avoided. Sold by Mfiart 3 :llar clay and Sons, Farringdon-street ; Edwards, St : _ Paul' s Church-yard ; Sutton and Co., Bow Church -yard , Sanger , 151, Ox f ord-street ; and Hannay and Co., Oxford-street. ST. GEORGRitii, HANOVEIL-SQUANN.—At a vestry meeting of this parish , held yesterday in the board-room of the workhouse, Mount-s: asrev:lt, Grersooslvveendort-square, Howarth in the chair, i altera tions proposed in the Metropolis Buildings' Bill and the Bill for the reconstrucfion of the Sewers Commission now before Parliament. Petitions were adopted accordiugiy, to be pre sented by the Members for Westminster. Bath from ump- ?oond Pet of 3tant , only int in on to t was sub next to be Go that Ire of