The Sun. — London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

such an inquiry. It was obvious to every ono that, for every ton of shipping which they drove from their shores they they deprived the home merchant of the opportunt disposing of an equal quantity of good s. The m ore h ey obstructed the merchant from pur suin g his av oca ti ons either by fixing him to any particular plce ili o s r i m posin g roesof restrictions upon him, they circum s cri be profit. As an instance, be would give the fact that an American ship brought hides t o Marseilles, and the French consignee sent them to R ot t er d a m, where, not meeting with a ready sale, the French merchant, con sidering them sufficiently naturalised by the transaction, sent them to Liverpool. They were their seized by the Custom-house o ffi cers, and were re lieved on petition, and on condition that they should bo sent back to New York. They were accordingly sent, after being re-salted. It was what was called the triangular trade that was considered profitable, and why should they attempt to interfere with it ? If the direct trade was more advan tageous, they would find all the capital of their mer chants embarked. They would never find that human laws would work so well as the natural laws that regu lated commerce ; and any attempt to interfere with these natural laws would be sure to be followed by waste and extravagance. Why, corn was manufactured into flour, and flax into linen, and both these were European manufactures, and all the impositions upon British ma• nufactures amounted to a protection of British ship owners. Now, look at the consequences if they only put a protection of ten shillings a ton on British ship ping. In 1843 there were 7,181,796 tons of British shipping entered inwards and outwards, and if they only imposed a protection of ten shillings a ton, it would act as a tax to that extent for the British shipowner, and would be a tax of 3,590,000/. upon the people of this country. In 1845, there were 8,326,090 tons of British shipping entered inwards and outwards, and the raising the freights to ten shillin gs a t on i m posed a tax et 4,273,045/. upon the manufacturers of Britain. He did not mean to say that the profits would be raised to that extent ; but, it they raised freights at all, it acted as a tax to that amount ; and, if they did not raise freights, it acted as no protection ; and, at any rate, the people of this country had been taxed to upwards of four mil lions sterling. When the propositions of Mr. Huskisson were made known to Mr. Marriott that gentleman had given his opinion very strongly. It was stated by Mr. Marriott, a staunch friend to pro tection, that if the navigation laws were repealed, the monopoly with the West Indies would be at an end. The system operated most injuriously for the colonies, and they had good reason to complain. It was a bad system to disintegrate the colonies from the rest of the country for the advantage of the mother country, as was done by the operation of the navigation laws. It was through the operation of such laws as these that Portugal lost Brazils, this country the United States, Portugal Java, and Spain Cuba and her other extensive colonies. Under the circumstances he might again ask, whether there were any political or natural advantages that justified their maintenance in future. Ile expected that Adam Smith would be quoted by the other side against him, but on this question he had departed from his usual good course by failing to give the arguments on which he based his opinion. He was quite willing to give lion. Gentlemen the pro position, if they would give him the argument. All he asked was, that if they quoted the opinion of Adam Smith, they would read the sentence to an end, and not keep back any portion of it. Now, it was stated that the defensive navy was the safeguard of the British em pire. Perhaps he might then make some admissions which would simplify his arguments ; first of all he ad mitted that the defensive navy was of the first impor• Lance to the country; but they, on that side, also ad mitred that the mercantile navy was the nucleus from which the defensive navy a as supplied, inasmuch as it fur nished the elements for its maintenance. He would ad rnit that at once; but he dt nied that they were encourag ing the commercial navy by throwing protection aroun:i them, or reetrieting them in their commercial intercourse with other nations. These were the dregs which cramped all their efforts. Restriction and protection rendered them inferior to the navies of other countries. When an English merchant wrote to an American and ordered goods from him, he gave particular iestruetions to ship them, if possible, by an American ship. In fact they h-al Only a home trade, because no other nation although obliged to use foreign vessels, would ship their merchandise on board of British vessels. The American navy was the second navy in the world, for their tonnage amounted to two and a half millions. It wns said that America hal a great advantage over England in its timber. For his part he was not at ad clear about it. As far as regarded od: and teal:, they were in as good a condition as the Americana were. Then, with respect to wages, the wages of shipwrights in Sunderland, met the other out ports, averaged from 3s. 6d. to 4s Well what are wages in the United States ? Set!, n shillings day. One shilling higher than the wages o f this country.' Then they came to iron; it could not b e e h eaper than ie this country. Carriage was certainly cheaper in England. What then was the meaning of this cry—that they could not protect themselves ? They would fled that the cost of a vessel built in London was 5/. or 61. over that of one built in Sunderland or Bristol. There WaS another thing asserted, as entitling the Britieh shipowners to some protection, namely, that they could not nav i gate their ships as cheaply from this country as from foreigu ones. It was stated that the Swedes and Dance had less wages, and that they lived on biscuits and oil, and that it would be a great convenience to be enabled to take them. If that was the case. how was it that the Ameri cans manned their navy principally with British sea rues ? how was it that they pail them higher wage: ? If this Committee were granted, he would undertake to show that the British shipowners needed nn protection In the year 1814, at tile cl se of the war, when the Eng lish ports were not very acceptable, and when they were still under the Navigatioi La vs of Charles 11, in that year there were 8,975 British ships in port, represe n ting a tonnage of 1,248,000 tons, and 5,286 foreign ship, re. presenting 699,287 tens. In the year 1824 then were ships representing 1,797,320 tons, and foreign ships re presenting 759,541 tons. In 1845, when no less than twenty seven treaties lied been carried into effect, there were ships representing 4,310,639 tons in port, and fo reign ships representing 1,733,000 tons, showing a con siderably greater propertion of British and foreign ships. He had made a calculation of the protected and unpro tected tonnage of this country since 1826. The protected tonnage were the ships belonging to Canada and this country ; and those unprotected tonnage belonging to foreign countries, who traded with Gr ea t Britain. In 1826, the protected tonnage was 778,879 ; in 1844, it was 3,012,133 ; showing an increase of 1,233,224 tons, or 69 par cent. In 1826, the unprotected tonnage was 1,903,176 ; in 1824 it was 4,447,152. Showing an increase of 2,578,976, or 135 per cent. These facts he thought proved satisfactorily, that protection had not operated beneficially for the navy. They ought, therefore, to look to some other means of encouraging that branch of the service than the navigation laws. lion. Members may depend upon it that the extension of factories in the towns would ensure the extension of the navy, and if they looked to the effects of the relaxations which had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, it was extraordinary to see how these relaxations had worked for the better. In proof of this, ho would just refer to the article of timber. In 1843, the year before the restriction of the duty on timber, there were in that trade 1,841 ships, represent ing a tonnage of 689,731. In 1345, the year after the reduction of the duty, there were employed in the tim • her trade 2,603 ships, representing 964,276 tons; thus showing an increase in the course of one year, of more than two thirds. Let them now take the quantity of ships employed in the Foreign and British trade in the Rine months ending the 10th Oct., 1844, and in the cor responding nine months ending 10th 0ct.,1846. Now, they all knew that there were great relaxations between these periods. They found, then, that in the nine months ending in 1844, there were employed 4,332,821; and in the nine months ending in 1846, there were employed 5,153,631 tons; showing an increase in the last year of 2,111 ships, and above 800,000 tons. Let them take the colonial trade for the five years ending 1839 ; the increase in that time represented 1,503,673 tons, and the increase for the five years ending 1845 was 2,055,600 tons. These were facts and figures which spoke volumes. If he had in the slightest degree made out to the mind of any Hon. Gentleman that this law was mischievous in its operation —if he had made out the slightest case to show that relaxed duties as a principle was more efficacious than protection AT restriction, then ware they bound to grant the inquiry which he asked. They were bound'to refute his facts and figures or allow him to substantiate them before a Committee of the House of Commons. In conclusion the Hon. Member thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him throughout his address.—(Cheers.) Mr. M. GIBSON said that his Hon. Friend had submitte d to the House a motion of much interest, and in doing so he had called the attention of the House to the origin and history of those laws, into the operation of which, he proposed that an inquiry sheeld take place. The Hon. Member had prefaced his motion by questioning the policy of these laws, and pointed out many apparent anomalies in the working of these laws. The present motion would not commit any lion. Member to any course of conduct proposed b y the Hon. Member, for the sttlement of the question. If the Government gave their consent to the appointment of the Committee, they would be acting in strict accordance with the p rinci p les which all owed the Committee to be appsinted in the year 1844, the object of whose inquiry was the same as that sought by the present motion. The report of that committee was, that they were unable to conclude their inquiry. and they recommended the re-appointment of the committee, with a view of continuing the inquiry which they had commenced. It must have occurred to the minds of most Hon. Members that in consequence of the great commercial changes which had taken place in this r c ountry witki n th ese f ew years, t h at a necess it y wou ld arise . o an inquiry into the navigation laws, and that the same reasons existi ng for the continuance of the navigation laws, considerable modifi ca ti ons wou ld b e re quired. He was q u it e sure that e the o pi n i on expresse d b y th e H on . Member, that the vrey Committee should b e i m p ar ti a l, wo uld be e assented to by , he n. Member pre sen t. O n th e part of of the Gover nment wished oi to see t h e appo i ntment o f an impartial Committee, selected and talent would ent i t l e the report such person s w h ose p os iti on n t t9 h t e i m e tia nt i e tt r ee in t t o . the the attention of the House. he woueldeivreeds,earvned House the report of smerits of the case, the use , knew whether the Committee had been re inerferer,ce with the Committee would recomm w e h n i t h le those laws. The Committee his II on. Friend had moved! for should be acceded to by the Government. Mr. LIDDELL regretted that he could not agree with the motion of his Hon. Friend, and he hoped the House would \ b ear with him for a s hort time, while he stated the grounds of near' h ear. ) 1 his oppositio n to the motion to the He looked with suspicion to the quarter from whence the mo tion origineted , no t w ithstanding tie disclaimer of th e H on . Mover that he did not intend to abolish the navigation laws. eel, was not so much to show the The whole object of his s . t s he country. m t necessity of any inquiry in e to the subject, but rather to point out the hardships endured by the chip-owners Adam Smith had said that the navigation d t.' e l allw of twereti ted in 1845, was totally essential bulwarks to the extends .commerce of the country, The object of the C o mmittee, appeal different from that sought by the Elen. Member in his presen t motion, Twenty years since he had moved for a Commi ttee of inquiry into the subject , bu t that m otion had been refused. A Committee was obtained in the year 1344, which sat during the whole of that session. The inquiry was not completed, and in the session of 1845 it was re-appointee. It might be THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-, FEBRUARY lO 1847. laws we s r t e n r ti nm e h l a a r w d s sh wipesrelV n e o r w the etoopearnattihoon world, the ld s n al av d ig th a a ti t on th and the shipowners of the world had only to act in conformity with those laws in order to prevent the recurrence of those Lordships. The Hon. Member had said that the navigation laws did not foster the commerce and shipping of the country, and quoted as a proof the different prices paid for labour con nected with the shipping trade in various parts of the world. Mr. Huskisson had said that the navigation law, were twofold, first, to maintain a great commercial marine fcr the purpose of national defence, and, secondly, to prevent ~ny other nation from engrossing too much of the navigation of r e world. The wasting and fishing trade were also materially affected by the operation of those laws. Mr. Huskisson also said that the altered condition of the world, referring to the period at the close of the long war, when the British navy had swept all hos tile fleets from the face of the earth, demanded the existence of these navigation laws, and that, so far as exclusion of other nations was eonoerned, it was right to grant a perfect mono poly of the carrying trade to the shipping of England, not for the purpose of affording advantages to the shipowners, but be cause the merchant service was always to be looked upon as the nursery for the British navy. He (Mr. Liddell) little thought that when the shipowners were willing to give their sanction to a temporary suspension of the navigation laws a short time since, that that would be made use of as a peg upon which to hang the present Committee. The present Parliament must be dissolved in a few months, and he thought it was not wise on the part of the Government to commence an inquiry of so complicated a nature as the present would be. He was sure the Noble Lord had plenty of other work to attend to than commence so protracted and lengthened an inquiry, as an inquiry into the navigation laws would prove. The wages of a shipwright in London was 6s. per day, while at Toulon it was only one franc and a half per day. There was no more certain indication of a prosperous country than that of high wages and the high prices of food.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) He should be glad to hear that fact con tradicted by Hen. Members, if they were able to do so. The Hon. Geatlenaan then proceeded to read returns of British and foreign ships that had passed the Sound in 1835, 1836, 1837, 1842, 1843, and in 1844, which showed the proportion of British vessels to be comparatively on the decrease. In the enormously increased trade which had sprung up he must say that there would hove been ample means to give employment to British shipping, had it not been for the very great and the unequal competition to which they were exposed. He would now take those countriesin both of which the shipping interest had to contend to show the effect in 1844 of that competition. He would take Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Prussia, to show the propor tion of ships belonging to those countries that entered the port of Hall, as compared with British shipping. He would first ef all compare with Swedes. There were of British ships 30, ' with a tonnage of 5,387 tons, and of Swedish ships 120, with a tonnage of 1,400 tons. Of Norwegian vessels there were 29, with a tonnage of 3,043 tons ; while of British vessels there were only 2, with a tonnage of 160 tons. With Denmark the proportion was still more unfavourable. The British ships were 37, while of Danish ships there were 492, with a tonnage of 34,445 tons. The proportion with Prussia was 80 British ships, with a tonnage of 10,812 tons, and 222 Prussian vessels, with a tonnage of 22,688 tons. He would now ask why they . were told of the benefits and advan tages of free and unrestricted competition with the world. It could surely not be evidenced by those returns. He hoped the House would not be misled by clamour on this subject, and would not take any steps that would be injurious to British commerce, to the wealth of England, and the varied interests supported by this protection. The Hon. Member then referred to Mr. Hutchinson's returns of the shipping of the United Kingdom during 1816 and 1826, which showed that there had been an increase in the number of vessels. An argument might be drawn from this, that if they could maintain sa large an _mount of shipping, that they had not suffered much from the competition to which they were subjected ; but it must be remembered that there had been an immense increase in the exports and imports. In the article of cotton there had been, in 1816, sixty millions of pounds imported, while in 18 4 6 there had been one hundred and fifty millions, and in 1843, six hundred and seventy three millions. In wood, wine, tobacco, tea, wool, coffee, dry stuffs, alkali, arid manures of all kinds, who could fail to perceive that there had been the most incredible traffic, which must necessarily have given great employment to the shipping interest of this country, had it not been for the competition in the carrying trade, which they had experienced ?—that competition, which was now sought to be made more severe by the removal of the protection which it possessed. Ile purp sely abstained from going into further details. It was statcal that if the Committee sat upon these laws, certain evidence might be given which would show that the shipping i .tere.st were fettered with restrictions which would not be known without that investigation. But if that %ver_ the object of the Hon. Gentleman, why did he not state that as a reason for his motion? Why did he confine himself to the alleged injury which he said these laws did to the com merce of the country, and make statements of the most un founded nature v. ith reference to this subject—assuming that they imposed an addition on freight of 10s, per ton, and were a taxation on the commerce of the country to the amount of four and a half millions. _ _ _ Mr. RICARDO begged to correct the Hon. Gentleman. Ile only put an hypothetical case. Mr. LIDDELL said that that was the reason why he objected to the statemen's of the Hon. Member.—( Hear, hear.) Passing over that, however, he would say, if the Government would fuly take the question up, and appoint a committee, he would have no objection to their doing so, pro vided they gave him an assurance that before they removed protection they wou'd remove restriction.—( Hear, hear.) That, however, was so much better stated by the Shipowners Society that he would take the liberty of reading their senti ments on the subject. The Hon. Member here read extracts ' front a report of that society to the effect " that the shipowners advanced no claim to exclusive protection, but if for the purposes of the State, and for questions of public prudence burdens had teen imposed upon them, they did not think they should be placed on the same footing with those who were free from them. " Upon his honour and conscience, he considered, if they re moved that protection which the British shipping enjoyed at present, that these important interests would decline, and they should appear in the eyes of foreign nations in a ridiculous :ight, if they carried out the principles of free trade with re spect to shipping to the extent proposed. Where gas this to end? If we made this country one universal workshop, where were we to reinforce our army or our navy? Was it among the stunted inhabitants of our cities, or the wretches' labourers of the factories? Non his juventes or ta parentibas It,fecit 2 , !‘itior sanguine Portico ; Pyrrhurnque, et iii entem cecidit A ntiochum, fiannibalemque dirty!): Sed rusticorum masculamilitum 1 Proles—. He trusted, then, that regard would be had to the great in terests of the country, and that the House would not, in a moment of delusion, grant the Committee now sought for. Mr. HUME was not surprised that the lion. Gentleman objected to an inquiry, seeing that it could not fail to afford the House an opportunity of ascertaining how injurious the navigation laws had proved. Undoubtedly the Hon Gentle man, as a protectioni.t, was bound to maintain the principle of protection to the las) ; but he could not blame the Govern ment fur having carried out the principles of free trade, because they had simply yielded to the wishes of the people. The chipping interest was the only one that now looked for protec tion ; this was the more remarkable since treaties of recipro city had been entered into with other countries which offered them advantages ; and by not availing themselves of them they had committed a great mistake ; but now that the House and the Government had admitted that protection was unjust to the community, and advantageous only to the few, he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman could call upon the House to support him in maintaining the last remnant of protection that remained.—( Hear, hear.) He had referred so far back as 1816 to show that protection ought not to be removed; but, after a great change had taken place is the opinions of the people and of that House, and no Government could now long continue which did not carry out the principles of free trade to the utmost, for himself he would say, " Do not stop with shipping; do not stop any where."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman had talked of the disadvantages under which Englishmen would labour if this protection was removed ; but he (Mr. Hume) could not understand why they could not compete with the people of other countries if they gave them the means of doing so by freeing their labour from injurious restrictions. He had never concealed his opinion that the shipowners carried on their business under great disadvantages, but the fault rested with those who favoured protection, as food had been kept at a high price, and their expenses had been proportionably high. They had a fleet of six hundred South Sea whalers, but pro tection had allowed the United States to construct seven hundred ships for a similar purpose. (An Hon. Member opposite called the Hon. Gentleman's attention to a Com mittee which had sat on the subject of the navigation laws.) The object of that Committee was to obtain a greater degree of protection than heretofore, but the evidence in favour of it broke down, still he admitted that whenever taxes had been imposed that the shipowners had more than their share of them. The duties on timber were exceedingly heavy, on foreign fir it was as much as 2.30/. per cent., but if these restrictions had been removed, no doubt the shipping would have increased. ( Hear, hear.) But who was to blame? In 1833, when the Government wished to remove the taxes upon timber, the protectionists joined the corn protectors, if he might so speak, and threw out the measure ; so that if the shipping interests had improved, they had improved under great disadvantage ; but he appre hended that the time was not far distant when those who now supported this protection would be anxious to have it removed, because he was of opinion that the interests of the British shipowner depended upon perfect freedom, but so long as the 1 Navigation Laws remained, his exertions would be crippled ; and no doubt it would be incontestably proved, if the Committee were appointed, that those laws were not only injurious to the shipping interests at home, but in the colonies. With respect to reciprocity, he might tell the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) that Mr. Huskisson found it necessary either to adopt that principle or to have our ships shut out entirely from the nations on the Continent, and he adopted the principle wisely. His ( Mr. Hume's) opinion was, that every man who was in favour of protection carried in his mind a principle of injustice.— ( Ironical cheers.) That was his interpretation of the meaning of protection.—( Hear.) But one material thing to be ascer tained by such a Committee was, how far the navigation laws had been modified; fur he was correct in stating that modifi cations had taken place which might, on investigation, be found to have destroyed those advantages which the Hon. Gentleman was so desirous to have maintained. The colonies had a right to he placed on an equal footing with this country in respect to those laws, as he was at a loss to understand why they should not participate in those reductions which had been made in favour of similar interests at home. The Hon. Gen tleman then read a paper to show that the navigation laws operated injuriously in this respect, perticularly in reference to the conveyance of grain between Alontreal, New York, and this country. The time was come when they could no longee delay such an inquiry as was demanded. If, in that inquiry, it could not be proved that the removal of these re strictions would tend to the advantage of the country, if it could not be proved that they would promote an increase of their seamen, he should not be the person to urge their abandonment. He was glad that his lion. Friend had brought forward the motion. He would say more, that the Hon. Gentleman was not more anxious to forward the shipping interest of tke country, than he was. If they would allow the importation of timber and materials into the country, without duty, their ports would not be overburdened with i crionial shipping. They would establish England as the work shop of ships; and he knew no reason why they should not manufacture ships mouth better and much cheaper than in any i other country—it was the natural manufacture of the country —whilst the Irishmen objected to the sea, the Scotehman and the Englishmen had an affection for it, they had stopped the natural bent of their inclinations by their course of legislation. He would conclude by secondi ng the motio n . Srtiion WALTERto the JAMES said he had paid the strictest at- tens-t ° l "'": 43t u h - e T t r i e 'e n e t, cit o ( t )i w t h h ic e t li t ' h u e G co e u n i t d le r m in a tp n S t e h a e k I t i o e o m h b i e g r ii r ly or , al:e d en ‘ m yb a ' d e e li Co w r a e s sist w ir, :i He must say, that i e been conceded by by the parties themselves. ov.erntihneenitp.:::l",:e,d_o_h_f tion on the part of some 1.7.3 " a no reason why they shouldrneTd.' high-flying patriotism on appeared to him, no fair ground has deserving of the name he bore. the Government, anti that when such an inquiry had ) a igt t r l a : b yu c ai e : n o ua t s l ectissloasaruntmd assump tion ' g te b r ai e et s i o s f t i will t t . h no ,:et H e could permit gentlemeni ace t . " i to come forward, and uponpart silaty to say, " this shalt not be- own "I'n - , Why, what was asked? Nothing gation. it looked ss if they had sornethin . g t inquiryo aen„ndeelaftiv:alild- , that they were conscious of the debility of their case. The motion appeared to him to bear a most remarkable analogy to one made by Mr. Cobden, for an inquiry into the effects of the Corn-law upon the agricultural classes. That inquiry was denied, and at a late period it was found that the agricultural interest suffered materially from its refusal. The Noble Member for Newark went out into the same lobby with Mr. Cobden ; he hoped that he would, upon that occasion, follow his own example. Since the alteration in the navigation laws by Mr. Huskisson, the Baltic trade had greatly increased. Where formerly there were thirty Swedish ships, there were now one hundred and twenty ; and where there had been eighty Prussian ships, there were now two hundred, and twenty-two. There was one ad ditional advantage in free trade, and that is, one nation does not exclusively advance its own interest by it, but hasthe satis faction of seeing the whole European community prosper. That portion of the British shipping from which restriction had been removed had flourished in a much greater proportion than the other. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that the gentlemen who sought the inquiry had already made up their minds to an al teration, or, at least, a modification of the navigation laws. The Hon. Member for Montrose expressed his opinion man fully, as he always did. He had told them that he wanted ne inquiry whatever; that his mind was made up as to their in expediency. H slamented friend, Mr. Somes, in his evi dence, stated that in the last twenty years British tonnage in creased 42} per cent., while foreign tonnage increased 272 per cent (Hear, hear.) Now that was a fact which proved the absolute necessity of protection. The Hon. Member had said that the average amount of British tonnage entered during the course of last year amounted to eight millions of tons ; that of course including steam ships engaged in the coasting trade. He had raised an hypothesis to form an argument upon, that there must be a loss to the merchants and commerce of this country of 10s. per ton. What was the fact? If they took the average rate of the freight of all the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, it did not amount to 10s. per ton. The country could not, therefore, sacrifice four millions per annum in its shipping. The Hon. :Heather for Durham knew very well that on bringing coals from Newcastle to London the freight was only 7s. ed. per ton, and that was an advance upon the old rate of freight. The Hon. Member for Montrose said that the system of the navigation laws was injurious to the whole shipping interest, and he in vain attempted to prove that assertion. His Hon. Friend was quite aware that in Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island a vast amount of tonnage was built every year, and every one of the ships so built was en titled to the benefit of these laws, and he conceived that a great injustice would be done to the already much injured colonies in North America, if they attempted to destroy the effect of the laws. The same argument applied to the East Indies ; and the only colony which he was aware of that had a right to complain of these laws were the West India Islands, but they carried on a beneficial trade with America, and took all their timber in exchange for their sugar. With regard to the Com mittee of 1844, a gentleman, whose name had been men tioned by the Hon. Member for:Stoke (Mr. G. F. Young), who when he was asked as to the state of navigation in this coun try, said that since the year 1840, British shipping had fallen 25 per cent. ; and that was in consequence of an efficient sys tem not having been carried out. If the Government was of opinion that any alteration in the navigation laws was neces sary, why did they not come forward boldly at once, and not keep this vast interest in a state of suspense. Mr. BRIGHT said that great difference of opinion seemed to exist on this subject, many Gentlemen confidently holding the most opposite beliefs. The Hon. Member for Stoke said that the navigation laws were only fair-weather laws, and would not suit the country in times of difficulty and danger. The Hon. Member for Westmoreland said that the Committee appointed in 1544. was not a Committee to inquire into the navigation laws. He (Mr. Bright) thought that it was not, upon the reference ; but he appealed to any Member, on that Committee, whether the principal bearing of the evidence, brought forward on behalf of the shipowners, was not to show that the depression existing in the shipping trade, was to be attributed to the navigation laws, under the Reciprocity Act ; and if the Honourable Member !lad read further into the examination of Mr. G. F. Young, he would have found that that gentleman stated that a relaxation of the navigation laws caused the misfortune of the fall in the shipping interest. As an instance, he would state that a gentleman some time since purchased cotton in Havre when the prices were rising in England, with a view of bringing it into market, but the navigation laws prevented any American cotton whatever being brought to this country, and the parties were obliged to send it back to the United States, and then bring it over into this country, thus leaving the market unsupplied, and inflicting a serious evil on the men:liants. Another instance was in the know ledge of the Hoe. Member for South Lancashire. A ship arrived in Liverpool from the United States to take in a cargo of British manufactures for Hong Kong. An objection was raised by the collector, and after some discuasion, i: was decided that the vessel could not go to Hong Kong, arid A cargo worth 2.0,6001. or 30,0001. was obliged to be sent on to Canton ; and, in these circumstances, he for one should vote, for the inquiry proposed. Lord SANDON said, that if a question of such moment was to be brought forward at all, it ought to be brought for ward by ;he Government, instead of by a single Member of 'he House. He thought that an inquiry was necessary to be made from time to time, to see how the laws were operating. and to see if it was necessary to change their principle. He did think it was not right of the Government to leave a ques tion of this magnitude without guidance or responsibility in 'he hands of a private Member of the House. He thought that some inquiry was absolutely necessary, for the purpose of protecting the shipowners in their present helpless state, and he should therefore support the motion. Mr. L ABOUC HERE thought it very unjust to say that 'his question ought to be in the hands of a private Member of that House. He differed very much from his Noble Friend, tor he thought this a very fit question for the House to deter mine. 'These laws should be the subject of cautious, deliberate, and careful consideration, to see how far any modification of them should extend. His Hon. Friend showed it was alto gether wrong to leave the question to be brought on in the Rouse of Commons. When he remembered what subject had been brought on in that House, he hoped he never should see •hetime when any Government of this country should assume iuch a control in the House of Commons, as - to reply to any Nletub2r bringing forward a motion, that it was not a tit subject for a Committee of the House to consider. He could appeal to the recollection of that House, whether the ;rareFt and most important questions It ad not been dealt with under all Governments in this manner ; questions affecting the chipping interest, the timber duties, and other matters involv .ng the greatest eth,siderations had been brought forward on 'he mono - A of the independent members, and referred to Corn ( :nittees There had been questions involving colonial interests recently investigated by Select Committees. Undoubtedly it was impossible to deny, that inquiries of this sort, might in a certain degree, be thrown in doubt in the minds of persons connected with the interests to which they referred. He confessed he saw no objection whatever to the motion, nor ~ ould he spec with the Noble Lord as to the course the Go vernment ought to have pursued. He did not think the Go vernment or the House ought to interfere with independent b t i e o n e s o m o thisf m it t i k n i g n d t h , e nor s e d l i v d e s h t e o c a o n ; n: , i p i d e i e n ca r thei opinion er o s n b the ri Government ngi ng navigation fforward w rw ar o d l u a n l w d: by assenting to the appointment : i f the Committee. There was no difficulty whatever in the course. Thu Government and the House, he was persuaded, in the altered circumstances of the country, the change which had taken place in commercial policy, and in consideration of the respect which was due to their great colonial interests, whose prosperity was so materially affected, should consentto the question being scrutinised. A Select Committee was the best place for that inquiry to take place, as he believed the repre sentatives of the colonial interests would be then duly consi dered and reported. The colonial interests in the recent changes which had taken place had complair.ed that they had been badly used, and if such a Committee were appointed they would have an opportunity of fairly stating , their case. In the petitions which the representatives of those interests had preferred to this House they asked an opportunity of doing so; if so, there could be no better or fairer means than a Committee fairly selected by the House.—( Hear. bear.) He must protest against the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord, that it was the duty of the Government to preclude independent Members from bringing forward such motions as this. As a member of the Government, he would never shrink from a fair degree of responsibility for the measures submitted by them to the House, but on the other hand, he would never question the right of independent Members to bring before the House any question which they considered to require investigation. He did not think the House should refuse to accede to the present motion, because it was not brought forward by a Minister of the Crown. If the: Committee were appointed and submitted their re port, then it would be for the Government to con sider whether they should take its recommendations in whole or in part, and act upon them. He did not think, therefore, he would be acting right in opposing the appointment of the present Select Committee.--( Hear.) Lord G. BENTINCK differed altogether from the Right Hon. Gentleman, and concurred with the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He did no, because he thought on the present question, affecting so greatly their national policy, her Majesty's Government should net permit it to be sent up stairs to a Select Committee, especially when the proposer and aceooa..- ~f the motion had compared the large and important commercial interests or the tA.,...e..7 '^ P.Alars with packhorses, and that trade in shipping should be as free as trade in shoes. —( Hear, hear.) If that was the spirit in which a great in quiry was to be conducted, it must be clear to the Govern ment, to the House, and the shipping interest of the country, that the animus of this inquiry would be different to that which actuated the Committee of 1844. That Committee did not inquire into the operation or policy of the navigation laws, but merely the state of the commercial marine of the country, with the view as to the best measures to encourage the shipping interests. The object of the Yon. Member for the Potteries, on the ether hand, was to weaken the shipping interests of the country—to grind down the ship wrights of London from 6s. a-day to 3s. 6d. And in doing so he would lead them to believe that the effect of repealing the core-laws would be something in effect to the resolution of the Irish soldier, who spent 2s. 6d. out of 6d a-day. They were told that the effect would be to diminish the rate of freights 10s. a ton; whereas they were only 7s. 6d. at the present time.—(Hear, hear.) These were the views which the Honourable Member for the Potteries brought to the inquiry. They had also been told that through the operation of the navigation laws this country had lost the British colonies. To that he (Lord Geo. l3entinck) would answer, that history was mistaken if that event had not arisen from the imposition of a tax on tea by the P ar li ament of this country.—( Hear, hear.) They had likewise been informed that Portugal had lost the Brazils through the operation of the navigation laws. Mr. RICARDO—No, no, I did not say so. Lord GEO. BENTINCK—There was no doubt that the I-ion. Member at all events attributed the loss of the Brazils to the colonial system, by which she had not been allowed to trsde with other countries than Portugal. That was a position to which he ( Lord George Bentinck) could not accede. For these d t r h e e as 3 o i n e s nb reasons, he w fo o r u L ld iv t e a rp ke oo t l h , e an s d am re e sis c t o t u h rs p e in as qui t r h y e . Noble L Lord SANDON said he did not intend to oppose the , motion. _ _ Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said, then he must have m]staken the intention of the Noble Lord, for he believed he had intimated that he would resist the motion altogether. The Han. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt) had endeavoured to excite the members on this (the protectionists) side of the Hou se against opposing the motion. There was no doubt that that Hon Gentlemon had at one time or another turned his back on every boat he had sailed in, but he (Lord George Bentinek) could trust those friends by whom he was surrounded, and had no doubt, that acting on the principles of consistency they had hitherto pursued, they would resist the present inquiry. Mr. MITCHELL said, it appeared the Noble Lord who ha.i just sat down, and his friends supported the Committee of 18.44, because they had agreed to it, and it proceeded from themselves, while now they ppesed the present motion be cause the proposer and seconder were opposed to the prin ciple of the navigation laws. This seemed to be the only reason. Now, the qeestion was ono which only could be se' tied by an inquiry, and the present time was or e when they could do so with perfect safety. A great deal had been said abent freights, but his opinion was that they would not be materialiy affected by a repeal of the navigaticn laws. The principal benefit would be to check high freights when there was a great demand for shipping as at present.—( Hear, }Tar.) While on this subject he must remark, success re that the rea son w hy ou r s h i ps could peated p n ro o o t fi fuiv inefficiency of the ca pt a i ns . H e hail compete w ith th ose o f f ore i gn coun t r i es , was the He had seen letters from abroad about charting ships, and ex pressing a desire to have any ships but French or English. The fault was not in the ships of this country, which were as good as those of any country, excepting those of Canada, of which the Noble Lot d ( George Bentinck) was so ena moured, because of the defective character of the captains. He believed great injury had been done to the colonies and the navigation laws, and an inquiry into their operation would elicit many important facts.—( Hear, hear. ) Captain HARRIS was of opinion that those on his side of the House were strong enough to have the Committee so con stituted as to have a fair inquiry if it were thought necessary for the welfare of the country. But before they consented to such a committee they must have good reason given for its necessity ; not such illustrations as had been given by the pro poser of the motion, about pedlars and free trade. The cost of building ships in the Thames was some 131. or 141. a ton, while in Dantaic it amounted only to 51. is. 6d. It could not, therefore, be expected that they could cope with them unless their commerce was in some degree protected. It would not be necessary to remind the House, that these laws were instituted by a Republican Government ; they were established by Cromwell, sanctioned by the Rump Parliament, and consolidated by Charles the second. In 1816 the reciprocity Act passed the legislature, they were modified in 1824, and consolidated in 1833. There was one point con nected with this subject to which he wished to call the particular attention of the House; that was the question of supplying men for the service of the country. It had been put forward with great justice by the shipowners, that if they did away with the navigation laws, they must also do away with the restrictions which fettered them; they must do away with the restrictions on the employ ment of foreigners, and they must take away the restriction, which imposed so many men for every hundred tens; they must do away with all these, and if they did so, they would limit the number of those young men who wished to be gin their career in the merchant service. Perhaps he might be allowed to quote the example of a man to whom they were accustomed to look up with pride, as a thorough seaman and a patriot—he referred to the immortal Nelson. When he was on the West India station, in command of a ship, he disobeyed the orders of his superior, and that was no joke in the naval s ervice ; he f ound that the Americans had monopolised the trade of the West Indies, and although he had the lawyers against him, he had the nation with him, and by the enforcement of these laws he carried his point, and con ferred the superiority on the British trnder. It was to pre serve and extend this trade that they should retain these laws. The Dutch, in the time of the Protectorate, had a monopoly of the carrying trade upon the high seas, and it was for the purpose of competing with them that these laws were first en. acted. The Hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had in formed the House, that by the operation of these laws they had lost the Canadas. He need not tell the Hon. Member that if. the: Canadas were lost to this country, it was only in consequence of the laws affecting their produce, which had passed the Legislature last session. For these reasons he could net support the motion for inquiry. Mr. ; WA WN , felt that it would be for the interest of the country to grant the inquiry. There was one question con nected with it, which the Government ought to take upon its own responsibility, and that was the case of the British sailor. If their trade should decrease, and the British seamen should be forced into the service of other countries, he should like to know where they were to find men to man the navy in a time of war. He would support the motion for inquiry, as no harm would accrue from having the real facts of the case placed be fore them. After a few words from Sir W. JAMES, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it was his intention to give his support to the proposition of the Hon. Member. The ques tion was, whether there should not be an inquiry into the ope ration of the Navigation Laws, and whether there should not be an opportunity giv en f ascertaining whether the maintenance of theirs as they at present existed, would really be for the interest of commerce and manufactures, and also whether or not the maintenance of these laws were necessary for the purpose of securing the maritime defence of the country. The Government, he considered, might consent to this inquiry, without pledging themselves as supporting or assenting to the views of any Hon. Member. The inquiry was proposed by an individual Member of Parliament, and he (Sir It. Peel) apprehended that those who assented to the inquiry were not in any respect bound by the sentiments of that Hon. Member. The Committee were not bound to give effect to any preconceived opinions, but simply to examine and inquire into all the various bearings of this question. It had been re marked in the course of the der ate, that the navigation laws had existed for two hundred years, and that they had their origin in the time of the Protectorate. He (Sir R. Peel) ap prehended that they had lasted, much longer; he apprehended that the navigation laws were simultaneous with maritime enterprises. But he would not stop to examine into the their antiquity. They had been compelled already to relax these laws, not on theoretical principles, but because thee felt it necessary for positive reasons to do so. In 1815 the naviga tion laws had been relaxed, not on any speculative notions, but because America was determined to introduce the principle of this country, and to levy a duty not only on their ship., but also upon their manufactured goods. In point of fact, the only point in question was, whether they would give a prefer enee to this amount in the American market, or whether they would relax these laws for the purpose of extending their corn me• cial relations with the United States? It was a simple question between the exclusion of that commerce from the American markets or the relaxation of the navigation laws. Again, when Mr. Huskisson modified these laws in 1824, it was net from any theoretical principle he acted, but because Prussia was imitating the example of the United States. They would find, in the speech of Mr. Huskisson on that oc casion, a full explanation on the subject of the treaty with Prussia. Prussia complained that her vessels were subjected to many disadvantages in British ports, and she was about to retaliate by subjecting British vessels to the same disadvan tages in the ports of Prussia and she was determined not to stop there ; she would go still further, for she would also sub ject British goods to higher rates. It was from fear of the operation of those laws on British commerce that Mr. Hus kisson felt it his duty to admit Prussian vessels to greater pri vileges in the port of Great Britain ; and these privileges were afterwards extended to Norway and Sweden and other countries. It would be for the Committee to inquire whether the recent changes in their commercial polic would not render other changes in these laws necessary. lie did hope that this House would take care that the Committee was so constituted that in any conclusion it might come to, it would by its deliberate and dispassionate investigations, secure for itself the respect of Parliament, and the confidence of the country. Mr. HUDSON said that it was his intention to give his vote against the inquiry. He believed that any alteration in these laws would be injurious alike to tise commercial and maritime interests of the country. He believed that it would be particularly injurious to the seamen, and believing all this, he was averse to any agitation ef the question. He should, Mr. HUTT said it had never been the practice of this House therefore, qmaui oon v sst o teuto t i e 3i iet a mthe g htepo a c i o n against any inquiry. to confide an inquiry of this description to the Government. He could not conceive that her Majesty's Ministers would op pose the proposition, for he fsrememberedeoAitfntlltrete.hrSettlement eeesßnt sctuoor t ukf h i net that he the country and dot country — to in Nnt have ryte,were hformeraahnde session was permitted to have a Committee to inquire into one important Actpanwi nth elawsopinion f the o that ho h a a t p t t c h r e prevent3e effect, been Ig e gu n thihrt g e iv en in favour of this inquiry. nfa t itsl .e pi did arwo pi n .e o r t t yli c G we n a s ds i i d dd e e r tph t ei h nn a k. t h d lie did not think that the pro party°Oen the 7th and Bth of Victoria, laws.hid w n e e k that this House would interfere this was if his inquiry were refused, would be to pre of civilisation, and that it would therefore be t to dent b e uou sacrificed, tthshe asnavigation ln e orudi country r dtyhnadi into f t o h et h e nt the inquiry.—(Divide, divide.) LI was anxious, before the House came to a d wv i ei v ni T it s r i r o t.th n oDe , ipintrhitaßgittrAutehCese House should rightly understand what was the feeling of the gentlemen on his sid e o f t h e H ouse w i th rega rd to this inq uir y . He believed that there was no feeling on this side of the House to prevent the inquiry on the other side of the House. The question before them was not whether the House should make any permanent alteration in the navi gation laws, and there was nothing in the feeling on that side whether e w r of the House uu to ess p i r ty eve tu nt gu tha in t tu inq it u , i u r u y i . ry T b h u e t fe w e h li ; f affairs it notas the against any n present position o waa advisable or not. The gentleman on his side of the House was not indisposed (L to go into this inquiry—(Laud y—oud laughter)—but the real question before the House was whether this should be Hon.manent or only a temi.earary measure. The Right for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had made a very plau sible statement, and g upon it an equally plausible s c heme.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought that this was a very proper reason why an investigation should be instituted by the House of Commons, and he did think that the time had come when this investigation should be made, and he thought that the doctrine which had been propounded was a very dange rous doctrine. The reply which he would make was, that it would be unwise to institute to that do ctrine, this Committee • , unless it was to investigate the whole of the circumstance s, and how far their results would affect the whole of the country, especially when of the commerc ial interests t o make such great changes. The real question they proposed was whether t hey should make this change only for temporary purposes, or for permanentpurposes ; and this was nut only a com mercial but a lso a constitutional question. The measures proposed by Mr. Huskisson were not only speculativ measures, b u t were intended to be of a perm anent cha racter. The q uestion before them, therefore , was not so much whether the investigation should take place or whe ther it should no t, but whether they should be bound by this decision to a permanent measure ? It should be reco llected that this was no new su b j ect —that this was not an occasion on which they needed infor mation, or of the nature of d which they not been were ill-informed ; and he was sur p rised that it had taken into consideration by the Government before, and that it sideration in had not been frequently made the subject of con whether this or the Cabinet Council. It was not a question that Ministry should remain in power, and he thought that it was the duty of the Govern me nt to make the investig a- H ous e whether tion sought for. He would as k the of which was to this was a question, the alteration w as only to be be permanent, or whether this n avigation laws ? a temporary suspens'on of the the - beginning of and he did not think, that at should be proposed. Parliament, such a question as this But under the c i rcumstance s, they had this consolation, that however it was conc l u d e d, it could not affect the state of the country. But th e p resent qu estion was n ot as to the state of the navigati on l aws, b ut w h et h er they should be only tempo rarily altered, or w h e th er th e re should be a p e rmanent altera tion, and he cont en d e d t h a t this was not so much a party ques tion as one for the Prime Minister of State, and one fur the Government under him. He (Mr. Disraeli) was anxious to make this observation before the House divided. lie would again repeat that this was not so much a matter of inquiry for a privat e mem b er o f t h e H ouse as for the Ministry ef the Crown. It was not a sub'ect on which the House required any information. It was an old subject—one which had been con sidered for two hundred ears, and he th ou g ht that the gentle. men on his sid e o f th e House had only to assume the position to justify their conduct, and they might have the argument of the Honourable Gentleman who proposed this committee. This was a matter which, of all others, was of a constitutional character, and one which, of all others , ou g ht to be out of the power of th e G overnment , and one, at least, on which they ought to have the opinion of the Government. He did not think that this was the moment for discussing the question of the navigation laws, but they ought to take the question on its merits. Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Hon. Gentleman had stated the case very fairly to the House , and had d eclared that the que s ti on was not whether the House would agree to an alter ation of the navigation laws—whether permanent or tem porary, but whether they would consent to inquiry. That was the question before the House. The Hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, were not indisposed to inquiry, but they wore indisposed to permanent alteration. They agreed with him that an alteration was now necessary, and all that his Hon. Friend desired was, that the consent of the House should be given to that inquiry. The Hon. Gentleman agree d that those laws should be inquired into, that they were not a fixed part o f t h e constitution, and yet he seemed disinclined to consent to an alteration of these laws. He had referred to the I opinion of Mr. liuskisson, and for years that statesman had consented to m a k e an alteration o f th ese laws, an d t h e l i on. G snti eman himself stated, he proposed rio alteration of the laws, and he (Lord J. Russell) felt assured that there was no serious intention to opeose the Bill, and he himself thought ' that no better occasion could be taken for a general revision of these laws, nor could the subject be taken up under better cir cumstances than the present Mr. DISRAELI did not oh' t he obje ct to a l teration of the law, but only to the constitutional alteration, Lord JOHN RUSSELL—True, it was a constitutional question, and this inquiry might add to an amendment of the constitutional law ; but could any time be better than the present for the alteration, the modification, or the repeal of these navigation laws. Having a great mass of important bu siness to bring before Parliament, he thought this was the best time to introduce a modification of those laws. He thought that this was what was required. He trusted that the shipping interest would not be overlooked, and prevent the alteration of this most important law. The shipowners had d nibtless made out a case, and their grievance was evidently hardly inflicted and as hardly borne, and he did think that when his Hon. Friend behind him proposed this inquiry, in his very temperate and guarded speech, he thought that a sufficient case for in quiry had been made out. Besides, he did not think that any impediment should be placed in the way of his mo tion, and for his own part, he believed that no Minister of the Crown ought to proceed to the alte ration of such important measures as this without inquiry. He thought it was probable they would derive great advan tages from the appointment of this Committee. With regard to any measure that might result from the inquiry, he could only say that it should be founded upon principles which were likely to produce the greatest possible good, with the least possible injury.—( Hear, hear.) Hitherto it had been said that the change they had made in the navigation laws had affected various interests, arid, amongst those, it was said those ehanges had greatly affected the interests of the colonies. Some Hon. Gentlemen, in times gone by, had urged that it was hardly fair to make large commercial alterations and leave the colonies subject to the navigation laws. Now, here would be an opportunity for those Hon. Gentlemen to adduce reasons in support of their statements. There was another part of the subject which also invited inquiry. It was with regard to the state and condition of the shipping interest itself. Hitherto several committees had been appointed to inquire into that question, but they were appointed with the view of going back again to restrictive laws. Protection was then supported on the ground of the expense of building and fitting out ships in this country being so great. that British ship owners could not hear competition. Let them hear now what these restrictions were, and let the shipping interest state how it was they found their expenses so heavy, that they might make the most practicable modification of the existing laws, and keep up the stability of an interest to which this country was bound to look as one of the great sources of her political greatness, and by which it could be improved, and its prosperity promoted.—(Hear, hear.) He did not altogether agree with the argument that would carry them back to a system of protection; but if they were to do away with freedom, it was desirable that every interest, which wished for protection, should be heard, in order thus to see whether it would not be much better to extend the bene fits of freedom to all who were in any way connected with the shipping interests. For these reasons he should cordially give his support to the motion for a Committee; and although he had not intended himself to propose any Committee on the subject, he was glad that an independent Member of Parlia ment, of so much intelligence and information, had brought it forward.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. RICARDO replied that he had waited for years in the hope that some Hon. Gentleman would bring forward the ques tion, but as he was connected with a manufacturing interest who felt that they were greatly injured by these laws, he could not resist making this motion any longer. Still, however, if any other Hon. Gentleman more conversant with the question would take the inquiry under his control he should only be too ready to give way to him.—( Hear, hear. ) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 155 Against it Majority in favour of the motion -- 94 CATHOLIC PAINS AND PENALTIES BILL. Mr. WATSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the further repeal of enactments imposing pains and penalties upon her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their re ligion. The measures contemplated in the Bill were founded upon the strictest justice, and not upon party feeling or pre judice. Sir R. INGLIS said that if one or two divisions of the House were to be considered as having any weight, then the last division, defeating by a large majority the motion of the Hon. Member, ought to be considered as decisive of the feel ings of the House on the subject. In the present age any measure which would at all produce the slightest change was sure to find numerous supporters, even if no other ground of support were wanting, they would support it solely upon the ground of change. He hoped the House would not allow, piece by pieee, the constitution of the country to be destroyed by the passing of such measures as those now proposed. Sir G. GREY thought the better course would be to allow the Bill to be read a first time, and take the discussion of the merits of the measure upon its future stages. Mr. SHAW wished to know what was sought in the present measure beyond the provisions of the Act passed last session upon the same subject. WATSON said, the Act loaned last session repealed those penal statutes against the Catholic clergy in particular ; the present went beyond that, and applied to other classes of Catholic subjects. Colonel SIBTHORP would oppose the introduction of every measure of this nature; he could not stand quietly by and see the constitution of the country--( Hear, haar)—undermined by any Government, or other Popish manceuvre.—(Laughter.) Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. TENANT RIG II T. Mr. PUSEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the im provement of Agricultural Tenant Right. Leave given to bring in the Bill. IRISH ABSENTEES. Mr. GRATTAN said that he had given notice of his intention to move to-day for a return of the absentee, from Ireland, stating their names, and annual incomes derived from property therein ; specifying the counties in which their estates are situate, and distinguishing such as are temporarily or more than six months absent from Ireland; and that the guardians of the poor-law unions should furnish an account of the annual value of the property of all absentees in their respective unions assessed to the poor-rate ; that the commissioners, under the Act 5 and 6 Viet., c. 35, should furnish an account of the aggregate amount of all property in Ireland taxed under the provisions of that Act, and other Acts continuing the same. Al>o, a return of the number of persons residing in England, or temporarily absent therefrom, charged under the Act 5 and 6 Viet., c. 35, and the Act for continuing the same, in respect of profits and gains arising from any allowance, annuity, stipend, or trade in Ireland ; together with the total amount of the duties levied in respect of such profits and gain. That the governors and directors of the Bank of Ireland should furnish an account of the amount of all annuities, dividends, and shares of annuities payable by the said company out of the public revenues of the United Kingdom to or to the use or benefit of any persons not resident in Ireland. In consequence, however, of the lateness of the hour, and considering that the subject might probably raise some discussion, he begged to postpone his motion until an early day. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY. Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the returns of corporal and other punishments on board each of her Majesty's shies in the Royal Navy, in each year, from the Ist day of January, 1844, to the 31st day of December, 1846, stating the name, rating, nature of the offence, date of punishment, the number of lashes, and remarks of commander-in-chief, or senior officer, as to any excess of punishment or otherwise, accord ing to the schedules published, and ordered in the Admiralty instructions, dated the Ist day of January, 1844, for the government of her Majesty's naval service; stating also the number of seamen and marines employed in each year, and the average number flogged, distinguishing those with, and those without, trial by court-martial distinguishing the number of commissioned and warrant and petty officers, also specifying the names of her Majesty's ships and vessels, and the name of the commanders, in which no corporal punishment have been inflicted in any of Ukase years. These returns were highly important, and he hoped the House would grant him the returns. Captain BERKELEY could assure the Hon. Member that he did not wish to refuse the returns moved for by him, at the same time he was bound to say that this system, if persevered in, would be likely to subvert the best interests of the British navy. He denied that the case of the navy was the same as the army—they were not analogous. The Hon. Member stated that he wished for this return, to show those who inflicted severe corporal punishment, and those who conducted the discipline of their ships without resorting to it. If this House was made an appeal from the Admiralty, they would be putting a man on his trial again who had been honourably acquitted by a court-martial. With regard to the returns moved for, the Admiralty would have no objection to grant them, but enly for the first year. Admiral BOWLES protested against the Government giving up the authority which they exercised with regard to the discipline of the navy. It was impossible, after the manner in which gentlemen holding the opinions of the Honourable Member who moved for these returns, proceeded—and seeing the unscrupulous and unconstitutional means employed of poisoning the minds of the public against any officer who en deavoured to do his duty properly—it was impossible to regard them with any other feelings than the strongest jealousy and suspicion. He protested most strongly against this proceeding, and, if he went out alone, he should divide the House against the motion. Mr. WARD said he was bound to state that the opinion of the Board of Admiralty had been expressed, though with somewhat of professional warmth, by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman who had spoken last. He (Mr. Ward) could quite understand his feelings—they were very natural. He (Mr. Ward) had been untortunately absent when the sub ject had been brought on, not thinking that the question would be brought forward ; but he was bound to say that it was the feeling of the Board of Admiralty that whet the army did the navy could and ought to do ; and as the re t urns o f corpora l pun i shment in the army had been granted, he did not see how they could refuse similar returns for the navy, and he did not understand why the naval officers should not be prepared to submit to the same ordeal. He had no doubt, if these returns were produced, that they would have a most wholesome and salutary effect. He believed that they would have an influence on hasty and impetuous men, and make them have a greater command over their feelings. He had been directed, therefore, to assent to the motion, and to state that returns would be granted simi lar to those granted for the army, and would be laid upon the table of the House by the Admiralty. He had no fear of the consequences, though it was a great change ; but he did not think they would have an injurious effect, for the good officer would not be made timid, but the hasty man more circum spect. He had a l etter from the admiral of the fleet off Ire land, who had thirteen or fourteen ships under his command, and 430 supernumeraries, and though they frequently had oc casion to go from one place to another in the transit of the provisions for the different depots, not a single offence had been committed worthy of capital punishment during the last quar- j ter.—( Hear, hear.) In the returns made out for the previous quarter, ending September, there had been only one offence.— ( Hear, hear.) He therefore had no objection to grant the motion, under the restrictions as far as he had intimated. Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, that when the Hon. Mem ber for Montrose brought forward a similar motion on afo fo r- r for mer occasion, he had promised to support him if he moved a general return. He objected to the return of the punish ments unanimously acquitted; every one of the officers on cha _ _ e ; by martial agreed that his conduct had been irreproachable bl present on board the Amazon, as Captain Stopford th ha o d eo b u e r e t n . 1 reason of that promise he was bound to nonced He did not motion, which he very" much regretted. in giving a return of the punishments the officers year, as Ist of January in the present . _ (Hear, hear.) From had no intimation of such a proceeding. perfectly object to having his was not an officer in the navy wouldwh h e eHouse. by any means agree with the Secretary of the from m mira t l h ty e hislists of knowledgepunishmentof t h the u s b e r in v i i t c t e e , d h t e o was t 'Mr. WARD—I should be sorryid not be sorry. As to seeing Sir CHARLES NA PIER would he was aware that part of the officers, . any severity on the instances, a too great leniency, there existed in many, many it done. certain dueand in severity.in aiiycreptsay}u saying n so, fro m a } t a h o w u a g n h t oi it placing him in a very bad po-ition with might have the effect he ould desire to remain in a good one. persons with whom . e e h w ad existed in representing captains in But a very bad practice to see Secretary made use of another ex pression,the navy as tyrants. h i ; he would advert. He said, that before to which b the station. to the senior officer of Fa—No. no. An HON. M Em2 'R Good God the Secretary for the Admiralty CHARLES NAPIE ~ ships li e rioth ad a no and disorder hesitation a i d n How could could such a thing be possible. Admiralty said so. because punishments should inflicted,. that they should be submitted the vessel was not able to reach the senior officer of com mander of through a stress of weather, or a hundred other the station, ? The British officers were most willing to do away obstacles Should they allow a man to go unpunished the with corporal punishment, but such constant interference would retard their exertions, as it would teach the men that their officers did not constitute a final jurisdiction. Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his thanks to the Government for conceding the motion. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that on two several occa sions the principle of corporal punishment had been introduced with the most beneficial results into their civil government, and it could not,,be denied, then, that it was necessary to pre serve it in some degree in the military and naval. Mr. FOX MA ULE said that the Hon. Member had over looked the circumstances under which the returns respecting corporal punishment had been conceded by the Government at the close of last session. When they reflected that the sub ject was brought under the consideration of the House at a time when the deepest sympathy of the people, from one end of the kingdom to the other, was awakened, he thought that they would admit that the realms should be cheerfully granted.—( Hear, hear.) From his knowledge of the army, such returns could do no harm, and might effect a great good ; and he would be quite prepared to lay before the House a detailed statement of even the military imprison ments. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he considered that it was quite right that the House should be put into pcesession of all information which would tend to show the progress made towards the abolition of corporal punishment. Hut he considered that it would be by no means advisable to state the names of the officers or the parties by whore, and on whom, punishment had been inflicted. And, in the event of a contrary course being pursued, the discipline of the naval service would be materially injured.— (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons ought not to have the power which the Board of Admiralty had at present. ( Hear, hear.) He very much agreed with his Hon. Friend that the Members of the Government ought not to object to any re turn of the kind, and they would be wrong in being a party to any mode in which the discussion could be interfered with. He must say, nothwithstanding, that the modification pro posed by the Hon. gentleman was a very dangerous one.— ( Hear, hear.) He would rather give the return retrospec tively than prospectively, as it implied a want of confidence in the officers. The Hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Ad miralty said that he should not give the return for the two past years, but that be was willing to give it for future years, because the officers of the navy would then have notice of the measure, by which their names would be presented to the House of Commons. If they sanctioned such a measure they would imply a reflection, first, upon the naval service, and nest upon the Board of Admiralty, which had the direction of that naval service. He expressed his perfect conviction that, speaking generally, it was the desire of the officers of the navy to abolish this punishment. He dared say that there were some strong-headed men who would still inflict that punish ment, but it would not be fair to judge of the general body of the naval officers by that. The Noble Lord, he be lieved, said that it was the desire of the naval officers to abolish this punishment, and he was sure also that it must be the wish of the Board of Admiralty. He (Sir R. Peel) said that the Board of Admiralty had the means effectually to check any act of impropriety on the part of the naval officers, and let them do so, finding that their powers were abused. An officer could not maintain discipline without resorting to these severe punishments—that was to say, not carried to excess— for it was necessary to maintain discipline ; and that ought not to become a marked case against the officer ; but let the Board of Admiralty mark their disapprobation of any exces sive severity— let them mark the disapprobation of the Crown. They would tell the naval officers, if they wished to injure the service, to look to the House of Commons for favour or disap probation, instead of the Crown, with regard to what was right or wrong. Therefore he was for the retrospective return. He did not believe that power had been abused, and therefore the returns ought to be given. He did net believe that the retrospective return would discredit the naval service or the Board of Admiralty. The distinction was dangerous—most dangerous, to say to the naval officer that the returns should be given for the future, and not for the past ; in that they must be aware that for the future their name should be printed in the House of Commons return, and that the House of Commons had the power to exert an authority over them. The distinction between the retrospective and prospective returns would, as he thought, in directly imply that the House of Commons was to have some direct control. He would infinitely rather that they should know all with respect to the last two years, and for the two future years, than establish this precedent. The Members of the Government would suffer no inconvenience Irons producing the return ; but, as he said before, he was willing to presume that they were the best judges as to whether they would grant the return as called . for by the Right Hon. Gentleman for the two past years. It should be done in justice to the service and the Board of Admiralty, and remove suspicion as to the returns showing something that should not be known. Mr. Cooper said that the returns in the army were essentially different from those it was proposed to produce with the navy, as they did not contain the names of the officers, ror the names of the separate offences. He thought it would be advisable that these returns should not point out individuals. Mr. G 0 UL BURN said, that it appeared to him, that amongst the members of the Board of Admiralty, such difference of opinion existed as to the returns proposed to be givers by them, and that proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose, that it was difficult to say what return ought to be given. He did not think that the return ought to be given with such particularity as the Hon. Member proposed. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had understood from his Noble Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty that there was no objection to give a return of the punishment in each ship, in the same manner as returns had been given of each regiment in the army. He conceived that he had that intimation from his Noble Friend who was responsible for the carrying out of that department, and who had no doubt seriously considered the question, that there was no objectio n t o th e gran ti ng of the return mentioned ' by the notice, but he did not imply of course that he was ready to grant the returns exactly in the shape moved for by the Hon. Member for Montrose, but that he was ready to con cede as far as he was concerned to the production of the returns of the offences an d p un i s h men t s o f eac h s hip. His Right Hon. Friend who was the Secretary at War was not only responsible for that department, he was not only aware of the official business which he conducted in that department, but he had served many years in a regiment of the line, and he knew the feeling of the officers and soldiers on this subject. He had great confidence in his Hon. Friend ; and in the course of last year, after several discussions, in which the Non. Member for Button, and many others, urged the total and immediate abolition of corporal punishments, which was re sisted by the Government, his Right Hon. Friend agreed to a return, giving the punishment of each regiment, on the motion of the Hon. Member for Winchester. He thought, for his part, that there was more mischief, and more feelings of jealousy and odium revealed by the discussion on these returns and the refusal of them, than by their production.—( Hear. ) He had seen, en many occasion, that the mystery of con cealment with respect to certain facts had induced the public in general to think that there was something wrong in the de partment with regard to the punishment of misconduct in the naval service, and when all the circumstances were known, the department and the officers of the army and navy were entirely exculpated, and nothing disagreeable was discovered. There ore, in general, he was not a friend to conceal ment, and he did not think that concealment was in itself any advantage to the service, while it would have a serious effect on the Admiralty. The public would say that it was very true they had the returns with regard to the punishment in each regiment ; it was very true that they had introduced the returns of punishment in each ship, and of the different members constituting the court—why was any attempt made at concealment? The public would say that there was something to in duce the Government to conceal the returnyand, therefore, his Right Hon. Friend had consented that these returns should be given. He himself saw no objection to their production. He (Lord John Russell) had also great satisfaction in adding his testimony to that of the Hon. Member opposite, as t o the true character of the officers of the navy. They had been charged with undue severity. Such was the general impression when an officer of the navy was recently brought before a court-martial. It was then the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, as well as the public, that undue severity had been exercised. When the inquiry was made, however, this impression was over thrown and destroyed. —( Hear, hear.) This was one instance why the returns of 1846 should not be given in the way required by the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He trusted the Hon. Member would withdraw his motion, asking the names of the various corninanders,'with the amount of corporal punishment inflicted by each, and he (Lord John Russell) would have no objection, as he Was sure the House would not, to returns for the navy, similar to those for the army given last year He suggested this as he did not think it would be just to give the names of the commanders, as the returns would not fairly represent the exact proceedings of each. Some of the commanders who had not employe; corporal punishment were no doubt, in several instances, indebted to previous commanders for the improved discipline which pre vailed, while others who were not so fortunate were obliged to employ corporal punishment. These were the reasons why he suggested another course to the Hon. Member for Mon trose, as he was desirous, if corporal punishment was at all necessary, that it should he employed in a manner that would not prove derogatory to the character of the officers in the ser vice.—( Hear, hear.) Colonel WOOD said it seemed that the returns about the army were granted last year when a great excitement prevailed in the country, but he did not think much good had come from thern. He admitted that o ffi cers s h ou ld h e amena b le to public opinion ; still their first duty was to maintain discipline in the army. This must be done at all hazards ; but if these returns were made and p u bli s h e d , i t wou l d create an invidious distinction between the officers of different regiments and ships, and do much to impair the efficiency of the military and naval service. Mr. HUME, after what had fallen from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, consented to withdraw his motion, and would ask for the returns in the mode suggested by him. Captain HARRIS defended the character of the officers of the army from the charges brought against them. Mr. FERRAND considered the question should have been settled af, once. RAILWAY LEGISLATION. Mr. STRUTT postponed till Thursday his explana tion as to the intentions of - Government with respect to railway business in the present sessien. POLICE 'FORCE IN IRELAND. Lord CLEMENTS postponed his motion for certain returns relative to the police force in Ireland. DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL. On the report of the Committee on this Bill being brought up Mr. MORE O'FERRALL gave notice that the Hon. Gen tleman the Member for the University of Dublin would, on the third reading, bring up a clause giving to the public the same power to recover the rates as were possessed by the titheowners. The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday' g The Brewing from Sugar Bill and th e Distilling from Bill were severally reported, and ord ere d to be read a third r time on Thursday. Leave was given to Mr. PUSEY to bring in a Bill for the improvement of agricultural tenant right. The House then Adjourned at Half -past Twelve o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —TEAS AT WHOLESALE PRICES, No. 2, BUCKLERSBURY, CHEA PSIDE.—FamiIies whose consumption is large, and study economy, will derive considerable advantage at this establishment. One uni form price is affixed, by which the purchaser of a single pound can obtain it on the same terms as the trade. Black Tea ...2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d, 3s. Bd., 45., 4..5. 4d., ss. Green......... 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 55., 65., 7s. Coffee ......... 9d., lOd., ls., Is. 2d., ls. 4d., is. 6d., ls. Sd. One pound sent free to any part of town. Orders from the country forwarded the same day; and when the quantity is for 61b. weight (tea only), the carriage is paid to any pin of EngIand.—MANSELL and Co. wholesale tea dealers, 2, Bucklersbury, Cheapside . Mr. Dundas Thompson has ascertained, by experi ments on a large scale, that in a sack of flour there is a difference in favour of bread made without yeast to the amount of 30 pounds 13 ounces; or, in round numbers, a sack of flour w ou ld p ro d uce 10 7 l oaves of unfermente d b rea d, end only 100 loaves of ferme n t e d b rea d o f th e sa me weight. Hence, it appears, that in the sack of flour by the common process of baking, 7 loaves, or 6t/ per cent. of the flour, are driven into the air end lost. CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.—The publid suppers at this institution, which take place annually on eight Sunday even ings, terminating with Fraeter-day, will commence next Sunday. FLANDERS MAIL. BRUSSELS, FEB. 4.—The Chamber of Representativo voted to-day a project of law relative to the export duties at horses, &c. In the discussion of this project M. Leban having manifested an apprehension that the Government might make use of a prohibitory vote of the Legislature on this insignificant object, as a precedent to obtain in the sequel a law prohibiting the exportation of flax, the Minister of Foreign Affairs positively declared that the Government will not propose any law containing measures prohibiting or restricting the exportation of flax. The Govern,nent, said the Minster, believes that the cultivation of flax might re ceive a mortal blow by prohibiting the exportation ; since at present the cultivation of flax is so considerable that it has been necessary to have recourse to importation. The Chamber will discuss to-morrow the'project of law re lative to t: , e cultivation of waste lands. _ . A deputation of the principal persons of the town of Alost waited to-day on the Minister of Public Works, to urge him to hasten as much as possible the preparatory works for the construction of the railway from Ghent to Brussels by way of Most. The first ball given yesterday evening at Court was very brilliant ; the number of persons invited was very great. The King ai.d Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Brabant, who wore the tn.if of a lieutenant of the regiment crEllre, •;n,: the C. out i,f Flanders in the uniform of les Guides, with inanysuperior officers, ;:rrived a' half-past eight o'clock. The young Princes were the object of general attention. Their Majesties conversed with a great number of persons, and the ball did not break up till two o'clock in the morning. The King and Queen eid not leave Paris till eieven o'clock on Tuesday morning, and arrived at Valenciennes at half past seven in the evening. BRUSSELS, FEB. s.—The Chamber of RepresentativeS commenced to-day the general debate on the project of law relative to the clearing of the waste lands. At the com mencement, of the sitting the Minister of War presented a pro ject of law for granting a pension of 12,000 f. to Major Borgne, as a civic reward ; it was referred to the central section on the budget of War Department, with a request to make speedy report. Messrs. de Haerene and Rodenbach called the attention of the Government to the deplorable condition of the indigent class in East Flanders, where in some com munes, out of 15 deaths 13 are poor people, and where the deaths are double or triple the number of births. The Mi nister of the Interior replied, that the Government directs its moat serious attention to the question of pauperism in Flanders, and that it has employed extensively and prW dently the resource which the Legislature has placed at itS disposal, that it has performed its duty, and will continue to perform it with the most anxious solicitude. In answer to a question from Rodenbach, the Minister of the Interior an nounced that the benefits of the projects of law would be extended to all the uncultivated lands in Belgium, and that he has applied to Mr. Kainner, the engineer, for a report on the cultivation of the Vee Gerveyde, near Lichterwald, West Flanders. The Chamber, proceeding to the general debate, received several amendments, which the Minister of the Interior pro posed to the original project. It then heard several Members in favour, and others against the proposed law. Mr. Shoffschmeett declared that the project of law was unconstitutional, being in direct violation of the practices of the communes, by the right of expropriation which it grants to the Government. The debate adjourned till to-morrow. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. , ". BRISTOL, FEBRUARY 9. STOCK Excuspiux.—The sales are—Bristol and Exeter, 76—Grox . Western, 125% —Ditto, Halves, 73—Ditto, Quarters, 7 p.—Mancher ter and Leeds, Extension, 1 p.—Midland, 124—Ditto, New, 5% - " . Taff Vale, 134—Ditto, 5 per Cent., 1 per cent. p. LIVERPOOL, FiSRUART-9. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are —Ambergate, Nottingha M . Boston, and Eastern Junction, 3s. 9d. p.—Birmingham and al" ford, 8% p.—Chester and Birkenhead, 201. Shares, )4 ells. ex Ed nburgh and Glasgow, Quarters, 19 k —Huddersfield Canal and Railway, 3 p.—Lancaster and Preston. p. ex Int.—Leeds an d Dewsbury, 7% p.—Ditto, New, Extensions (pink), 1% p.—Leeds an d Thirsk, 234 dis.—Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 2% p.—Lo n ' don and North-Western, 190—Ditto, New, Quarters, 12 p.—M 5 ' chester and Leeds (late Huddersfield and Sheffield), 4% p.-1) 1, L e .. Fif hs, 5% p.—Manchester She ff ield, and Lincolnshire (late Grea t Grimsbyland Sheffield), 4 1 4 dis.—Ditto, Quarters, 14 dis.—Ditto (la m Sheffield and Lincolnshire), 1 dis.—North British, Quarters, 2 Ditto, Thirds (scrip), 51s. 3d. p.—North Staffordshire, 3 p.—Presto; and Wyre, Halves (B), % p.—Shrewsbury and Birmingham. 7s. 9d. Shares (A), % p.--Ditto, 9/. 128. 3d. Shares (B), % p.—Scows Eastern and Dover, New, No. 4, Bs. 9d. p.—West Riding Union, 3ar 9d. p.—York and Newcastle, Preferenee, 5 p.—Cork and Waterier , '" 1 dis.—Dublin and Wexford, 1 dis. —Dutch Rhenish, 2% dia. MANCHESTER, FEBRUARY 9. ;Noce Exenstrae. --The sales are—Ambergate, Nottingham' a n !, Boston, 3-16 p.— Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, % p. —Birmingham and Oxford Junction, 8% p.— Blackburn. Clithera e, &c , di .-- Blackburn, Darwen, a:.d Bolton, p.—Easteru Coln, ties, York Extension, 34 p. East Lancashire. 2 p.—Ditto. Nef (scrip), l ii p. Edinburgh and Glusgov, , Quarters, 19—Fleetvreo u. Preston, and West Riding, % p.—Huddersrield and Manchest er Railway and Canal, 31 Ditto, 2 15-16 p.—Lancaster and Preston. rer-quarters, 17 p —Leeds and rhirsk, 234 dis. —Liverpool, Croat''' . and Southport (West Lancashire), 2% p.— Liverpool, Manchester. and Newcastle Junction. 5-16 di.. London and North (Manchester and Birmingham), 72 Manchester and Leeds Eat el i . sion, 1 1 4 p. 'Stanchest, r. Sheffield, an Lincolnshire, Eighths' , dis.— Manchester and South nipton, % dis.—North Staffordshire. 3 7? p. —Preston and Wyre, 35—Ditto, H a l ves (A), 4 p .—Ditto (U , . % p.— Shrewsbury and ilirmingliam (A), % p.— Shropshire 1 - 411° ...._ 14 dis.—South.Eastern and Dove r , N o . 4 , % p .—S ou th Yorkslin , Doncaster, and Goole, par—W e st Ridi ng U nion , 1% p. LEEDS, FEBRUARY 9. Western STocK ExcHANcE.-The sale:. are- Ambergate, Nottingham , 4114 Boston. Is. ti. p. - Eastern Counties, York Extension, 12$. 6d• EMI. Lancashire, 25„ n. p.--Ditto, New, 21. 3s. p.- Ditto, New ~,_ 258. p.-Great Northern (late London and York), 4s. 6d. IL 1 ) - and Dewsbury, 7 p.-Lends and Tiiirsk, 21. 16s. 3d. dis.-1,4 New, 20s. dis. Ditto, Preferenc e , 245. p.-Leeds, Wakefield, a; Midland, 9s. dis.-Leicester and Bedford, 3s. die. London, Oxford. and Cheltenham, 6s. dis -Mahon and In illield Junction, 21 s . P ;„ 1 :, --Manchester and Leeds, Extensions, 238. p.- Manchester, Bul' - .„ Matlock, and Midland, I2s. 6d. p.-Manchester and Southampi. o :: 9s. dis.-North British, Thirds, 515.-Ditto, Extension (scrip), ! 0 ; p.-North Staffordshire, 31. is. 34. p.-Northern Counties Unlanna c. dis.-North-Western, as. 6d. p.-Sheffield. Goole, Si. p.-- South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and 6°°le ' V itidlnc Union, 3%. SHEFFIELD, FEBBITAS T 7. STOCK ExcaknoE.-The sales are - Manchester a Man dis.-Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, Shef fichester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 94-Ditto, Grimsby and and Lincoln Union. eld, 201 . :shares, 265. dis.-Ditto, Sheffield Leeds, Wake fi eld, and Midland, dis. and Lincoln, nc 14s.oin, 1 dis.- 1 ) NEWCASTLE-UPols -T Y.NE, FEBRUAZY 9. STOCK Excuexca.-The sales are-Cal e donian, New, dl9.- North British, Thirds, 2% p.-North-Western, 9s. 6d. p.--North Staffordshire, 3% p.-York and Newcastle, Extensions, 6 p.-York and North Midland, Preference, 9% p. HULL, FEBRUAILY 9. SToOK EXCUANGE.--The sales are-North British, ExtensionS (scrip), 13s. 9d. p. -Preston and Wyre, Halves (B), 14s. p.-Black burn, Darwen, and Bolton, % dis. ex int.-Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding, p.-Newcastle and Berwick, 32% - North-Western , 10s. F.-Northern Counties Union, 265.-West Riding Union, 3% --- Leicater and Bedford, )4 dis. EDINBURGH, FEBRUARY 8. SmcS EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Aberdeen, 231. 55.--Airdri e and Bathgate, 41. Is.-Arbroath and Forfar, 281.-Ditto, Half Share. , 15/. 55.-Ayr and Galloway, 2/. Os. 6d.-Caledonian, 271.-Ditt o . New, 21. 55. 2 .-Caledonian and Dumbarton, 21. 10s.-Clydesde le Junction, 391. 58.-Deeside, 31. ss.- Direct Northern, 21. 13s. 62. -Dunblane, Define, and Callender, 1/. 129. 6d.-Dundee and A='' broath, 421.-Ditto, New, No. 1, 321.-Ditto, No. 2, 271.-Dunde e and Perth, 281. 10s.-Ditte, New. 141. 10 a .- Eastern Counties, N I 17s. 6d.-Ditto, York Extension, 51.-East of Fife, 21. 145.--. Edin burgh and Bathgate, 51. 45.-Edinburgh and Glasgow, 771.-Din Half Shares, 201. 10s. - Ditto, Quarter s , 191.-Edinburgh, Leith, en , Grantor, 19/. 10s.-Ditte, Preference, 211.--Edinbargh and gol l i ern, 16/. 7s. 6d.-Ditto, New, 31. 123.-Dltt o , Newport, 51 ' W.-Ditto, ditto, New, 21 125.-Edinbur g h and Perth 18s. 6d.- Ditto (New), 21. 9s. W.-Glasgow and Ayrshire. 65 tto. Ditto, New Stock, 341.-Ditto, Quarter Shares, 161. IN..' cA -Di .„ A nd Halves, 71. 155.-Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, 61.-Glasgow Dundee Junction, 11. 165.-Glasgow and Garnkirk, 401.-GlesO nitt , General Terminus, 121. 10s.-Glasgow and Greenock, d New, 91.-Ditto, Preference, 81. 55.-Glasgow, Kilmarnockt, Ardrossan, 61. 17s. 6d.- Great North of England, 2371.-Great r+ o l;7. of Scotland, 21. 55.-London and York, 31. 12s. 6c1.-Manch u and Leeds, 1051.-Midland and Eastern Counties, 155.-NeWno. and Berwick, 32/. 155.-North British, 341. 155.-Ditto, Halve , 17s. 6d.-T ) itto, Thirds, 31. Ile . W.-Ditto, Quarters, 4/ • 25. 6d. d. Ditto, New Quarters (scrip), 1/. 89.-Ditto, Fifths, 74 20 . "Id. Scottish Central, 21/. 17s. 6d.-Scottish Grand Junction, 11.31. ls• -Scottish Midland,l2ll. 7s. 6d..-Stirling and Dunfermline, Stirling and Midland, 2/. 10e.-Strathem Junction, 31. 3e• ,: to Wishaw and Coltness, 501.-York and Newcastle, 361. 105.-- - m" An New, 111. 159.-Ditto, Preference, 6/. 155.-Direct Bombay 6 d. Madras, 45.-East 9s. 32.-Great North of India, 3 g* -Great Southern of Madras, 3s. 6d.-Madras, Nellore, an d 441 - cot, 2s. 9d. GLASGOW, FEBRUARY 8. STecE EXcHARGE. —The sales are—Ayr and Galloway, 399.—,C a1 " donian and Dumbartonshire, 535. Gd.—Di rec t B om b a y and Ma d ? 3s. 9d.—Dundee and A r b roa th, 421. 4 s . —Ditt o , N ew , No. 2, • Ditto, New, No. 3, 41. 16s. Bd.—Dundee and Perth, 28% New, 14% —East of Fife, 51s.—East Indian, 9s. 3d.— East Lab .4:a, i Central, 43s.—Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 34% —Dtito, 1 • 141 , w , No. 2,9/. ls.—Ditto, Quarters (5 per cent. guar.), 16/. 4s. Glagr". Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 61. 160. Great North of Scotland , ' l ' Great Southern of Madras, 3s. 9d. —Manchester and SORMIERPI: 335. Midland, Halves, 6/. North British, New Quarters C - cr 4 P 275. 6d. —Scettigh Mifiland Junction, 21M - Stirling and Duutero r line, 70.—York and Newcastle, Preferenc e , 91. —Ditto, Blair's Gout and Rheumatic Pills effectually cure every description of Gout, Rheumatic Gout, Rheumatisnli Lumbago, Tic Doloreux, Pains in the Head or Face, SIC They are recommended to the afflicted with a confidence , arising from experience, as one of the valuable results Of the improved state of Medical Science, and the only efaci eli c t remedy ever disco vere d f or t h ese d isorders. Th e con tinued authenticated proofs of decided apor, , bation sent, unsolicited to the propri e t or , f rom a ll parts of the kingdom and from A, classes of so c i e ty, with a rapidly increasing sale, and dem o ' for them at home and abroad unparalleled, fully warrants the assurance that no pe rson su bj ec t to suc h com pl a ints will, aft er a trial, ever be without them. Sold by al, medicine venders. Price 2s. 9d. per box. Ob , erve the mune of ThomasProu t, 229, Strand," on the government stamp. EXTRAORDINARY SUPPLY OF GUANO FROM BATS.--: Mr. Thomas Dickon, an eminent farmer in Lincolnshire, had been induced to go to Jamaica as manager of some exten sive e estates in. that part of the world, with the intention introducing• the best systems of farming where they bad hitherto been unknown. Accounts have recently been IV ceived from Mr. Dickon, by Mr. Joshua Wigfull, of Conisbro', stating that there is already every proba bility of a considerable increase of sugar being pro cured on the elates, and that by applying a new guano as tillage. I t is the dung of large bats, which frequent the rocks in that tropical climate. The bats are said to amount to myriads in number; and Mr. Dickon having observed many of these singular animals en tering the crevices of one of the numerous mountain rocks, caused an opening to he made and the place explored. The cave was found to be 250 feet long, 20 feet broad, and from 20 to 30 feet high. The interior contained thousands of these Locturnal animals, which appeared to have been their dwel ling for ages. At the bottom of the cave, bats' dung, at least four feet in thickness, and amounting to about 600 tons in weight, was discovered, and found to be equal to the beat Ichaboe guano.—Lincoln Times. FATE OF P OPE ' S S KULL .—M r . Howit t , ; .11 his " Homes and Haunts of the British Poets," says that the skull of Pope n ow ornamen t s th e pr i va t e collection of a 13 13 .re_: nologist. Fifty- pounds were paid to manage the transa ctor ' with the sexton of the chur c h in w hi c h the deceased po et was buried. BIRTHS. On the Bth inst., at Ilarleyford, near Marlow, the Vise°Untag Drumlanrig, of a son. • the wife ° f On the 15th of December, 1846, at Cochin, East India, Alexander C. Brice, Esq., of a son. On the sth inst., at Pakenham, Mrs. Stedman, of a daughter. On the 6th inst., at Vassal-road, Brixton, the wife of g em " R. Marriott, of a daughter. On the Bth inst., at Islington, Mrs. J. B. Price, of a dangl, MAR. of On the 6th inst., at Marylebone ßlE Chu D rch, W. 11. Hooper, 313)i.r. Cheltenham, to Emma, daughter of M. T a yl or , E sq ., of LIPP" Bs street, Portman-square. DIED. sNin of On Monday, the Bth inst., at Bri g ht on , G eorge R o bin', --=" a protracted illness. On the 7th of January last, at Gibr a lt ar , Al exan d e r Shea. ~Viitco. On the 29th ult., Louisa, the wif e o f J o h n J . B ow l e s, Esq., Mum hill, Berks. titer On the 2d inst., at Bright on , M ary A nn H e l en, the daug-- Mark Pribgle, Esq., of uakenden, Sussex, aged 13. Aged 77 ' On the 6th inst., in Dorset-square, RobertFellowes, - Th - - On the 6t14 met, at Deptford, M r . Th omas W a llis, of the Lea bridge Tavern, aged 74. On the 6th inst., Joseph Bacon, of Great Russell-street, 101- thampton, aged 84. On the 7th inst., at Bristol, Mr. Lionel Drew Walter, aged 2 ,' s * On the 7th inst., at Hatfield, Hefts, Mr. J. Simkins, aged ~ 011 the 7th inst., a t Peckham, the infant daughter ef Gull. binmilieW• On the Bth inst., Th omas B o y c e, Esq., of Lonr4 - ---------- ')I 1 : Printed and Published by lIIIRDO YOUNU, of No. 117: strand, Printer, at The Sun t Mee, O. 112, *trend in the Prenine: of the Savoy, in the County of 11,14t110103$ WIAMOY , I . ' brtzary 10, 1847. Dew SUN Pir.l IC% t. RI, follow The 1 Went e d tlrivez 2. 1 of tici 3. earth Stud a 4 .7 °once] /lima Preset With duce i Which ticket Item' aharel Pratt' It 11 the ca pond] - It v presei laves' horse Venn and p Wes doubt The diturc %ecru c the gr wits treat coma int 4 ana l efro In late the cap me Doi tee rig Ara