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

such an inquiry. It was obvious to every one that, for every ton of shipping which they drove from their shores they deprived the home merchant of the opportunity the} obstructed of an equal quantity of goods . The more . obstructed the merchant from pu rsuin g his evocators either by fixing him to any particular place, orimposmogf restrictions upon him, they circumscribe his means profit. As an instance, he would g American ship brought bides to Aie the ivarsd f a ct that an eatlles'wherand not the French consignee sent them to French merchant, , e, meeting with a ready sale , the in con sidering them sufficiently naturalised by the transaction, sent them to Liverpool. They were their seized by the Custom-house officers, and were relieved on petition, and on condition that they should be 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 8,526,090 tons of British shipping entered inwards and outwards, and the raising the freights to ten shillings a ton imposed a tsx of 4,273,045/. upon the manufacturers of Britain. lie did not mean to say that the profits would be raised to that extent ; but, if 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 upsvards of four mil lions sterling. When the propositions of Mr. Huskiason 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. He expected that Adam Smith would be qu ded by the other side against him, but on this question ho had departed from his usual good course by failing to give the arguments on which he based his opinion. lie was quite willing to give Hon. 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 seetence 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 iimplify his arguments ; first of all he ad mitted that the defensive navy was of the first impor tance to the country; but tin - •y, on that shle, also ad rdtted that the mercantile navy was the nucleus from which the defensive navy n ae supplied, inasmuch as it fur nished the elements for its maintenance. He would ad mit that at once; but he d, pied that they were encourag ing the commercial navyt by throning pretection around them, or restricting them in their cen - onercial intere ,urse with other nations. These wi::re the drags which cramped ail their efforts. Ilestrictien and protection rendered them infi.rier to the navies of other countries. When an English merchant wrote to an American and ordered goods from him, he gave particular itestruetions. to ship them, if possible, by an American ship. Ia feet they had only a home, trade. because no other nation although obliged to use foreign vessels, would ship their merchandise on boar! of British vessels. The American navy was the second navy in the world, for their tonnene amounted to two and a half millions. It was said thet America had a great advantage over Etoelatal in ite timber. For his pert he was not a t al clear about it. As far as regarded oik end terih, they were in as good a condition as the American; were. Then, with respect to wages, the wages of shipwiights in Sunderland, roni the other out ports, averee eel frem 3s. 61 to 43. Well, what are watees in the United States ? Sevi n shillings day. One shilling higher than the wage; tif this country. Then they came to iron; it could not be the :per than this country. Carriage was certainly cheaper in England. What then. was the meenieg of this cry—that they could not protect themselves ? They weiuld find that the cost of a vosel built in London was 5/ or 6/. over :hat of one built id Siiinterland or Vristo% There was another thing asserted ; as entitling the British shipowner:, tea some protection, namely, that they could not navigate their ships . as cheaply from this country as from fore'gn ones. It vase stated that the Swedes and Danes had less wages, anet„that they lived on biscuits and oil, and that it would beta great convenience te be enabled to take them. If e/e i at was the ease. how was it that the Ameri cans manneset their navy principally with British sea. mee ? he-riot - att. it that they paid them higher wages ? If this Coesemittee were granted, he would undertake to show that alte British ehipownera needed in protection In the S easlßl4, at the el se of the war, when the Eng lish ports iagre not very acceptable, and when they were still under .e Navigetioe Laws ot . Charles 11., in that year there were 8,975 British ships in port, repreeeoting a tonnage A 1,248,000 tone, and 5,236 foreign ship=, re• presentin“.g9,2B7 tons. In the year 1824 there were ships representing 1,797,320 tons, and fore i gn ships re presentinet,;l!9,s4l ton;. In 1845. alien no less the twenty- treaties had been carried into effect, there were ship; representing 4,310.639 tons in port, and fo reign ships representing 1,735,000 tons, showing a con siderably greater proportion of British and foreign ships. lie had mge a calculation of the protected and unpro tented tontlage 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 Great Britain. In 1826, the protected tonnage was 776,879 ; in 1844, it was 3,012,133 ; showing an increase of 1,233,224 tons, or 69 per cent. In 1826, the unprotected tonnage was 1,905,176 ; in 1824 it was 4,447,1.32. 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. Hon. 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. B:tronet opposite, it was extraordinary to see how these relaxations had worked for the better. In proof of this, he 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 1845, the year after the reduction of the duty, there were employed in the tim • ber trade 2,608 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 anti British trade in the Pine months ending the 10th Oct., 1844. and in the cor responding ninemonths endingl Oth Oct., 1846. Now, they all knew that there were great relaxations between these periods. They found, then, that in the nine months ending en 1844, there were employed 4,352,821; 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 or restriction, then were 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 submitted to the House a motion of much interest, and in doing so he had called the attention of th e House to the ori g in and history of those laws, into the operation of which, he proposed that an inquiry should take place. The lion. 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 Hon. Member to any coarse of conduct proposed b y the Hon. Member, for the settlement of the question. If the Government gave their consent to the appointment of the Committee, they would be acting in strict accordance with the principles which allowed the Comraittee to be appointed in the year 1845, the object of whose inquiry was the same as that sought by the present motion. The report of that committee was, that they were unabl e t o conc l u d e t h e i r i nqu i r y, and they recommended there -appointment of the committee, with a view of continuing the inquiry which they had commenced.. It must have occurred_ to the mi n d, o f the great comme tTl re c i V, Hon. Members that in consequence of changes which had taken place in this country within th ese f for an inqui r y into ew years, that a necessity would arise thenavigation laws, and that the same the reasons existin g f or continuance of the navigation modifications laws, consider a bl e wou ld b e requ i re d. H e was quite sure t h at the opinion ex pressed Ly the Hon. Member, that the Co mmi ttee should h e i mpartial, would be assented to by every Hon. MemberSe Pe the ap pointment present . On the part of o f the Government, be w i s h e d to of an impartial Committee, selected of such position an d talent would entitle the rep ort of Ttrierl7m w h ose mi Co mmittee to the a tt en tion of the House. He w ou ld not no , i merits of the case , he would reserve that x i int ' kietlrw into the the report of ,Wleie with the Committee had bee n r eceived , and the House the Committee would recommen.l le g i s l at i ve interference those laws. The Committee which his H on. Friend had mov ' e th d for should be acceded to by the Government. Sir. LIDDELL regretted that he could not agree with the of his Hon. Friend, and he holed the House wo uld hear wi ti th with him for a short time, while he stated the gr oun d s o f his oppoeitioe to the • motion to he li-—(He.ir, hear.) He looked with suspicion to the quarter fro use m whence the m o . tion originated , notwithstanding the disclaimer of Mover that he did not intend ! to abalieli the navigation laws. was nut so much to show the The whale object of his speed , subject' but rather to point ziece'stY of a" inquiry into the -jowners of this country. out the hardships endured by the 5 Adam Smith had said that the nay essential bulwarks to the extended .comin.i 'l4Pfati°nerlac;'ofwtehrec country, The object of the Committee, appointed t4s i n h w i s s p t r o e t s a e l n ly t different from that sought by t he Hen. Memberr a Committee =otiose T w enty years since he had moved fo of inquiry into the subject , but that motion had been refused. A Committee was obtained in the year 1814, which sat during the whole of that session. The inquiry was not completed, *ad in the session of 1845 it was re-aopointed. It might be said that there were some hardships under the operation of the navigation laws, still these laws were known to all the world, 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 for the purpose of national defence, and, secondly, to prevent ..ny other nation from engrossing too much of the navigation oft e world. The coasting 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 concerned, 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 heaat fact con tradicted by Hon. Members, if they were able to do so. The Hon. Gentleman 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 e nployment 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 countries,:in 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 Hull, as compared with British shipping. He would first of all compare with Sweden. 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 tke 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 SO British ships, with a tonnage of 10,812 tons, and 222 Prussian vessels, with a tonnage of 22,688 tons. lie 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 tike 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 so large an amount 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 1826 there had been one hundred and fifty millions, and in 1843, six hundred and seventy three millions. In wood, wine, t3bacco, tea, wool, coffee, dry stuffs, a!kali, and manures of all kinds, who could fail to perceive that there had been the most incredible traffic, which must mice,sarily have given great employment to the skipping interest of thi: country, had it not been for the competition in the earning 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. He purp rely abs'ained from going into further details. It was stated that if the Committee sat upon these Laws, certain evidence might be given which would show that the shipping i terest were fettered with restrictions which would Lot be known without that illy< stigation. But if that went 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 corn- inerce of the c mntry, and make statements of the most un founded nature with reference to this subj-tet—assuming that they i:nposed 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 lion. Gentleman. tic only pat an h)pothetical case. Mr. LIDDELL said that that was the reason why he ibjected to the statemen's of the Hon. Member.—( Hear, hear.) Passing ~ver that, however, he would say, if the Government would filly take the qie.ation wit, and appoint a cemniiitee, he wou:tl have no objection to their doing so, pro vided they gave hire an aisurance that before they removed wotection they woti'd remove restriction.—( Hear, hear.) That, however, was so much better stated by the Siipovvners Society that he would take the liberty of reading their senti ments on the subject. Tice lion. Member here read extracts from 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 fur questions of public pi udenco burdens had been imposed upon them, they did not think they should he placed on the sem, footing with these 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 oet the principles of free trade with re spect to slapping to the extent proposed. Where was this to end? If we made this country elle universal workshep, where were we to reinforce our army or our navy ? Waa it among, the e'uWerl inhabitants of our cities, or the wNtebeil labourers of the factorie€ , ? Non hie juventui o; to pirentibui wquor sarguine Purieo ; Pyrrhurnque, et ineeEtem cecidit AnCoehutn, ilannibaleinque diruin Sed rusticururn maieuia Proles—. lle 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 Hon. Gentleman objected to an inquiry, seeing that it could not fail to afford the House an cpportunity of ascertaining how injurious the ,avigation laws had proved. Undoub'edly the Hon Gentle ,nan, as a protsctionist, was bound to maintain the principle of protection to the last ; but he could not blame the Govern ment for having carried out the principles of free trade, b. , cause they had simply yielded to the wishes of the people. The .h . ippinginterest 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; bat, after a g rea t c h ange h a d taken i place n 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 lion. 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 d..ing so by freeing their labour from injurious restrictions. lie 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 lion. 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 them impose . Ttileatdtuhteiesahoinpowtinmerbser hwaderemoorxeoteheadni ng th ly eir ho s a h v a y re , o o n f foreign fir it was as much as 250/. 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 Governmist wished to remove the taxes upon timber, the protectionists joined the corn protectors, if he might so speak, and threw out improved, they measure ; so that if the shipping interests ha d 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 Navigation Laws remained, his exertions would be crippled; and no doubt it would be incontestably proved, if the Committee were appointed, that those l aws were no t on ly i n jurious to the shipping interests at home, but in the colonies. With respect to reciprocity, he might tell the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Lidd6ll) 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. Humes) 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 navi g ati on l aws 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 loos 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, particularly in reference to the conveyance of grain between Montreal, Ncw York, and this country. The time was come when they could no longer delay such an inquiry as was demanded. If, in that inquiry,could not be proved that the removal of these l't re strictions would tend to the advantage of the country, if it could not be proved that they would promate an increase of their seamen, he should not be the person to urge their abandonment. He was glad that his lion. Friend had brought firward the motion. He would say more, that the Hon. Gentleman was not more anxious to forward the shipping interest of tine country, than he was. If they would slow the importation of timber and materials into the country, i•liout duty, their ports would not be overburdened with c lonial shipping. They would establish England as the work shop of ships ; and he knew no reason why they should not manufacture ships much better and much cheaper than in any other country— f it was the natural manufacture of tke country the Englishmen the Irishmen objected to the sea, the Scotehman and h li e sh ot m o e f n th h e a i d r i a n n olin a a ff t e i c o t r i i o s n by fo t r h i e t i , r :t c h o e n y rs h e a o d f stopped t i the o n . at tention to the speech Sir WALTER of the h. Hon. Gentleman, the Member for and which was ' well S said he had paid the strictest at dich he could not speak too highly, Stoke- upon-Trent of He must say, that it "ervlng of the name he bore. appeared to him, no fair ground has been made to resist inquiry, and that when such an inquiry had it r w nm as e a nt,.and had been demanded been conceded by the by the parties themselves--it on the part of some gentlemen to of gratuitous assump no reason why they shouldl do to B r o esist . it. He could see 1 high-flying patriotism on the part of those h was a sort of to come forward, and upon their t oosen gentlemenenn sibility to say, "this shall not . be—we will n7t perm r. t s. •t -- '" Wh y , what was asked? Nothing but inquiry an d i n i vp i „ - • I it looked as if they had something to conceal, gallon. 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 has the 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 bad 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 no inquiry whatever; that his mind was made up as to their in expediency. H ,lamented 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. Member for Durham knew very well that on bringing coals from Newcastle to London the freight was only 7s. 6d. 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 ho 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 ior: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 1310, 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 holdime 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 11344. 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 depress:on existing in the shipping trade, was to be attributed to the navigation laws, under the Reciprocity Act ; and if the Honourable Member sad 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 merchants. Another instance was in the know :edge of the Hon. Member for South Lancashire. A ship arrived in Liverpool from the United States to tali in a cargo of British manufactures for Hong Kong. Au objection was raised by the collector, and after come discussioh„ was decided that the vessel could not go to Hong Kong, and t cargo worth 20,0001. 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 he brought for ward by the Government, instead of by a single Member of ;he House. Ho 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 :lid think it was not right of the Government to leave a queK tion of this mhgnitude without guidance or responsibility in ;he hands of a private Member of the House. He thought !hat some inquiry was absolutely necessary, for the purpose of protecting the shipowners in tileir present helpless state, and he should therefore support the motion. Mr. L ABOUCHERE 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, :or he thought tlis a very fit question for the House to deter mine. 'Fbe-e laws should be the subject of cautious, deliberate, ind careful consideratiou. to see how far any modification of them should extend. His Hon. Friend showed it was alto- :tether wrong to leave the question to be brought on in the !louse of Cemmona. When he remembered what subject had l been brought on in that House, he hoped he never should see ;he time when any Government of this country should assume such a control in the House of Commons, as to reply to any Meinb-er bringing for ward a motion, that it was not a fit subject fur a Committee of the Muse to consider. lie could appeal to the recollection of that House, whether the gravest and most important questions had not been dealt with under all Governments in this manner ; questions affecting the ;hipping interest, the timber duties, am other matters involv mg the greatest co si;lerations had been brought forward on the motto ; of the independent members, and referred to Com mittees There had bean questions involving colonial interests recently investigated by Select Committees. Undoubtedly it eas impossible, to deny, that inquiries of this sort, might in a certain degree, be thrown in doubt in the minds of persons connected pith the interests to which they referred. tie confessed he saw no objection whatever to the motion, nor ,-mold he agree 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 Members bringing forward motions of this kind, nor did he con sider the Government would be committing themselves to any opinion on the navigation laws, by assenting to the appointment ef the Committee. There was no difficulty whatever in the eourse. The G ivernment 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 e .which was due to their great colonial interests, whose prosperity was so materially affected, should consent to 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 complained 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 sit; if an, there could be no better or fairer means than a Committee fairly selected by the House.—( Ilear, hear.) He must pro'e,t against the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord, that it was the duty of the Government to preclude independent Members iron bringing forward such motions as this. As a member of the Government, be would never shrink from a fair degree of responsibility for the measures submitted by them to the House, i l 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 appeinted and submitted their re port, then it would be for the Government to con shier whether they should take its recommendations i n 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 not permit it to be sent up staira to a Select Committee, especially when the proposer and seconder of the motion had compared the large and important commercial interests of the country to pedlars 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 thst 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 coenntereial marine of the country, with the view as to the best measures to encourage the shipping interests. The object of the Hon. Member for the Potteries, on the other hand, was to weaken the shipping interests of the country—to grind down the ship wrights of London from 6s. a-day to 3s. 64. And in doing so he would lead them to believe that the effect of repealing the cern-laws would be something in effect to the resolution of the Irish soldier, who spent 2s. 6d. out of 61 a-day. They were told that the effect would be to diminish the rate of freights jo e , a ton ; whereas they were only 7s. 6d. at the time.—(Hear, A h ie ea m r b .) er foTrhesthee Potteries rought e had also been told that through the present li,d navigation laws this country had lost the he ( Lord Geo. Bentinck) would ot to t r h a e t i o i inquiry. uoifr T o t t iTi . e a oy mistaken if that event had not arisen answer, that history was , . British t c h o e lon ff ie ° s. n tax on tea by the I al 'lament of this had been informed country.—(l tear, hear.) They Brazils through the operation of the that Portugal had lost the from the impyot.shietionof a likewise . that . navigation laws. Mr. RICARDO—No, no, I did not say so. she had not b een allow ed to to the colonial system, by which w a a e s ee a de posit F ir o m r Lord GEO. BENTINCK — The re was no dofubutiethuartazthde Hon. Member at all events attribute d the loss o, t tradeo which with h e other(L (Lord rd countries George H than en t P i r u l c r k t u ) g c al o u . inquiry. these reason s , h e would take the same course as the Noble Lord the Memb er f u r Liverpool, and resist the Lord SANDON said he did not intend to oppose the ld Th n a o t t motion. mistaken the intention of the N; ble Lord, for he believed The Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said, then he must ha l v ie e had intimated that he would resist the motion altogether. the members on this (the Pretectionists) side of the that that Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt) had endeavouredto House against opposing the motion. There was no doubt . Hon Gentlemon had at one time or another turned his back on ' every boat he had sailed in, but he (Lord George Be a n nd tin h cle a.d ) could trust those friends by whom he was surrounde d, no doubt, that acting on the principles of consi s tency they had hitherto pursued, they would resist the present inquiry. had just sat down, and his friends supported the _ rom Mr. MITCHELL said, it appeared the Noble Lord Committeewlo of 1844, because they had agreed to it, and it proceeded . t themsetlhvees, proposerwhile now ad t s h e ez c : d could be reason. Now, the gestion was one which only cip'e of the navigation laws. This seemed to be the only settled by an inquiry, and the present time was or e when they Pei); usedvs er e t h o e p pee d present to 1 a tl t ie m p r be causein - could do so with perfect safety. A great deal had been said , about freights, but his opinion was that they would not be materially affected by a repeal of the navigation laws. The principal benefit would be to check high freights when there was a great demand for shipping as at present.—( Hear , hear.) While on this subject he must remark, e i c e o n m ey pe o t f e th w e i t e ll . p t t a h i n o s s e . that the re ason w hy our s hi ps cou ld no t success fullyra o H f e h fo a r d e i g r e n p e c a o t m ed n t p r r i es, was of thtihse. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-, FEBRUARY lO 1847. He had seen letters from abroad about charting ships, and ex -1 pressing a desire to have any ships but French or English. I 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 Lend ( George Bentinek) 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 ,iiry into their op era ti on wou ld elicit many important facts.—Gear, 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 5/. 7s. 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 tho 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 service; he found 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 oughr 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, it,iios S ns i uw r pap ß so, O r tw ß th E oe tt ß h 4 r p P trho E epro E es L isthi o s o a nu i l d od , f n t t h oh a te t bi l ei t o a w nn. a sl‘iinheqi Member. i bi n rey t r e i n n t t i To o nl:heteoqugei ope rationve- be amaintenancen of o the peo opportunity i i t g yt a h t Navigation v e L n a a w s • Laws, and therepresent sent whether should existed, nthoet a t :a l y s w ee h r e t a t a h t in er in i would really be for the interest of commerce and manufactures, and also whether or not the maintenance of these laws were necessary fur the purpose of securing the maritime defence of the , eountry. The Govern men t, h e cons id e red, might consent to tins inquiry, without pl e d g i ng th emse l ves as su pporting or assenting to the views of any Hon. Member. The inquiry was proposed by an individual Member of Parliament, and he (Sir B. 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 oisinions, but simply to examine and inquire into all the various bearings of this question. It had been re marked in the course of the de..ate, that the navigation laws had existed fur two hundred years, and that they had their origin in the time of the Protectorate. Ile (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 the 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 intro ince 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 ence to this amount in the American market, or whether they would relax these laws for the purpose of extending their com 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. Ai;ain, when Mr. Huskisson modified these laws in 1821, it was not 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 explmation 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. llus \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 policy would not render other changes in these laws necessary. He 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, wine 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 the 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 of the question. He should, therefore, vote against any inquiry. Mr. HUTT said it had never been the practice of this House 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 remembered that he in a former session was permitted to have a Committee to inquire into one of the most important laws of the country—to have an he H 7 e th d a id nd ra B ot th co o n f s v id i e e r to t r h ia a , t inquiry into the Act . of Settlement itself. Now, he might quote the opinion of ,Ir. Burke, and that had this was a subject on which the interests of the country were to be sacrificed, or that the whole of its property was depen dent on the navigation laws. Ile did not think that the pro given in favour o d f e t p li e i n s d in e q d u o ir n y t . been chapter 38. He did • net think that this House would interfere the • • navigation-laws. He did think to prevent an inquiry into . apnLeintneiocnehsissoitfyskati?ffoak4irofs measure. The Ri g ht Hon. Member his i n quiry were refused, would be to pre tphearttythoef ethffiesetc,oun try pre vent the progress of clilissahteiounld, s a i n: h t t h ly at u i n t d ie r o s u t l a d nd the w r h e a fo t re w b as e wiser to institute the inquiry.—(Divide, divide.) Mr. DISRAELI was anxious, before the House came to a division, that the Hole. the feeling of the gen tlem ff e e n he o h n eve h b d is t s h id at e of the House with regard to this inquiry. there was no feeling was th n a o t th i i n n ti g u i ir n y t r h vy : T f bh e u e e l t i f n w a hr o e n the th r a i t n s t i l d ,e e on this side of the H lol u e se qu t e o sti p o r n ev h e e n f t or t e he th i e n tn qu w ir as y o n n ot th w e h o e t t h h e e r r side of the House. htwerieuitugthweas realnot the House should make any permanent alteration in the nevi og of ti othen into o wa ir a ,qu a i gentlemanagainst present the House advisable or not. The ;Lo t us; laughter) —but not indisposed to go into this inquiry — was whether g • this should be a question before the House laws, e an to d p th r e e r v e ent per manent or only a temporary_._ Member for Tam worth (Sir H. Peel) had made a very plau sible statement, and gro unded upon it an equally plausible ._ _ scheme.—( llea , r hear. ) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought that this was a very proper reason why an investi ga ti on should be instituted by the Ho use of Commons, and he did think that this investigation should be made, the time had come when the doctrine which had been propounded and he thought that The reply which he would dangerous doctrine. was a very ;was, that it would be unwise to institute make to that doctrine the ofthe circumstances, Committee, unless it was to investigate whole circumstances, and how f a r their results would affect the whole of the commercial interests of the country, especially when they proposed to make such great changes. The real question thischange only was whether they should make purposes, or for permanent p ur p oses ; and this was not onl y a commercial lent also a c onstitutional question. The measures proposed by Mr. 1-luskisson were not only speculativ intended to be of a permanent cha racter.measures, hut were before them, therefore, was not The questio n should takelace or whe so much whether the investigation s be A bound by this ther it should not, but whether they should decision to a permanent measure ? It should be recollected that this was no new subject—that this was not an occasion on which they needed information, or of the nature of which they were ill-informed ; and he was surprised that it had not been i t' taken into consideration by the Government before, and that 1 had not been frequently made the subject of consideration in the Cabinet Council. It was not a question whether this that Ministry should remain in power, and lie thought that o it was the duty of the Government to make the in w ve h s e g l ther Lion sought for. He would ask the Hour ° this was a question, the alteration of which was to be permanent, or whether this was only to be laws ? a temporary suspens'on of the navig ati o n _ and he did no t thi n k, that at the beginnirong o sed. f Parliament, suc h a quest i on as this should be ppo But under the circumstances, they had this consolation, that however it was concluded, it could not affect the state of the country. But the present question was not as to the state of the navigation laws, but whether they s h ou ld be only tempo rarily alter e d, or w h et h er there should be a permanent altera tion, and he contended that this was not so much a party ques tion as one for the Prime Minister of State, and one for the Government under him. He (Mr. Disraeli) was anxious to make this observation before the House divided. He would again repeat that this was not so much a matter of inquiry for a private member of the House as for the Ministry of the Crown. It was not a subject on which the House required any information. It was an old subject—one which had been con sidered for 1 wo hundred years, and he thought that the gentle men on his side of the 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 Ives a matter which, of all others, was of a constitutional character. and one which, of all others, ought to be out of the power of the Gosernment, and one, at least, on which they ou g ht to have the opinion of the Government. He did not thiuk that this was the moment for discussing the q uestion o f 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 declared that the question was not whether the House would agree to an alter ation of the navigation laws—whether permanent or tem porary, but whether they wo u ld consent to inquiry. That was the questi on b e f ore the House. The Hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, were not indisposed to inquiry, but they were indisposed to permanent alteration. They agreed with him that an alteration was now necessary, and all that his Hon. Fricnd desired was, that the consent of the 'louse should be given to that inquiry. The Hon. Gentleman agreed that those lows should he inquired into, that they were not a fixed part sf the constitution, and yet he seemed disinclined to consent to an alteration of these laws. He hail referred to the opinion of Mr. Huskisson' and for years that statesman had alteration consented to mak e an -and of these laws, the Hon. 1 Gentleman himself stated, he proposed no alteration of the leers, and lie ( Lord J. Russell) felt assured that there was no serious intention to oppose the Bill, and he himself thought that no better occasion could be taken for a g eneral revision of t hese laws, nor ce taken up uld th e su bj ect be under better ci - i cumstances than the present. Mr. DISRAELI did not object alteration to the 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, and, amongst those, it was said those changes 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. ) RICARDO replied that he had waited for years in the hope that some Hors. 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 Mr • lajority 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 he considered as decisive of the feel ings of the House cn the subject. In the present age any measure which would at all produce the slightest change was sure to find numerous supporers ' 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 piece, the constitution of the country to be destroyed by the passing of such measures as those now proposed. Sir G. G REY 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 oi the Act passed last session upon the same subject. Mr. WATSON said, the Act passed 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. Coionel giIITHORP would oppose the introduction of every measure of this nature; he could not stand quietly by and see the constitution of the country—( Hear, hear)—undermined by any Government, or other Popish manoeuvre.—(Laughter.) Leave was then giv-n to bring in the Bill. TENANT RIGHT. 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 more to.day for a return of the absentees from Ireland, stating their na,nes, 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 Vict., 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 time same. Also, a return of the number of persons residing in England, or temporarily absent therefrom, charged under the Act 5 and 6 Vict., 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 shit , s 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 fl ogge d, di st i ngu i s hi ng t h ose 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 these 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 only for the first year. Admit:al 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 lied been expressed, though with d could quite somewhat of professional warmth, by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman ( Mr. Ward) had been unfortunately absent when the sub ho nd ject had been brought on, not thinking that the question his ha dfeelings—they spoken ias twere He e ( v e l‘ r i natural. yr . Var would be brought forward ; but he was bou n d t o say unerst w a that it was the feeling of the Board of Admiralty that what the army did the navy could and ought to do ; and as the returns of corporal p un i s h men t i n t h e 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 letter 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 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 a for mer occasion, he bad promised to support him if he moved for a general return. He objected to the return of the punish ments on board the Amazon, as Captain Stopford had been unanimously acquitted; every one of the officers on the court martial agreed that his conduct had been irreproachable ; by reason of that promise he was bound to concede the presentdidnot motion, which he very much regretted. from the in giving a return of the punishments the officers Ist of January in the present year, e:: hear.) From had no intimation of such a proceeding. — by any means agree with the Secretary of the He Admiralty having his would object to was not an officer in the navy who lists of punishment submitted to the Hone. done. Mr. WARD—I should be sorry to see e r As to seeing his knowledge of the service, he was perfectly certain that there Sir CHARLES NAPIER would not be i s ie r y. was aware that any severity on the part of the officers, ' a too great leniency, there existed in many, many so, although it dui! severity. He had no hesitation in a very bad position with might have the effect of placinglddesire to remain in a good one. persons with whom he would d n existed in representing captains in But a very bad practice had made use of another ex- The Secretary the navy as tyrants. would advert. He said, that before and in many ships riot and disoridntes.rtnahana_da crept sayingin from a want of pression, to which he to the senior officer of the station. An HON. Mealisea—No, no. 'S NA PI E R—GoodGod, the Secretary for the Sir CHARLES How could could such a thing he possible. Admiralty said so. they allow a man to go unpunished because the corn mender should b, inflicted,. that they should be submitted Should through a stress of weather, or a hundred other the station, The British officers were most willing to do away obstacles? mender of the vessel was not able to reach the senior officer of 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 returns 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 po-session of all information which would tend to show the progress made towards the abolition of corporal punishment. Rut he considered that it would be by no means advisable to state the names of the officers or the parties by whom, 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 retrospee 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 he 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 wculd 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 nct believe that the retrospective return would discredit the naval service or the Board of Admiralty. The distinction was dangerous—moat 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 from 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 fr.m those it was proposed to produce with the navy, as they did not contain the names of the officers, nor the names of the separate offences. He thought it would us advisable that these returns should not point out individuals. Mr. GOUL BURN said, that it appeared to him, that amongst the members of the Board of Admiralty, mai difference of opinion existed as to the returns proposed to be given by them, and that proposed by the Hon. Member for Nlontrose, 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 bad 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 objection to the granting 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 and punishments of each ship. 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 hus iness which he conducted in that department, but be had served many years in a regiment of the line, and he knew the feeling of the officers and soldiers on this snla3ect. He had great confidence in his Hon. Friend ; and in the course of last year, after several discussions, in which the Hon. Member for Bolton, 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, on 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 return, and, 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 commanders, 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,l 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 them. He admitted that of f icers should he amenable to public opinion ; still their first duty was to maintain discipline in the army. This must be done at all hacards ; but if these returns were made and published, it would 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 at once. RAILWAY LEGISLATION , Mr. STRUTT postponed till Thursday his explanation as to the intentions of Government with respect to railway business in the present session. POLICE FORCE IN IRELAND. Lord CLEMENTS postponed his motion for certain returns relative to the police force in Ireland. DES TITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL. On the report of th e 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. The Brewing from Sugar Bill and the Distilling from Sugar Bill were severally reported, and ordered to be read a third 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, BUCHLERSBURY, CHE APSIDE.—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, as. Bd., 4g., 4s. 4d., ss. Green 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 43., 4s. 4d., 55., 65., 7s. Coffee 9d., 10d., Is., Is. 2d., ls. 4d., ls. 6d., Is. 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 part of England.--,vtANs E LL 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 would produce 107 loaves of unfermented bread, and only 100 loaves of fermented bread of the same weight. Hence, it appears, that in the sack of flour by the common process of baking, 7 loaves, or 6% per cent. of the flour, are driven into the air end lost. CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.—The public suppers at this institution, which take place annually o n eight Sunday even ings, terminating with Easter-day, will commence next Sunday. FLANDERS MAIL. BnussEns, FEB. 4.—The Chamber of Representatives voted to-day a project of law relative to the export duties on 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 Government, said the Minister, 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 age him to hasten as much as possible the preparatory works for the construction of the railway from Ghent to Brussels by way of Alost. The first ball given yesterday evening at Court was very brilliant; the number of persons invited was very great. The King and Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Brabant, who wore the us ifurna of a lieutenant of the regiment d'Elite, Ail the Count of Flandyrs in the uniform of les Guides, with many superior officers, ,rrived at 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 bail did not break up till two o'clock in the mominy. The King and Queen did not leave Paris till eleven 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-clay 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 a 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 most serious attention to the question of pauperism in Flanders, and that it has employed extensively and pru 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. Kamner, the engineer, for a report on the cultivation of the Yee Gerveyde, near Lichterwald, in 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 Excturroz.—The sales are—Bristol and Exeter, 76—Great Western, 125%—Ditto, Halves, 73—Ditto, Quarters, 7 p.—Manches ter and Leeds, Extension, 1% IL—Midland, 124—Ditto, New, 5% — Taff Vale, 134—Ditto, 5 per Cent., 1 per cent. p. LIVERPOOL, FERRIIIAT 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are -Ambergate, Nottingham, Boston, and Eastern Junction, 3s. 9d. p.-Birmingham and Ox ford, 5% p.-Chester and Birkenhelid, 201. Shares, 4 dis. ex int.- Ed nburgh and Glasgow, Quarters, 194- Huddersfield Canal and Railway, 3 p.-Lancaster and Preston, 11 3 4 p. ex int.-Leeds and Dewsbuty, 73. p.-Ditto, New, Extensions (pink), 1 4 p.-Leeds and Thirsk, 2 3 ,4 dis.-Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 2% p.-Lon don and North-Western, 190 -Ditto. New, Quarters, 12 p.-Man chester and Leeds (late Huddersfield and Sheffield), 43r p.-Ditto, Fif ha, 5% p.-- Manchester Sheffield, and Lincolnshire (late Great Grimsby land Sheffield), 4 1 4 dis.-Ditto, Quarters, dis.-Ditto (late Sheffield and Lincolnshire), 1 dis.-North British, Quarters, 2 p.- Ditto, Thirds (scrip), 51s. 3d. p.-North Staffordshire, 3 p.-- Preston and Wyre, Halves (B), % p.-Shrewsbury and Birmingham, 151. 7s. 9d. Shares (A), p. Ditto, 9i. 1 is. 3d. Shares (It), % p.-seuth- Eastern and Dover, New, No. 4, Bs. 9d. p.- West Riding Union, 335. 9d. p. -York and Newcastle, Preference, 5 p.- -Cork and Waterford, I dim.- Dublin and Wexford, 1 dis. -Dutch Rhenish, 2% Ws. 31A.IsTCHESTER, FEBRUARY 9. STOCK EXCHANGE. The sales are-Ambergate, Nottingham, and Boston, 3-16 p.- Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, N, P.-Birmingham and Oxford Junction, NY, p. -Blackburn, Clither•e, &c., Darwett, al.d Bolton, 4 p.- Eastern Coun ties, York Extel:sion, p. East Lancashire, 2 p.-• Ditto, New (scrip), 11 4 p.-- Edinburgh and Glasgtm, Quarters, 19-Fleetwood, Pt est,at, and West Biding, 14 p.-Iluddersheld and Manchester Railway and Canal, 31 Ditto, 2 15-16 p.-Lancaster and Preston, tee-quarters, 17 p - Leeds and fhirsk, 2 ills. -Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport (West Lancashire), 274 p.- Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle Jutiction, 5-16 di. London and North-Western (Manchester and Birmingham), 72 • Manchester wnd Leeds Exten sion, 1 1A p. Manchester. Sheffield, am Lincolnshire, Eighths, dis.- Manchester and South nipton, % dis.-North Staffordshire, 3% p. -Preston and Wyre, 35-Ditto, Halves (A), 4 1 4 p.-Ditto (13). 1 / 2 p.- Shrewsbury and Birmingham (A), % p.- Shropshire Union, dis.-:South•Eastern and Dover, No. 4, X, p. - South Yorkshire. 1) mcaster, and Goole, par-West Riding Union, 1% p. LEEDS, Fwwarrenr 9. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—Ihe sale*. are—Ambel•gate, Nottingham, and Boston, Is. 11. p. - Eastern Counties, York Extension, 12s. 6d. P. -- East Lancashire, 2V n. p.—Ditto, New, 21. 3s. p.—Ditto, New Scrip, 234. p.—Great No; them (late Londen and York), 4s. 6d. n. p. —Leeds and Dewsbury. 7 p.—Leeds and Thirst, 21. Its. 3d. dis.—Ditto. New, 2thi. Ms. Ditto, Preference, 245. p.—Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, 9s. dis, -Leicester and Bedford, 3s. dis. London, Oxford. and Cheltenham, 6s. dis. —:Malt on and Di Wield Junction, 21s. is. p. —Manchester and Leeds, Extensions, 235. p.—Manchester, Buxton. Matlock, and Midland, 12s. 6d. p.—Manchester and Southampton. 9s. dis.—North Itritish, 'Thirds, Ms.—Ditto, Extension (scrip), 13 $. p.—North Staffordshire, 31. Is. 3d. p.—Northern Counties Union, I c. dis.— North-Western, Bs. 6d. p.—Sheffield, Rotherhamynnl Goole, , ss. n. p. -- South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole, par — %. 06, t kidinc Union; 3 3 ,4. ' SII EFFIELD, FEBRUARY 9. STOCK Excrt ANGE.—The sales are—Manchester and Lincoln Union, dis.—Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 14s. cheater, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 94—Ditto, Grimsby and Shef field, 201. shares, 265. dis.—Ditto, Sheffield and Lincoln, 1 dia.— Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, % dis. N EWCASTLE-UPt -TINE, FEKRIIALY 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Caledonian, New, dls.— 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. II U LL, FiijuAltr 9. Srocx Exclicsoz.--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, 26s.—West Riding Union, 3% — Leicester and Bedford, % dis. EDLN__BURGII, FEBRUARY 8. STOCK ExcitaNGE.-The sales are-Aberdeen, 231. 55.-Airdrie and Bathgate, 41. Is.-Arbroath and Forfar, 281.-Ditto, Half Shares, 151. 55.-Ayr and Galloway, 21. Os. 6d.-Caledonian, 271.-Dltto, New, 21. 55.-Caledonian and Dumbarton, 21. 10s.-Clydesdale Junction, 39/. 55.-Deeside, 31. ss.- Direct Northern, 21. 13s. 6d. -Dunblane, Donne, and Callender, 11. 12s. 6d.-Dundee and Ar broath, 421.--Ditto, New, No. 1, 321.-Ditto, No. 2, 271.-Dundee and Perth, 281. 10s.-Ditte, New. 14/. IN.-Eastern Counties, 211. 17s. 6d.-Ditto, York Extension, 51.-East of Fife, 21. 145.-Edln burgh and Bathgate, 51. 4c-Edinburgh and Glaigow, 771.-Ditto. Half Shares, 20/. 10s.- Ditto, Quarters, 19t.-Edinburgh, Leith, and , Granton, 191. 10s.- Ditto, Preference, 211.-Edinburgh and North ern. 16/. 7s. 6d.-Ditto, New, 31. 125.-Ditto, Newport, 51. 9s. 6d.-Ditto, ditto, New, 21 121.-Edinburgh and P ert h (Old). 11. 18s. 6d.- Ditto (New), * 2l. 9s. 6d.-Glasgow and Ayrshire, 651.- Ditto, New Stoc<, 341.-Ditto, Quarter Shares, 161. 10s. 6d.-Ditto, Halves, 71. 155.-Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, 61.-Glasgow and Dundee Junction, it. IN.-Glasgow and Garnkirk, 401.-Glasgow General Terminus, 121. 10s.-Glasgow and Greenock, 191.-DittO, New, 91.-Ditto, Preference, 81. 55.-Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 61. 17s. 6d.- Great North of England, 2371.-Great North of Scotland, 21. N.-London and York, 31. 12s. 6d.-Manchester and Leeds, 1051.--Midland and Eastern Counties, 155.-Newcastle and Berwick, 321. 155.-North British, 341. Ms.-Ditto, Halves, 16/. 17s. 6d.-1 - )itto, Thirds, 3/. II s. 6d.-Ditto, Quarters, 41. 28. 6d.-- Ditto, New Quarters (scrip), 1/. N.-Ditto, Fifths, 71. 2s. 6d.- Scottish Central, 211. I7s. 6d.-Scottish Grand Junction, it. Is. 6d. -Scottish 3lidland,l2l/. 7s. 6d.-Stirling and Dunfermline, 31. 145.--- Stirling and Midland, 21. 108.-Strathern Junction, 31. 3s. 6d.-- Wishaw and Coltness, 501.-York and Newcastle, 361. 10s.-Ditto New, 111. IN.-Ditto, Preference. 61. Ms.-Direct Bombay and Madras, 45.-East Indian, 9s. 3d.-Great North of India, 31. 6d -Great Southern of Madras, 3s. 6d.-Madras, Nellore, and Ar cot, 2s. 9d. GLASGOW, FEBRUARY 8. Stoca Excnst.os:. —The sales are—Ayr and Galloway, 39s.—Cale donian and Dumbartonshire, 535. 6d.—Direct Bombay and Madras. 3s. 9d.—Dundee and Arbroath, 42/. 45.—Ditto, New, No. 2, 271.--- Ditto, New, No. 3,4/. 16s. Sd.— Dundee and Perth, 28%—Ditto, New, 1434—East of Fife, 51s.—East Indian, .9s. 3d.—East Lothian• Central, 43s.—Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 34% —Dtito, halves. No. 2,9/. Is.— Ditto, Quarters (5 per cent. guar.), 16/. 4s.- Glasgow. Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 6/. 16s.— Great North of Scotland, 455. -- Great Southern of Madras, 3s. 9d. —Manchester and Southampton, 335. Midland, Halves, 6/. - North British, New Quarters (-crip). 279. 6d.—Scottish Midland Junction, 211 Stirling and Dunterm line, 763.—York and Newcastle, Preference, 91. Blair's Gout and Rheumatic Pills effectually cure every description of Gout, Rheumatic Gout, Rheumatism, Lumbago, Tic Doloreux, Pains in the Head or Face, &c 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 efficient remedy ever discovered for these disorders. The continued authenticated proofs of decided approbation sent, unsolicited, to the proprietor, from all parts of the kingdom and from all classes of society, with a rapidly increasing sale, and demand for them at home and abroad unparalleled, fully warrants the assurance that no person subject to such complaints will, after a trial, ever he without them. Sold by all medicine venders. Price 2s. 9d. per box. Observe the name of" ThornasProut, 229, Strand," on the government st a mp. EXTRAORDINARY SUPPLY OF GUANO FROM B Mr. Thomas Dickon, an eminent farmer in Lincolneuire, had been induced to go to Jamaica as manager of some exten sive estates in that part of the world, with ene intention of introducing the best systems of farming where they had c h e i i t v b e ertobeen unknown. Dickon, own.ccobuy Mr. j Accounts ha-reosrbecuaentlirigfbeueri, of ro• d from Mr. Coniabro', stating that them is already every proba bilitycu r e.d of on a the dera le a i ii T A cre t a b s a e t of by sugar being newpr o - guano as tillage. It is the dung of large bats, ci 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 be 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 nocturnal 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 tens in weight, was discovered, and found to be equal to the best Ichaboe guano.— Lincoln Times. FATE OF POPE'S SKULL.—Mr. Howitt, in his " Homes and Haunts of the British Poets," says that the skull of Pope no w ornaments t h e private collection of a phre nologist. Fifty pounds were paid to manage the transaction with the sexton of the church in which the deceased poet was buried. BIRTHS, On the Bth inst., at Harleyford, near Marlow, the Visceuntese: Drumlanrig, of a son. On the 15th of December, 1846, at Cochin, East India, the wife Of 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 Mr. Henri It. Marriott, of a daughter. On the Bth inst., at Islington, Mrs. J. B. Price, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 6th inst., at Marylebone Church, W. H. Hooper, M.D., of Cheltenham, to Emma, daughter of M. Taylor, Esq., of Upper B&W -street, Portman-square. DIED On Monday, the Bth inst., at Brighton, George Robins, Esq., afte r a protracted illness. On the 7th of January last, at Gibraltar, Alexander Shea. Esq. On thy, 29th ult., Louisa, the wif e o f J o h n J. Bowles, Esq.,MiltOn hill, Berks. On the 2d inst., at Brighton, Mary Ann Helen, the daughter Mark Pringle, Esq., of vakenden, Sussex, aged 13. On the Gth inst., in Dorset-square, Robert Fellowes, LL.D., aged 714 Oa the 6th that, at Deptford, Air. Thomas Wallis, of the London bridge Tavern, aged 74. On the Gth inst., Joseph Bacon, of Great Russell-street, Nor thampton, aged 84. On the 7th inst., at Bristol, Mr. Lionel Drew Walter, aged 26. On the 7th inst., at Hatfield, Iterts, Mr. J. Simkins, aged 63. • On the 7th in s t., at Peckham, the infant daughter al Mr •J. W• Gull. On the Bth inst., Thomas Boyce, Esq., of New-place, Upmlnster. - Lonekn: Printed anti Ptiblishod by .1' tiltDO YOUN4.4. of No. 11*. `k tram], Printer, at 77►' Sun ( Mee, 1 , trano in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, Wednesday, Ft bruary 10 , 1847. W