The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1848.

reference ton new ontetltution for that colony, and if so,
whether there was any objection to its being laid before
parliament ?
Mr, HAW ES said that, in the course of last year, inch a
despatch had been addressed to the Governor of New South
Wales, but it merely suggested that the opinion and &d-
-elve of the colonists should be obtained. The governor
had published it in the government Gazette, and it had been
made generally known. The opinion of the colonirs had
been thus obtained ; and it would be extremely inconvenient
now to lay that despatch on the table of the house, as its
whole object was accomplished. No intention was conveyed
of estabashing any constitution. A great deal of valuable
information had been obtained, by which the government
would be guided in laying on the table of the house, at
some future time, a consti.ution for that colony.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr. BANK E-Fwished to uk the right hon. gentleman at
the head of the poor law commission what was the present
state of the case which had been referred to the superior
courts lung ago, with regard to the construction of the act
fur the removal of the pour ? A great number of cases were
pending throughout the kingdom; the at expired at the
end of a year; and, if no decision were given this term, the
act would probably expire before any was come to.
Mr. BULLER said he wished he could answer the ques-
tion satisfactorily. He had heard nothing of the matter
lately and, as the close of Trinity Term was approaching,
should probably not hear any thing about it fur a long time.
At the same time, it would he satisfactory to the house to
know that, during his attendance in his present office, he,
had not heard any complaints as to the doubts which had
arisen respecting the construction of the Removal Act. This
he attributed ve7 much to the act of last session, the re•
newel of which, an some shape or other, he should have to
being before the house at an early period.
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS.

In answer to Mr. AoLtonny,
Sir G. GREY stated that a bill was beforo the other
house for the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholdo.
be lie had ne doubt it would proceeded with, but ciuld not
state when it woulo be in that house.
WEST INDIA COLONIES. . .

Lord J. RUSSELL said, as he bad been requested by
several hon. members to name the day on which he would
bring before the house the subject of West India clistrem, he
would take the opportunity of stating that on Friday, the
16th inst., he proposed to make a statement of the views of
government regarding the distress in the West Indies ; and
he might as well state that the first order ot the day on
Thursday next would be the Public Health Bill.
Mr. lIUME asked if there was any objection to postpone '
the departure of the mail to the Went Indies, to enable them
to know what was really intended by. her Majesty's mini-
ver.? In the present state of anxiety in the V, est Indies, it
was extremely desirable to make that arrangement.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say he would take
care that that was done.
Sir It. I'EE L —Does the noble lord intend to take a vote
on Friday, or to state the general views of her Majesty's
government ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—I propose to make a statement on
Friday, but not to take a vote on that day.
NAVIGATION LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Lord 0. BENTINCK craved the in ni gence of the
house while he strove to remove some of the prejudice which
bad been imported into the question by the hon. memb^r
for Westbury (Mr. Wilson). The hon. gentleman might
not have intended to libel the owners and captains of ships at
Rho Jaeeiro • but he (Lord G. Bentinek) was in a position
to contradict statement, without any imputation on the
veracity of the hon. member, in whom he had found every
disposition to fairness while sitting with him for three months
on the navigation committee. Ile had an extmetkom
letter from the agents of one of those many A 1 ehips which
the hon. member represented to be unable to obtain freights
at Rio. That ship arrived there on the 10th or Iltli
of March; and so far from being unab'e to Wain a
cargo from the carelessness of the captain, Captain Young,
three freights at 755., 775., and 80s., had been refused ; end
dually the vessel left on the 4th of April, because foreign
vessels were taking .57a. 6d. and 60a. She went to Bahia,
and there obtained a good Iri ight. There were 12 or 14
British ships at Rio in March, all of which obtained freights
but four; while there were eight foreign ships which did not
get freight', two of them Americans, although the American
captains resorted to means for obtaining (nights which were
sot held con•istent with honour an,l honesty by Englishmen.
(Hear ) The txplanstion of the whole thing appeared to be
that somebody wished to practise a joke on the hon, membet
for Westbury ; for the letter on which he relied was dated
the Ist of April. (Laughter.) lie held in his hand a letter
from Meese's. Le Breton and Co., the well-known agents.
who stated that there was a great want of ships at Bahia,
where 22,000 packages of sugar were waiting tar shipmeut,
and freights ranged from Ws. to 90s. and even 955. Out
English captains would certainly have been great fools to
take freights at Rio for 575. 6d. at the came ewe as the
icireign vessels, when they could run to Bahia, and get there
80s. sr 91)e. (Hear.) The right hon. the President of the
Board at Trade had declared his belief that no risk
would arise to British maritime in•ereits or to the British
navy from the repeal of the navigat on laws; other-
wise, he said, he would sooner cut off his right
arm than lay those resolutions on the table. Ile
had gone into a statement to show, comparing 1827 with
1846, that the British mereanole marine hail increased 44
per cent, beyond that of the United State.. In the tact, be
had adduced he was utterly mistaken ; he had also lett en-
tirely out of view that in measuring the increase of British
tonnage, he estimated it by the new measure introduced by
the late Lord Sydenhem, wh ch added 15 to 25 per cent, to
the tonnage, making the ship which measured 400 tons,
under the old law, to measure nearly 500 under the new.
(Hear, hear.) But the tonnage of the United States ships
had remained the name, and the accounted f a much of the
appoeut increase. (It. ar, hear.) lie had stated that •he
tonnage ot British ships had increased 'roan 2,460,500 tons
in 1826 to 3,817,112 tons in 1847. Making allowance for
the new measure, this last amount would have to be re-
duced by 20 per centeeducing the actual increase to 3,0.53,690
tonseir au increase of only 24, nut of 44, per cent. (Hear.)
He would not quarrel with the right hon. gentlexan that
he 'elected a different period of the year for the shipping of
the United States from that which he took for British ships,
that be took the year ending the 30th of Juno, 1816, tor
American ships, and the end of the year for British ships,
when there was a great increase of ships. ( Hear, hear.)
Had the right hon. gentleman taken a year later it would
have made a difference of 11 per cent ; for in the year end-
ing June, 1847, the tonnage of American ships amounted
to 2,760,961 toes. (Hear, hear.) But taking his own figures
the United States shins increased between 1927 and the
present time from 1,620,607 tons to 2,562.084, being
an increase of 941,477 toes; being an increase of
58 per cent. (Hear, hear.) How, therefore, the
right hon. gentleman could make out that the increase
of the shipping of the United States was only 44 per cent.,
he was not able to understand. The truth was that he mea-
sured the American shipping by a short measure, and
British shipping by a long measure. American shipping bad
increased 58 per cent., whilst English shipping had increased
only 24 per cent. Therefore he maixtained that British
merchants and Briti.h seamen, without any pusillanimity or
any want of energy and enterprise, had reason to fear the
rivalry of the United States if they were to be admitted to a
r participation in their colonial trade. (Hear, hear.) And
that he might not be supposed to have stated on light
grounds the difference between the old and new measure-
ment, he would read to the house the result of a measure-
ment ot five ships belonging to Mr. Chapman of L:verpool.
Under the old scale those ships measured 3,928 tons, under
the new, 4,768; being a difference of 840 tuns in five ships,
created by act of parliament. Some ships belonging to Mr.
Bold of Liverpool measured under the old scale 2,974
tons ; under the new, 3 508 matting together an
increase of over 20 per cent. by act of parliament. (Hear.)
Ile world now read to the house, from the American Alma
nai k, a return of the ships of the United States which trailed
with the British empire. Their tonnage in 1846, was
1,360,374, whilst that of Great Britain and her colonies in
the same period, amounted to only 801,321 tuns. lie would,
therefore, leave those who were engaged in trade with the
British West Indies to ask what benefit they were likely to
derive from a repeal of the navigation laws ? The inter-colo-
nial trade had grown to its present extent only within the
last 24 years. and whilst there were ships belonging to the
United States with a tonnage of 124,135 tons engaged in that
trade, the tonnage of British ships was only 23.324. Let
them see how the matter stood with respect to Cuba and the
Spaaieli West Indies. In 1846, the United States had ships
wit 7. a tonnage of 208,189 tons engaged in the trade with)the
Spanish colonies, whilst the tonnage of foreign ships was
only 3,891, and the value of the merchandise carried in
American ships, was 2,500,000, whilst that carried in
foreign ships was only '27,000. Therefore, when the
United States made a proposition to divide the colonial trade
with England, they could judge pretty well liom those facts
that she expected to get the largest share of the spoil. (Hear.)
He was at a for to learn any just grounds for making a
change in the navigation laws. He was aware that in the
absence of any other petitions a great dish had been made
of petitions from C.,nada and the British West Incdb s for an
alteration of the navigation laws. lie was aware that in a
moment of excitement, when the colonists were suffering
from the effects of their free trade meaoires, they, like
drowning men catching at straws, did ask for a repeal of
thou laws. But within one or two days he had received an
extract of a letter, dated the 16th March, signed by the pre-
sident of the Chamber of Commerce of Kingston, one of
those persons who six or twelve months ago signed the peti-
tion, in which the writer stated that he was inclined to agree
with Lord G. Bentinck, that a repeal of the navigation laws
was calculated to confer as much benefit on their opponents
as on the colonists, with this difference in favour of
Cuba, that she being possessed of slave labour could
ensure regularity in the crop, and consequently. would not
have any delay in freighting vessels; when= In Jamaica
the vessel; might be detained for months before a cargo would
be ready. The noble lord then read a lettaraddreseed to Mr.
J. Cooke, a broker in the City, in which it was ended that
there were American vessels in the river with 16,927 boxes
of Cuba sugar, and that it was 21. per cwt. cheaper in conse-
quence of being brought in foreign vessels; but in conse-
quence of the navigation laws it was not admissible into this
country. let those colonists who were foolish enough to pe-
tition for the repeal of the navigation laws be aware then
that they would have 16,900 more boxes of Cuba sugar in the
market, and Is. lower in price than they could afford to cell
it. (Hear) The noble lord then referred to the evidence of
Mr. J. Wilson, of Sunderland, before the Lords' committee,
who was in favour of the repeal of the navigation laws, but
admitted that the West Indian colonists would not get freight
' cheaper, whilst OM sugar could be told from 54. to 64.
cheaper in the market; and observed that if, under these cir-
cumstances, the colonists were in favour of the repeal
of the navigation laws, they deserved their fate. The
right bon. gentleman made a great deal of the
petition from the City of London, but, with the
exception of the names of the Governor and De-
puty-Governor of the Bank of England, there were no
names of any groat importance attached to it. One of the
members for East Somersetehire was so struck with the