The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-09 00:00:00

HOLM BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM claimed the indulgence of the house
while he said a few words in vindication of the character and
conduct of a friend of his, formerly a member of that house—
• gentleman of unblemished honour and integrity ; be meant
Mr. alilnes, the father of the present hon. member for Pon-
tefract. In reference to the Northern Railway (Isle of
Asholme) BA a printed statement had yesterday at the
door of the house—nay, almost-within the house itself—been
circulated and placed in the bands of members, containing
against Mr. %Ines and the Rev. Mr. Neville (a gentleman
who bad putchased an estate formerly belonging to the late
Lord Spencer) as grave allegations of corruption and
misconduct an could be imputed to any individual.
It appeared to him that, under cover of dealing
with a qurrion then pending in the house, serious libel.
bad been circulated against those gentlemen. It was im-
putes to Mr. Milne& and Mr. Neville, that fur the corrupt
purpose of obtaining further compensation for their lands
they had got up an opposition to the bill in question, but
which they did not afterwards proceed with, and, not content
with taking a review of their conduct, the statement went
on to al ege t..at on a former occasion the bill had then re-
jected by • majority of 178 to 34, and that this had been
effected by the union of those two gentlemen with the Lon-
don and Yak Railway Company, and that by these means
a packed majority had ben obtained. So that the docu-
ment impugned the conduct of those gentlemen—it im-
pugned the character of the house itself, by attri-
buting to it a packed majority—and it impugned all
the railway interests which were rivals to the bill
in question. Now, this was a great abuse, and
a breach of the privileges of thy house. (Hear, hear.) Still,
however, he did Lot wash to take any step in the motter fur-
ther than to deny on the part of Mr. Milnes that he had been
actuated by any such motive as that attributed to him.
(Hear, hear.) That gentleman had desired him (Sir J. Gra-
ham) to give this assurance to the house, and he now gave it
in the most solemn manner. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNE:4 begged to substantiate all that the tight
hon. baronet had ended.
Mr. CHRItsTOPHER said that though be had charge of
the 14:11 in tyres ion, he had n.,t referred at all to the docu-
ments complained of, to the vitraiiestimx of which, he begged
to say, he bad not been a party.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS thought, in justice to a very honour.
able body of men practising as parliamentary agent*, that
the house ought to be informed what were the names of the
agents subscribed to this document; if this was not stated, the
imputation of libellers would rest on the whole body when
it ought to be confined to those who were parties to the pub-
lication.

Lord GALWAY !mid it was probable that the solicitors to
the till thought no more of the matter than the agent..
Mr. BRIGHT rose to order. The agents only acted nn
the inxtructi .ns they received, and why, therefore, should
their names he uivtn up. The defence which the right hon.
baronet (Sir J Gorham) had made of the gentleman attacked
ought to sati•fy the house and the country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GItEENE concurred in what had fallen from the
hon. member for Manchester.

Mr. HUME said it was important that memben should
be protected against tabehood and erroneola statements, and
some means ought to be taken to prevent abuses such u
that now exposed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. PATTEN said that the system of distributing
papers in the house was carried on by ether persons than
parliamentary agents.
Lord GALWAY disclaimed, on the part of the Rev. Mr.
Neville, the conduct imputed to that gentleman by the doers,
ment now before the house, and which was without any
printer's name.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was an anonymous publication,
against which the gentlemen aggrieved could not take any
proceedings out of the house ; and what made it still more
offeasive was that the charges were made in the name of a
great company (Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said it was quite true, as stated by the
hon. member tor Montrose, that certain regulations with re-
gard to parliamentary agents had been laid d• wn by the
noble lord who had preceded him (the Speaker) in his pre
sent position, and tho,e regulations went to permit the
speaker to remove from has roll any party guilty of mi•con-
duct. Now, it the house could anopt a rule that no state-
ments should be circulated unless signed by some parlia-
mentary agent, the matter wouNi be unit( r its own control,
and these anoaymous publications of gross misstatements
would be put an end to. (`fear, hear.)
The conversation then dropped.
PAISLEY, BARRHEAD, ,‘ND HURLET RAILWAY

On the motion for the further consideration of this bill,
Mr. F. MACKENZIE took objection to the parlia-
mentary contract, mere than half the amount being signed
for by four of the directors. He moved that the report
'koala be runts( r considered that day sin months.
Mr. HUME said he had complained last session of the ir-
regular way in which the funds of this concern were sub-
scribed. The bill had been in consequence suspended. One
of the parties subscribing the contract had subicribed, in
this and other concerns, for 612,0001., and others for still
larger sums.
Mr. HOU VERIE said the bill had not been suspended
for the reac•.n aimed, but on account of the existence of s• me
agreement with a canal company, which wee contrary to
public policy. The committee this year had reported that
there was a bones dde intention to complete the line, and
that tne undertiamg had ..ieen regularly prone).cd.

Mr. Bailin, es est of tb• commithee last year, said
that the mow is 'Mob See eestreet wee Mooed was one
reams he eworiedhlft the MIL
Mr. I. BM'CB, Jun., urged dot the lease should sup-
port the deeisfea of the eassriMes of this session. To do
otherwise alter the decides as the Scottish Midland on
Tuesday would be the groseset inomehteney.
After a few words iron Mr. Oswald, Mr. Henley, Mr.
Elliot, and Mr. H. Drummond,
The house divided—
For the consideration of the report .... 86
Against it 35-31
Mr. BERNAL drew attention to clause 48 of the bil',
which empowered another company to hold shares in this
warmly, and which appeared to bun to contravene a former
report.
Alter a few words In explenatlon from Mr. Bouvaute,
the report was received, and the bill was ordered to be en-
Itromea•
TIIE CURRENCY COMMITTEE.

Sir F. T. BARINO brought up the report of the currency
committee, lino moved that it should be printed.
Mr. CAYLEY hoped that the discussion on this report
would be postponed, at least until the debate on the naviga•
lion laws had terminated.
Sir F. T. BARING said the notation now was simply that
the report should be laid on the table and printed; and he
thought it was expedient that this should bu dune, at least
some time before the discussion came on.
Mr. CAYLEY said he must still prise the right hon.
gentleman to ?osipone his motion.
Mr. HUME was as anxious as any oae for a discussion on
this subject, but thought it could not properly be pressed at
this moment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
most desirable that the house and the cuumry should be put
in possession of the report now brought up; for that pur.
tonwasairn woulddethati nut shuoupos
lelphee it.
printed ; and he
hoped the the hen. gentleman
Mr. CAYLEY thought that no delay could possibly take
place from postponing the motion.
The SPEAKER then put the motion for bringing up the
report, which was agreed to, as was also the motion that it
should be printed.
Mr. HUME hoped the evidence would alro be printed
along with it.
Sir F. T. BARING said that the evidence of the proceed.
logs would form part of the report.
THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN BISHOP
BONNER'S FIELDS.
• - • • • -

Mr. 0. THOM to put question to the right
hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Heine Deportment, of
which I gave him notice yesterday ; and in doing so 1 will
crave the indulgence of the house while I state the nature of
the question, and my reasone for putting it.
Toe SPEAKER—The hon. gentleman must confine him-
self to the nature of the question he hat to put.
Mr. THOMPSON—I desire to ask the right hon. gentle-
man whether he le in possession of info, motion Irons any
quarter alleging that, on Sunday last, the 4th inst., certain
outrages ogre committed upon peaceable, loyal, and unol
fending individuals, in the neighbourhood of the Tower
Hamlets ? I put that question because I hold in my hand
the testimony of more than GO witnesses—all, I have reason
to believe, respectable, all following decent occupations,
many of them respectable inhabitants and shopkeepers in the
Tower Hamlets; their testimony is consistent and concur-
rent, and it amounts to this, that many uuprovoked out•
revs were perpetrett d by the police, not merely in Bishop
Bonner 's-fields, but in some cases at a great distance, and, in
one case, more than a mile from the scene where the chartist
meeting took place; and they allege that, unless the govern-
ment should institute • searching inquiry into all the facts of
the case, and adopt measures for the prevention of similar
outrages in future, there will be a large amount of dissatis-
faction created in the minds of the people of that neighbour.
hood. In putting this question to the right hon. baronet I
beg to assure him and toe house that I have no sympathy
with violent language, none with disloyalty or disaffection,
and that I have now brought the matter before him and the
house from a desire to meet the wit hes of a large portion of
my constituents, who, unsolicited, have placed in my
hands that large amount of evidence which deer] yes the at-
tention of her Majesty'. geeeeemees, and weice. I am 'Hue
will have it, when they are in possession of the facts white;
have come to my knowledge. 1 beg to ask the right hon.
Bart. it he has net rev iced similar information to that which
I have had, and whether he intends to adopt any measures
to ascertain the truth of these statements, and whether there
is any real fourstlati n for the charge brought by these indivi-
duals atainst the police on the occasion I have referred to ?
Sir O. GREY—Toe hon. gentleman having yesterday
given me notice that he intended to-day to ask me whether
I had received from the Tower Hamlets and the neighbour.
hood of Bethnal-green, complaints of unprovoked sttaeks of
the police on the peaceable and unuffending subjects of her
Majesty, I am enabled to come down to the house with that
evidence which I stated on a &truer occasion I should be
able to lay before the house, with reference to the question
which the hon. gentleman has now asked me. (Hear, hear.)
I will first answer his question. I have received complaints
respecting the conduct of the p -lice on that ea-talon. At leant
a letter has been add-esed to me, dated June .5, signed,
" William Higgins, of 1, Adelphi-terrace,Victoria Park, Bon.
cow's-fields," in which the writer states it to be his opinion
and he alleges that there is but one opinion amongst all the
inhabitants of that neighbourhood, " that the conduct of the
police was the most brutal and barbarous ever beheld." To
that letter there is a postscript, signed by seven individuals,
expressing the desire of the parties that my attention should
Ise directed to the Glove statement. I may, tht tefore, assume
that this charge assigned by eight individuals, and supported
by some specific statement. I may also state, lest I should
afterwards be charged with not alluding to the fact, that I
have to-day received a letter which, tans not Pure, does refer
to the complaints intended to be made agsinst the police ;
but it is signed " James Fox, of Onevenor-place, York-
street, Bethnal-gisen ;" and the writer states that he has a
memorial to present to me respecting the conduct of the
poli T, and wishing me to appoint a time when I can receive
a deputation of three inhabitants who are desirous of waiting
upon me with it. What the nature of that memorial may be
I do not know ; but I think it possible that it may relate to
the matter the hon. gentleman has referred to. Since I came
into the house, I have had a letter put into my hand, from
an individual who states that he writes on behalf of a com-
mittee of inhabitaet householders who have been appointed
to investigate the cases of alleged outrage by the police, but
he does not communicate to me that they have
yet received any evidence about those cases. That is the
whole substance of the complaints which I have received
respecting the conduct of the police; sad none of the evi-
dence which the hon. gentlemen says is in his possession
has been communicated to me ; nor have I received any-
thing detracting from the merit which I feel is justly due I
to the police fur their conduct on that occasion. (Hear )
I feel that I should be guilty of an act of very great injustice
towards the police, and should leave the house under a most
erroneous impression, were I to confine myself to a pimple
answer to the statement of the hon. gentleman. Sir, I have
received an accumulated mass of evidence of n contrary
nature—(hear, hear)—evidence showing the nature of the
meetings held in Bonner's-fields and Victoria-park on last
Sunday ; 'homing that, so far from the conduct of the police
being unprovoked, or that any unnecessary interference took
place with the people or-enabled on that occasion, they
could not act otherwise than they did act, under the tonduct
of their officers, and with a Garin seance as well as firmness of
which I have received the most ample testimony from
numerous disinterested parties, in repressing an attack which
was wantonly made upon them—an attack destructive of
property and dangerous to the liven of other partite,. (Hear.)
It is notorious to the house that these meetings have been
held lately in different parts of the metropolis,
and have led to disorder, tumult, and disturbance,
amounting to an intolerable n eisance, and inter-
fering with the daily avocation. of the peaceably
disposed. Under these circumstances, having reason to
suppose that a meeting of this character would be held in
Victoria-park on Sunday last, the commissioners of police,
under my direction, placed a considerettde additional force of
police in that neighbourhood. The instructions they gave
to the four inspectors who had charge of the body of police
employed on that occasion were—that the police was to be
prep teed to act immediately if any disturbance or breach of
the peace occurred at the meeting in Bonner's-fields; but
that en long as the meeting watt peaceable, and during the
day, the police were not to interfere. The superintendents
were reminded of the printed notices and cautions distri-
buted on the 311th and 31st of May, relating to process-ions,
which were ale it prohibited; and the police were directed not
to allow them to take place. The illegality of meetinot held
at unsemonable hours was also pointed out ; their attention
was called to that part of their instructions; and they were
told that if this meeting continued until after dark it should
be required, as other meetings had been, to separate. Now,
sir, I have here the report from one of the inspectors with
regard to this meeting. Re Butter
A meetingof the Irish confederates wok place on Sunday last, at
three o'clock. In Victoria-park, and another meeting of chartists, in
Bonner'n-fields at five o'clock, Inspector Waller, with a body of
police, was stationed in St. James's diatriet church, about 150 yards
from the pl ice of meeting, but the police were kept from
the slew of the persona present cat the meeting, so as not to
excite the same, except In earn of necemity. I wan In different parts
of the field, inconsequence of the unfitness fur duty -f Mr. May, the
superintendent, who had been stabbed in the leg on the previous
Wednesday, at the disturbance on elerkenvrell-green. (Hear, hear.)
It wen suspected that a great number of those who attended the meet-
ing would come armed, as In fact their leaders at several previous
meetings had advired them to do. The latter meeting was attended
by about 3,000 person• of all description.,; all appeared perfectly
quiet until 25 minutes to 7 o'clock, when it broke up. Inspector
Waller had been to one side of the field to receive instruction, from
me. on returning he raw 400 or 500 persons throwing stones at the
windows of the church, and os peeing him the mob ralred a rhout of
execration, There's the inspector, give It him." A volley of semen
was immediately thrown at him, and several struck him In venous
parts of the body. Stones were also thrown at the windows of the
church, which were completely destroyed. ma men who had been
stationed Inside the church were then brought out ; they acted with
perfect steadiers, and the people were called on to disperse quietly.
They answered with another &scheme of stones, which struck [several
men ; the whole body of police were then called forward, and directed
to clear the men from the field, which was done with much difficulty.
. . . . They were finally all cleared off. Information had been
sent at the commencement, desiring reinforcements. A eergesint and

men pollee mostaelee were wounded; many others WIN NMI& ;
and five were rendered unfit for duty. Eleven penman were appre-
hended; two for smaulting the police.
Now, sir, I have • great number of letters which have
been received from individuals resident in the neighbour.
bourhood, which fully corroborate the statements made by
the inspector of police ; amongst others from the IL v. Mr.
Houlton, the incumbent of S. George's Church, and from
Mr. Curtis, the superintendent of Victoria-park. I will
not trouble the house with all those letters, but I will just
refer to Mr. lioulton's statement, who has not complained
ctrtainly of the misconduct of the police, but who makes
complaint, the justness of which I cannot dens', of the great
danger and inconvenience which result from ihe police not
interfering earlier and more effectually. (Hear, hear.)
He says :
I beg to slate that yesterday (Sunday) afternoon, a very large
chartist meeting, amounting to some 7,00,. persons, was held in front
of ht. James's Church. The whole neighbourhood was kept In a state
zeiteinent Mau three,. Atk to ruilt-miu nine. A body 01 police
amounting to about o.eu were in the neighbourhood. . . .

- . .
present ilrerting of the navigation laws, and of their awn
mantes %stem of proteetkon, that as no mount world they
changewas them. Such the stridence
or coalt:. .Daalt and others bean thel oostatittee '• In
fact, Mr. Rubor stated that the American had a
direst advantage over an Eo merchastrnan in a foreign
port under the present. navigation laws of both nations.
Al far as the heavy bulky ern et which come fro the shores
of the Baltic, the navigation laws conferred no advantage
whatever upon England. But he was ready to admit that
any advantage derived by the abolition of those laws to the
commerce and shipping of the country would be very dearly'
purchased by any diminution in the number of seamen. It
was from the commercial navy of England that the country
derived her chief strength at sea. The great supply of
men for the British navy must always come from the mer
chant service. Having endeavoured, very feebly he wall I
aware, to combat the reasons of Ili, right hon, friend
against going into committee, he ahould content himself
with expressing his firm belief that the contemplated
change would be productive of good and not of harm
to the commercial navy and the general intereeta of
England. One remark he must, however, make to
that was, what hope could be intermitted of making
any progrt as in the proposed bill, which was to be
founded on the resolution, unless the government would
consent to lay upon the table of the house ttm entire measure
with all its details. If that were not done, how could people
be prepated to discuss it when the house went into commit-
tee on the bill in the middle of I uly, for that was the earliest
time at which it could reach the committee stage. lie must,
however, object to the power that it was proposed to reserve
of suspending the operation of the bill by the agency of an
order in council, in awe the American legislature should re-
fuse rr delay to agree to carry into t fleet the promises made
by Mr. Bancroft in the letter read by the right hon. gentle,
man opposite. Such a power was not constitutional, and
ought not to be vested in any government. The right hon.
'intone concluded by expressing his intention of voting for
:he committee.

Mr. CAItOW ELL imid that the hon. member for Stamford
proposed, by a preliminary motion, to puta stop at once to all
attempts at inquiry. For that reason alone lie (Mr. Cardwell)
must oppose the right hon. member's motion. Ile could not
conceive that •hipowuers or seamen had any reason to appre.
bend the competitt•.n of foreigner+ provided that in all things
they were put on terms of fair ■od perfect equality.
What were the true elements of maritime suc-
k as? Natural aptitude end hardihood in the people, and
the possession of a Large amount of capital (Hear, hear.)
Now, what country in the word would bear a comoarison
with the on either points (Hear, he►r ) The right hon.
member fur Stamford had said that in merely taking this
question into considenftion we were endangering sixty
millions of capital. Wu there any other country in the
world that hod the same amount engaged in shieping ( hear,
hear). And with such a capital what need we fear from com-
petition ? (Hear, hear.) lie had been told by men of con-
. side rable cape rienee, that ship building was so cheap in the
Adriatic, and the sailors so hardy, as to make competition in
that quarter an object of alarm. But he looked to the
port 01 Trieste, and he did not see in the accounts of British
ere there any ground for apprehension. He had heard
also that competition was to be apprehended from the Baltic;
but it he looked to our trade with Russia, or the position
maintained by British shipping in the free port of
Hamburg, he saw little cause tor apprehension in either quer-
ter. Ile found that our shipping had hren gradually in-
creasing. '1 he tonnage entering the pent of Liverpool, which
in Dilti was 612,000 tons, wa■ in 1841, 2,819,000 tons, and
of that increase two-thirds was British shipping. We were
greatly Weld of America, but it would appear that some
parties in that country reciprocated one alarm. Ile held in
his hand a document —a protectionist document—heing an
address delivered to the American Institute by Mr. O. Tule-
mull', who, he presumed, might be called the George
Fred. rick Young of America. Speaking of British tonnage
Mr. Tollemsche said, that the British tonnage en-
tering the Slates was, in 1830, 87.281 tons, but it had in
183.5 increased to 529.92'2 tons. On these astonishing facts
being communicated, Congress remarked that the existence
of such a trade, under such circurnstai.cee, was a remarkable
commentary on their (the American) want of sagacity in the
administration of their commercial concerns, and made a
: owerful appeal to the government to take some steps• so as
to prevent the traffic of the States being made subservient to
the interests of the British colonies. (clear, hear.) It
would a pear then that protectionist apprehensions
wire nut peculiar to this country•, and it was some
conifert to know that in our competition with American.,
the latter, even in their own country, hod no great grounds
for exultation. (Hear, hear.) By another report uf Con-
gress, he found that the whole registered tonnage of the
United States was, in 1815, h. 51 (100 tens. In 1818 it had
gone down, and sus only 606,000. In 1846 it again rue,
and was 1,130,000 tone. What had been the increase
in the registered tonnage of Great Britain in the
meatitime ? In 1821 it wu 2,500,000 tons; in 1846 it was
3,800,000. (firer, hear.) But from the American increase
something must be deducted for the fisherirs. The house
was swats that in war time no American vessels were em-
ployed in the fisheries, but on the estahlishme•nt of peace
they again made their appearance; and it would appear, if
we deducted the m from the whole tonnage, there had been
no iecreaset in American tonnage since 181.5. (Bear,
hear.) The right honourable member for Oxford had, in
the course of his powerful speech, read the declaration
of British shipowners in 1833, complaining of their prospects,
and bad shown by subsequent returns how little real cause
there was for fear. Ile ( Mr. Cardwell) would refer to the
mmmati•e of 1833, for the purpose of c►lling the attention of
the boo e to the evidence given by Mr. Aiken• of Liverpool,
• most extensive shipowner. Mr. Aiken admitted that there
was then some distress among the shipping interest, but did
not attribute it to the reciprocity treaties, the then subject of
apprehension. He was then asked whether, it the reetric-
tiolll were removed, be would prefer building his ships
abroad. His answer wan, no; there would be nothing saved,
as he should require different articles, which must he brought
from different and distant places. Mr. Aiken then prom ded
to show that the removal of the timber duties would be •
great boon to shipowners, and pointed out that, if they
were abolished, Liverpool and not Bremen would be the '
emporium of ship-building. He • concluded by ob•
serving that he did not fear anything from competition.
The question that now arose wu whether the measure of
the government was calculated to effect the objects for which
i. w..■ brought forward. lie agreed with his right hen.
friend that this was not the time to enter into the details of
the measure; at the same time there were some of the pro-
visions which, as they appeared on the face of it, it was very
difficult to reconcile with the principles and policy of Mr.
Iluskisson. For instance, while the right hon. gentleman
laid it down that the British shipowner was to enter into
fair and equal competition with the shipowners of all the
world, he imposed upon them an obligation as to the man-
ning of ships from which those with whom they would have
to compete were free. Again, with regard to the building
of ships in the Baltic and elsewhere they were told that the
shipowner would be allowed to build his ships where be
could do so at the cheapest rate, but the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had not told them that he was about to make
any semi ar prop. "Won with regard to the import of foreign
timber—and if he unde•ntood the proposition aright, the
result would be that the raw material of the ships was
still to be subject to a high duty, while the manufactured
ships were to be admitted free. Then the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed to exempt the coasting trade—not that it
was a matter of any great importance, ►ut because of the
alarm that a Dropout for opening that trade would occasion.
It world have been well had the r. itht hon. gentlemen suc-
ceeded in preventing alarm, but he believed that the pro
posed, he had brought forward had created very great con-
sternation amongst those interested in the shipping trade,
and that the exemption of the coasting trade had had no
effect whatever in preventing it. The general feeling was
that if they were going to establish freedom at all, they
should have looked for freedom from America in regard to
the coasting trade. These were the tenons why his
right honourable friend had urged on the govern.
ment to introduce measures in the way of reciprocity
instead of in the way of retaliation. He was surorieed
that no member of the government had as yet risen to
answer his right hon. friend's speech in that respect. (Hear,
hear.) lie wished to impress on minieters how it was that
they would fail in obtaining freedom and equality from the
manner in which their proposition was brought forward.
The hon. member for Westbury, referring to the tariff pre-
' vious to the year 1816, said " If you proceed on the princi
pies of reciprocity you will be making a retregrade step, for
the principle you then laid down was, that you would pay no
regard to what other nations did, but that you would do
what was right in regard to commerce, and leave ether OM,
tries to follow your example or not as they pleased. That
Was, without doubt, the principle then laid down as to im-
ports generally, ■od it was the correct one, for, if you took
the raw material of other countries, it was evident they
must take your manufactured goods in return—but the same
rule did not imply to shipping—for the same ship which
brought the raw material from the Baltic would
talee hack the goods which were to pay for it ;
and if the countries from which the raw material came
maintained an artificial system of protection against our
free system of trade in the matter of cal nage it must tend to
their advantage and our disadvantage. In this respect mi-
nisters were departing from the principle laid down by Mr.
Huskieson. It appeared to him that the same reason which
prevented their proceeding in the way of reciprocity should
prevent their proceeding in the way of retaliation ; and he
hoped some member of the government would explain how
it was that the obstacle in the way of reciprocity was not
equally an obstacle in the way of retaliation in regard to
those countries to which we were bound by the most.fa-
Toured nation-clause. lie, however, believed that the en-
gine' intention of ministers was to proceed in the way of
reciprocity, and that that was, in effect, the demand
made by Prussia and by America through Mr. Ban-
croft; and from the noble lord's (Palmerston) letter
in answer to the demand of that gentleman, he had a right
to assume that that was the way in which the noble lord
proposed to proceed, and not in a way in which, while certain
dangers were incurred under the retaliation clause, we shut
ourselves out from availing ourselves of the advantage we
might obtain from reciprocity. His right hon. friend (Mr.
Herne.) invited him, having those feelings, to join in
throwing an obstacle in the way of the bill. Ho would
state why he could not. In the first place, he must ►e
allowed to say that his right hon. friend's proposition ap-
peared to him to be very vague and indefinite ; and then the
evidence Wien before the navigation committee, and his
own experience when a member of the government, proved
to him the, the existing navigation' lure not only were full of
absurdities and anomalies, but in many instances actually in-
jurious to the British shipowner. And with regard to the fear
of foreign competition, it was a libel on the British name to
say thst we were not able to compete on equal terms with
any nation in the world. What the legislature ought to do
was to secure fair play and free companion—let there be
effectual freed-tti and unlimited means of intercourse, and
the greatcet amount of advantage would then be conferred
on British shipping and British trade. He bad only further
to express a hope that such • settlement of this question
might be effected during the presen. session as should secure

this Important intermit against injudkions changes for the
future, and plates it on a fins and satialsetory footing,
The CHANCELLOR of die EXCHEQUER agreed
that this was not the proper time to discuss the details of the
government measure. He could not understand on what
geaeral grounds the measure could be opposed, unless it
was to be contends,' that it was advantageous to this
country that we should enhance the price of those ar-
ticles we required for our manufactures. As to danger to the
shipowner, it was a fact, that wherever we were on terms
of fair and equal competition, we could com-
pete successfully with any country in the world.
The same might might be said of the shipbuilder. We built
ships as cheaply as America or any other country, and there
was no r neon why, it the trade w, re thrown open, we should
not be able to compete with other nations. He did not agree
with the hon. gentleman that it wax neat wary, in order to'
enable us to do so, to remove the timber duties. It had been
abundantly proved in the deba e that even with those duties
we were able to compete with the shipbuilders of every other
cuuntrv. The hon. gentleman also adverted to the incitation
given us by America and Prussia to relax our navigation
limo. Surely Proton had a right to demand from us the
same advantages she conferred; and as fur the United States
we would clearly be gainers by the proposed change; fat at
present they had the advantage over us in the carrying
trade. If the system of restriction were adopted, he believed
that we would lose much more than Prussia, into whose
ports, in 184 G, there entered no less than 2,000 1.1 h ships.
Our colonial trade stood upon a ditlerent footing, and it was
proposed to relax the restrictions on it, with a view not to
our own benefit, but that of the colonies themselves. (The
hon. gentleman entered into ,ome details to prove these po-
sitions, bat in so rapid and indietinet a manner, and amidst
so much noise in the house, as to render it impossible to col-
lect them with accuracy., With regard to reciprocity treaties
he admitted that much might be said in their favour.
The ministry thought at one time that they would
be the moat convenient mode of proceeding ; but the
more the government hail looked into the question,
and considered its difficulties, the more they felt satisfied
that it would not ; and they slowly, but with conviction, ar-
rived at the conclusion, that it would be better to legislate
upon general principles, reserving to themselves in special
cases, the power of retaliation. But, in reference to Ame-
rica and Prussia and the northern powers, who were, after
all, the competitors feared, if they threw open their ports to
us, we ought to throw open ours to them. Under the exist-
ing law, any foreign ship had the power to warehouse goods in
a British port; but the power of removing them for consump-
tion depended upon their coming in British ships ; so that it
a foreign ship lodged a cargo of Indian corn in one of our
warehouses, it could not, even in case of famine,
he taken out, without an order in council, and
such orders had frequently been issued. Ile might
refer to msny instances in which similar relax*
(ions of the law had been made by orders in council ; and
this proved that the proposition now made by the govern.
ment to retain the power of the Queen in council to impose
coun'ervailing duties was not new in the legislation of thin
country. These powers had been retained in the statute .59
Otis. 111., the 4 & 5 Geo. IV., and the 8 & 'J Vic., chap. 90.
The statute 4 & 5 Geo IV.presented a case precisely in point;
end it had been strictly followed in the present proposal.
From 1817 up to 1822 the United States of America were
not allowed by law to trade to the B h Vint India
colonies; but such American states as were then de-
pendencies of European powers might so trade. In 1822, how-
ever, an act pawed which fur the first time allowed
American ships generally to trade to the colonies. The
concession by the 15th section of the act of 1822 enabled
the K iog in council to prohibit, if he so thou. ht fit, by or-
ders in council, the vessels of any one of the American states
to trade with the colonica, if those states did not admit
British vessels to trade from their ports to the West Indies.
On this the Americans imposed tonnage dues on British
shine, and in consequ. nce the power., of the act of 1522 were
increased by an act paned in 1823, which enabled this coun-
try to impose additional tonnage duties not only on Ameri-
can ships, but also on the goods brought In those ships to the
West Indies. Three powers were further increased by the
act of 1824, and these powers had been aced upon with suc-
cess, and eventually in 1827 or 1828 the trade and vessels of
the two countries had been placed upon an equal foot-
leg. This showed the advantage of retaining amidst
the concessions now proposed, the powers hereto-
fore kept, and which it wee wlvienble to keep, in
order to exercise it, should any exceptional case arise.
As there would lie many future opportunities afforded
him, he would not now go further into the question than to
say that with all his old Admiralty experience, he could not
admit that the proposition of the government would have
an injurious effect with regard to the manning the British
navy. On the contrary, be believed there would always be
an ample supply to meet any demand, and that, as hereto-
fore, the military marine of this country would continue to
be superior to that of any other nation in the world.
Sir C. BURRELL should vote for the proposition made
by his right hen. friend near him (Mr. Berries.)
Mr. DISRAELI l after a long pause, during which the
cries for a dirt-ion were general, and after strangers had been
ordered to withdraw) rose and said that he understood that
several host. members who wished to take part in the debate
had left the house, in the expectation that it would be ad-
beurned lie should do his best to enable those hon. mem-
rs to fulfil the. ir intentions, by now moving that the debate
be adjourned.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he confessed be was sorry the de-
bate should be further protract., ; but he hoped, if it was
now adjourned. it would be on the understanding that it
would be brought to a conclusion to-morrow (this day). If
not, he should, instead of moving that the house adjourn fur
the Whitsuntide holidays, be compelled to move its adjourn-
ment to Monday next.
The motion for the adjournment of the debate until to-
' morrow (this day) was then put and agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Lord MORPETH moved the further consideration of the
report of this hill, hut
Mr. HENLEY objected to its proceeding at that late
hour, especially as several hon. members, including the hon.
■nd learned member for Coventry (Mr. 0. Turner), who
had left the how*, had new clauses to propose.
Lord MORPETH said those clauses could be di'cumed
on the third reading, which he did not propose to take until
after the Whitsuntide recess.

After • short conversation, in whi.h the Attorney-Gene-
ral, Sir H. Willoughby, and Mr. Walpole took part,
Lord MORPETH consented to postpone the tur:her con-
ridmation of the bill till this day.
Mr. WYLD asked whether it was the intention of the
noble lord, after giving up the smoke prevention clauses of
this bill, to adopt the bill for that purpose which had been
brought into th • other house by Lord Redesdale ?
Lord MORPETH said he was not prepared to say that he
would adopt the whole of the clauses of that bill.

Wawa Ms 'gate e( this. was allowed to Wawa with tha nob began to
throw eter4dUneesiggreller.
Awl he ea balitialt, ' me di ***Mir' of
leazik4 this par' . hot a"4 !° Ilio an
aim, mad ?" eat, tear.) Sir, i
hold ilk hand no lass tan ei -one loiters Ingo'
diff lithallalata 'of that d' t, with which, iof
mane, I sun not trouble the house—every one
bearirg concurrent testimony to 'the inconvenience
resulting from the.. meetings, and to the forbear's*, and