The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 27; 1849.

result had keen that a large increase in British shipping had
Wren plea.
Mr. HBRRIES said that the first clause which r: peeled
the 'Rioting act, end the present clause, which was in the
nature of a sareguard against the gadget of ether powers,
constituted the canoe of the present imam Nothing
showed more clearly tie nteemity of some provision &picot
the effect of the first clause than the number of prepositions
which had been ma le with • view to its modification. There
was the proposition of tie hoe. member for Kilmarnock. the-
preposition of the government, sad the intended proposition
of his right hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone). He regretted that
his right bon. friend should have absteined from makirg his
proposition to the house, because he thought that there were
some persons or some party in the house who would be dis-
posed to make of his proposition and of himself a tool, for
the purpose of stopping the progress of the bill. He could
moos his right hon. friend that he was greatly and
grievously mistaken if he supposed that he or any person with
what he had the honour of comma Leafing, bad the least
intention of stratagem. or of a deign to involve hie right
bon. friend in a atemma with regard to his vote
on the third leaning of the bill. It was not their
eject to impede or obstruct the bill by any factious oppcsi-
tion, but they should continue to give it a peremptory open
and direct opposition, because they believed it to be an lit-
advised and pernicious measure. With regard to the present
clause, he felt bound to Hula attached no importance whet
ever to it. It was a mere homage paid to the principle of
reciprocity. (Hear.) It wee indicative of a feeling that there
ought to be some such thing. It would do no good, and it
might possibly effect a great deal of evil. That part of the
bill which bad been withdrawn was the only pert of it b
which they might have made a tolerably good bargain with
the United States. If they got the coasting trade of the
United States in exchange for tt sir own coasting
trade, that would here ton an advantageous bar-
gain. But the United States would not agree to that,
and he feared that this was one of the mein reasons
why that part of the bill was given up when the colonial
trade, wh:eh the United States had been for centuries endea-
touting to obtain, was given up; when the long voyage, not
from America only, but from every other part of the world,
which they bad hitherto so jealously kept to themselves, was
resigned, what had they left to offer to the United States in
exchange for the emigre-1d mtrictioss which she imposed
on the trade of this country ; they left themselves nothing
to keep from the United State', in case that country refused
to mike them any return for the concessiosa given by the
present bill. The United States acted in • very different
spirit. for in • despatch written by Mr. Clay to Mr. Ganglier,
he aye, " whatever commercial privileges are granted to
foreign states by the United States, they WO blinded on
equivalents we hold out the principle of fair reciprocity to
all nations. We never have granted, nor do we profess to
bestow, commercial boons." (Hear, hear.) He must my,
that the statesmen' of the United States acted more wisely
than they in that respect. (Hear.)
Mr. M'GREGOR said he should wish to leave out this
clause altogether, but he knew it was a necessary one in the
bill as it stood. If one reason more than another determined
him to support the hill, it was that he thought every port in
Greet Britain 'mould be open, free of restriction, to the
United Stater, and that every port in the United States
should be open to England. Washington bad instructed
Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin to propose such • policy to the
government of this country. Mr. Pitt brought in a bill to
meet the view of the American government, and, though it
passed the first reading, it was afterwards abandoned, in
coneecienWea change of ministry, who followed a different
Poloy •
Mr. ROBINSON proposed to strike out the words "if the
shall think fit," in the 33rd line. Ho objected to leave any
discretionary power of retaliation in the hands of the go-
vernment in those eases where foreign states imposed any
duties en British chipping, after the concessions contained
in this bill were made.
Mr. LABOUCHERE apprehended that if the words " it
shall be lawful for her Majesty " remained, these words
would render it imperative on the executive government to
carry the principle into effect. Therefore he did not object
to the Urea of the motion ; but as the amendment involved
the whole principle of reciprocity, which bail already been
fully discussed, he hoped the hon. gentleman would not
press it. (Hear.)
Mr. OLADSTONE doubted whether the doctrine of the
right hon. gentleman was sound doctrine. He apprehended
that for parliament to say it shall be lawful for her Majesty
to do so and so was not a binding or obligatory power. In
regard to the crown, he certainly heard it laid down that
they did net carry a binding authority. (Hear, hear )
He could assure his right hon. friend near him
(Mr. Harries) that when he spoke of his in-
tention, and of the intention of bor. gentlemen
who acted with him to nes hies (Mr. Gladstone) and his
amendment as an instrument or tool, in order to deka the
bill, his meaning was not in the slightest degree inconsistent
with Ds as' open and straightforward opposition to it.
(Hear,. . i., However hon. gentlemen might differ from
his right non. friend respecting the bill, no one bad a right to
complain in the slightest degree of the time, mode, or de-
gree, in which he opposed it. Having proposed a plan in-
dependently of his right ben. friend and those who opposed
the plan of the government, all he said was that they in-
tended to Make use of it for the purpose of des • that
math» to which they were so opposed, and they •
perfect right to do so consistently with parliamentary
honour.

Mr. ROBINSON laid he should like to know the opinion
of her Majesty's Attorney-General as to the 'filet of the
words whisk he proposed to strike out of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENEB.AL thought that the inset,
ties of the words, " if she shell think At," would remove all
doubt tem the clause. The legal construction of the words
" k shell he lawful," would be held to be compulsory, ac.
swain le the context. But as there might be a doubt in
that uses, the words " it shall be fit" were tutroduced for the
purpose of removing the doubt.
Bir F. THICSIGER had no doubt at all, that if the words
were omitted the clause world still he a discretionary clause,
and nothing else.
After a few words from Mr. Bryant, the clause as
amended wss agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 were also agreed to.
Is clause 22 enabling the queen to reduce differential
duties in certain cuts,
Mr. WAWN proposed to insert in line 32 the words
" dot& dues."

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that at present her Majesty
was enabled to reduce light duties, harbour duties, and some
other charge in favour of a nation wi.h whose government
she had formed a treaty. There were some countries, par-
ticularly Spain and Brea, which were quite willing to
remit such duties, though the 7 would not enter into a con.
venti-n for that purpose ; and the object of the clams was to
cbviate the necessity for a treaty.
Mr. WAWN did not see why dock dues should not be
inserted as well as harbour duties and light duties.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought they did not stand on the
mine broad and national footing. The simple object was to
authorise the doing of that under import regulations
which was a' present only done under treaties.
Mr. WAWN observed that the crown had given away a
part of its property at Hull in order to secure dock accom-
modation, and it now received 80,0001. a year.
Mr. HENLEY thought this clause opened a very large
principle. If parties were liable to be injured in their pn-
vats rights by means of conditions entered into by the go.
cerement, some general law on the subject ought to be la-
traduced.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that under the 29 Geo.
I ll.e. 54, the government were liable to pay all additional dues
receivable on account of ships which cams under the fa-
voured nation clause. Under the clause now proposed the
same thing might be done without treaty.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that one point involved in the
clause seemed to be the uremia& of the public burdens. In
the cue of Spain and Brasil, the quantity of shipping would
be so email as to be hardly worth considering. He wished
to raise a point of some importance, though it was one of
form. A doubt had occurred to his mind whether the words
of this clause were sufficient to enable her Majesty to direst
charges to be laid on the Consolidated Fund. He weal
selimit the queetion to the Chairman. He thought it would
be assenary to move a preliminary resolution in a committee
let the whole house. -
The CHAIRMAN said that the point had already co I
eared to him, sad he was not prepared at that moment to
say whether the clause would be serf eeimt without a previous
resolution.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the clause had really no neon.
easy connelion with the bill. He would, however, with-
draw it for the present, arid U he found hereafter that he
weld do fro he would brie, it ferward again. He might
frossider it aecessary to take a resolution of the whole house.
The clause war then withdrawn.
Clauses 23 to 28 inclusive were then agreed to.
On claim 29, providing for a declaration of British owner-
ship, beieg proposed,
Mr. GLADSTONE said this appeared to him a very
questionable provision. If a vessel were owned by subjects
of different countries in common it could not be registered.
He did not see why the ride should be so stringent. To
him It appeared quite sufficient if the majority of the shares
were held by British subjects.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that practically such a provision
would DO doubt be evaded. The shares of the Steam Nati-
ratios Company were owned by subjectsof various countries.
Then war, indeed, an *abetment to prevent foreigners from
bottling shares in a British vowel ; but the difficulty was got
over by the feet that the company was a corporation, and
therefore one and indivisible. It was, however, a great
anomaly that while all the shares in the Steam Navigation
Company might happen to be held by foreigner., a foreigner
could not hold a hundredth share in a British brig or
sloop.
Mr. HUTT felt satisfied that British ships were owned to
a considerable extent by foreigners. The clause if passed,
would be extensively evaded. His chief objection to it was
that it would 'restrict the market far the sale of British ship-
ping. He thought foreigners should be allowed to hold
shares in British vessels, provided the larger proportion
were held by native owners.
Mr. LABOUCHERE believed they were all agreed that
a vestal which sailed nada the character of a British ship
should be, as far as possible, British owned. (Hear, hear.)
He believed no practical inconvenience would arise from the
insertion of the clause. By attempting to define what pro-
pardon of the owners should be British, they would get into
difficulties,. He was quite prepared to coaster any amend-
ment which might be suggested, though he had none to
suggest himself.
Mr. W. BROWN thought it would be quite sufficient to
give • British character to a vessel, if the captain and the
mate were Briish.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that any provision which
might be paned would be greatly evaded. Still he thcught
that a vessel, hoisting the British flag, and entitled to Bei-