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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1848.

in documents and speeches, had passed law a which had affected
elm great interests of the country. (Hear.) Owiog to an
„limited confidence in thew documents and elates:tents, sad
is tee statistical genius of the age, they hail been hurried
into acts which -had already troubled the country to its
emtre and tilled it with dismay and consternation. He th-
gutred sot the source of the hon. gentleman's information ; he
tasted the waters before, and greatly suspected that he
geed his goblets from the tainted fountains of the /loud of
vac (Hear, hear.) There had been already some die •
Asian on the authorities of that department, and an ample
vindication was promised ; he therefore made no attack on
say one. Since Mes
h. Porter had been examiaed before the
Rouse of Lords, he ad been again summoned, and crus-
e:awned on time points relating to these documents; and
that examinttion was u follows
theetivo In • previous answer you give a atatement of the pm-
of Brithh ,htppinitt; you show as increase of 10th to er 1,121 of
tom you were lid to the inference that there was a much
urger increar4 m Windt tonnage than In American: hut, if the cons.
mince understand your statementkiow, the inereaw In the one loan
twitter upon the whole of the 11rItish tonnage, end the increas
upon the ether is an Mercier only upon part of the American ton-
me, l-Anower It is eon (Ilear.l-tletatin: Consequently, these
two are sot to betaken as compared, as showing in uny degree the
nanperatlre Wrest* of 'Minato over American tonnage t-A•awer
ceeponly not. (Ileaq -Lineation : Have you any means of making
she couTglieMicernct y -Answer : I am not sure that I have.
It was n it he who tutroduced these elemeets into the de-
bate. lie did not think that the oost of a ship in Sunder-
land had anything to do with the quedinn. Still less did
ke care for those returns, except that they were part and
parcel of the system.. (Neu, hear.) He had seen that
mighty tribunal, the poor law commisoion, sink before a
defence sustained by such returns. Ile thought that no
Man could deey that there was a bias in the officials of the
Board of 'froth, and that they were always prepared with
a eOneenient return for any minister, no matter bow preposter •
oils the ,clietne, which he wished to propound. (Cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman the President of the Boast of Trade
bad not only made a speech, which was always a dangerous
laugh)-but what was still more perilous, he pub-
lished it-(loud laughter)-and in that speech be divided
the quesi ion into tour heads. He called fur vela change in
the first place on account of the colonies, and upon that
point he is mainly was not rich in evidence-consistieg an it
did of a memerial, of a suspicious character, from Jamaica,
an sxtract nom the despatch of the governor of another
island, and a document addressed to the Assembly
of Canada. Such was the evidence, the whole
printed cc idence, of the government to make out the colohisl
case, and considering that the sun never set upon the British
empire, he felt justified is saying that it wee decidedly
meagre. (A laugh.) The island of Antigua was said to
demand a rept al et the navigation laws ; but when asked
why, the reply, according to the evidence, was, that every-
thiug bee. nary ter the mother country had been changed,
and they did not see why they should not have a trial at the
same game. Their opinion, therefore, was, it may ruin the
shipping intense, ano may not benefit us ; but what of that,
let us hove a trial. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman then
Quoted some returns, and argued that it was impossible to
show that the colonies were suffering from these laws. It
was said by some hon. gentlemen that the navigation laws
had been changed a hundred time, and they made that fact
the hasis of the argument that we ought to do away with
them altogether ; but he drew from it exactly the reverse
conclusion, namely, th those laws, in te course
of two hundred years,at baying been gradually and
frequently improve 1, instead of being priudicsd
against them, we ought to assume that they were
in a state adopted to the necessities of the times. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer said that they were even suspended
last year-so had been the Bank Charter Act. (Cheers.) If
be was &eked if those laws were just in principle anus advan-
tageous in their results, he would point to the effects of the
long e..yege which employed our sailors, thus benefiting our
maritime interests, and which so much added to the com-
mercial character of the nation. The only cases opposed to
the principle of long voyages were purely exceptional. The
secretary of the Landon Docks, on being examined a few
days since on the subject of those laws, was asked if he as a
merchant was desirous of repealing or modifying them, and
he said he was tot ; and in reply to a further
question, he observed that there existed no desire
of change amongst the City people. (Hear, hear.)
Having dispoeed of two points, he would now allude to
the third and remaining one-the indirect carrying trade.
The argumeut used against them on that point was a
practical one-namely, that it was impossible for them to
monopolist the indirect carrying trade. The right hon.
gentleman, although he spoke very like a person who had
been menaced, did not exactly say that a menus had been
made ny Prussia; but the late Vtax-President of the Beard
of Trade, who was in the secrets of the government, let the
cat out of the bag, and admitted that the Board of Trade
was ill the habit of receiving threatening notices.
(Laughter.) Let them see what Prussia could do in that
respect. The hon. gentleman here read at some length the
evidence given before the Lords' committee by Mr. W.
Tynaall, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. ?owlet, to the effect that
it wee completely out of the pewee of Prussia to retaliate
on England. (Hear, hear.) Then the right hon-
ourable gentleman said that Au.erica would give
us a little if we gave them a little, and that
she would give us much if we gave her much. Why that
language of the United States involved the very principle of
reciprocity which the government &bander ed. (Cheers) It
was a rich treat to tee the President of the Board of Trade
asking the House of Commons to assist the government in
passing a law because it would It ad to reciprocity with the
United States, when the government keel* acknowledged
that they could not enter into any reciprocal arrangements ;
but it would be still richer to see a minister who gave up the
principle of reciprocity coming down at some future time to
advocate tae principle of retaliation. (Hear, hear.) That
would be one of the most extraordinary specimens of official
logic ever presented to a wondering House of Commons.
(Laughter.) But it would seem that both the late govern- '
ment and the present one were in favour of the system of
reciprocity, and at the same time ignorant of the existence of
treaties which marred all their intentions. Now, if
both the government which was and the government
which existed were in favour of reciprocity, and both
ignorant of the difficulties they had to contend with in that
respect, did they not think that it would be more prudcnt to
keep the present system till her Majesty's government bad
made themselves a little better acquainted with the facts and
matured their position a little more ? (Lend cheers and
laughter.) Tae whole thing proved that the measure was
crude sin its conception, and that it was tampering and mi.
fling with the national interests; because there was nothing
more fatal than the recklessness of ignorance. (Loud cheers )
Everything else might be endured-even the tyranny of men
who had a system. (Laughter.) They might establish
despotism and yet preserve order ; but a cabinet who called
on them to legislate without a knowledge of the circum-
stances could only produce legislative anarchy which must
eventually plunge the commercial and political interests of
the country intro inextricable confusion. (Loud cheers.) He
could easily conceive the state of blank surprise in which
the new Vice-President of the Bard of Trade found him-
self with the bland smiles of Mr. Bancroft on
one side, and the bowl and dagger of the Chevalier Bunsen
on the other. (Laughter.) They were not opposed to
going into committee quit committee ; but when they were
told by the minister that they were going into committee for
the purpose of abrogating the navigation laws, it was a
mockery to tell them that it was for the purpose of consider-
ing them. (Hear.) They did not object to go into commivee
to improve the navigation laws, but they objected to go into
committee to abrogate them. (Hear, hear.) Now, one word
with regard to the question of the national defence' ; be-
cause he did not mean to enter at that time of the night into
the evidence et that very ingenious person Sir J. Stirling,
who had a plan for manning the fleet withoutaman. (Much
Laughte-.) Nor was he going to sing, " Rule Britannia,"
for fear of distressing the bon. member for the West Riding.
(Loud cheers) lie would merely read a communication
front Jamaica, which appeared is the New liork Sun, dated
the 12th of April. It stated that even in Jamaica symptoms of
discontent showed themselves ; that while" Rule Britannia"
was received with solemn silence in the theatres, " Yankee
Doodle" was loudly called for. (Laughter.) To-night, they
had again heard " Yankee Doodle" loudly called for, but
be hoped, though loudly celled for, that it would never be
encored in that twine. (Laughter.) The late vice-president
of the board of trade, in a glowing peroration, dwelt with his
usual ability on the bleseings of peace, and called the pre-
sent age the age of commerce, of peace, and of internal
improvement. It was surprising how men differed, but his
idea was that these were not the characteristics of the age in
which they lived. (" Hear, hear." and laughter.) If instead
of commerce he said it was the age of no trade, if instead of
pence he said it was the age of intended war, and if instead
of internal peace he said it was the age of communist
bands puling up railways, he would be near the
truth. (Hear, hear,) Notwithstanding the announce-
ment of the millennium and the reign of universal peace
which they had been promised Tet short time ago, the
could not help thinking, after all that had occurred,
with Naples in a state of siege, Paris is insurrection, Vienna
in revolt, and Berlin barricaded, with four pitched battles
fought in eight weeks, and the Baltic and Adriatic alike
blockaded-that the hon. gentleman, the member for the
West Riding, was not now so devoted a believer in thequies
genfium sine armies. (Hear.) He did not pretend to lay
any blame to the present power which distingutshed the hon.
gentleman and his school, yet, sometimes in reading the past,
one may find some instructive monitor for the conduct of the
present and the luture and in doing so-in reading the his-
tory of this country-he found no reason to withdraw his
allegiance from that military power in England which had at
the same time created empire and cherished liberty. (Cheers.)
And amidst the fall of thrones and the crush of empires, he
knew of no circumstance mere remarkable than the strange
an archy and demoralisation of those vast armies which ones
were considered the best security and the mainstay of those in-
stitntions-when they saw the great military powers of France
and Austria deserting their masters in thew need, what
Englishman could regard with other feelings than pride and
satisfaction that our legions reposed upon the deep. (Cheers.)
lie at least would not incur the responsibility, even by his
humble vote, of endangering that empire which had been
gained by so much valour, and guarded with so much vigi.
lance-that empire which' was broader than both the Ame-
ricas, and extended farther than the farthest Ind-that em-
pire which had been foreshadowed by the genius of a Blake,
and consecrated by the blood of a Nelson-the empiee of the
seas. (Much cheering.)
Mr. WILSON explained that the returns he had quoted
of tonasge in 1824 and in 1846, were, in both cases, the ton-
uge inwards end outwards.
Sir R. PEEL, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
said, that if he could acquiesce in the opinion of the noble
lord and those who agreed with him, that the experience
of the last two years had been sufficient to demonstrate the
impoliry of those principles on which, in the years 1842 and
1846, the commercial tariff of this country was revised and
regulated, he should not be surprised at their coachtsion' not
to apply those principles to our commercial marine; but,
notwtthstanding the experience of the last two years, his
opinion remained unshaken (laughter from the protectionist
party, and cheers from the ministerial benches) as to
the principles by which our commercial intercourse

with other nations should be regulated. (Hear.) If they
would reject from consideration the peculiar combination of
circumstances which had prevented a fair trial of the print[-
pies established in the years he referred to—it they '
would entirely omit from their consideration that, in
addition to any other causes of commercial derange-
ment, all operating simultaneously not only in our
own country but an every other country in Europe
with which we had maure's' dealings, they had bean
visited by famine—if they would omit from toeir considera-
tion that that surplus capital which was heretofore applicable
to the procuring of luxuries or conveniences was now
necessarily applied in averting the sufferings which famine
engendered—tf they would reject all these considerations, it
was easy to draw that conclusion. (Hear.) But it was in
cumbent on them in that case to show in what respect there
was a connexion is the present sufferings of this country,
which he admitted and deplored, and the principles on
which, in the tariffs of 1842 and 1846, they had proceeded.
(Hear.) It was not because we bad admitted rho raw
material for our maaufacturea without duty. (Oh, oh.)
His opinion might be erroneous, but surely those who
thought so showed no confident» in the strength of theirs if
they had no better answer to give than boisterous clamour.
(Cheers and cri aof " Oh.") The principles on which they
had acted in 1842 and 1846, an the first place, re-
moved restrictions from commerce, sad, by diminishing the
duty on the raw material, enabled our manufacturers to
enter into competition with their foreign rivals with great
comparative advantage; they simplified the commercial code
as to the entry of all articles of food and manufacture. No
one could say that the tariffs of 1812 and 1846 injuriously
affected the country in these respects. (Hear.) It might
be answered en far tney were wise, but they were
wrong in a :mitting foreign manufactures in corn-
oetition with our own in this country. (Cheers from
the protectionists.) That was the ground of objection.
Every article of foreign manufacture, introduced under
those tariff:, it was said, had thrown out of employment
thousands of our own countrymen, who would else I. en-
gaged in manufactures of the same kind. (Hear, hear.)
Why, what a doctrine was that fur this great manufactur-
ing nation? (Ministerial cheers ) A country exporting
58,000,0001. a year in declared value of its own manufac-
ture., and which, by the export of those masufactures, was
interfering with tne employment of every country in the
world. If every molar, were to adopt that view, they would
look upon us, instead of as the benefactors of mankind,
es the greatest impediment to human happiness. (Hear.)
We imported perhaps to tho extent of &million a year of silk
gloves, woollen, end cotton manufactures; and were the
countries which sent those articles here to bo denounced
because they threw out of employment a certain number of
artisans here, who might else be employed ? But in esti-
mating the quantity of foreign goods admitted under the
tariffs of 1842 and 1846, they must not forget the quantities
which previously came in in an illegitimate manner. The
increase in the imports of those articles was only apparent.
We exported 1,5!00,0001. of brass and copper menu
factures, 1,000,0001. of earthenware, 17,000,0001 of
cotton good., 6,000,0001. of cotton yarn, betides large
quantities of woollen, linen, silk, and other manufac-
ture, interfering with the industry of other coun-
tries in every direction ; and yet we were now to condemn
other countries because they asked to be allowed to supply
us in some subordinate and inferior degree in come of those
few articles which they could produce cheaper than our-
selves. It was impossible to assign the distress under
which some of our operatives were undoubtedly labouring
to these imports. Let them look to the progressive increase
in our exports under free trade, and let them not suppose we
were ruined because, from a combination of ex-
traordinary circumstance., distress existed in this
country. Teeing the first five years from 1827
our average export. were 37,000,0001., during the next five
years they were 43,000,0001., in the following five years they
were49.ooo,oool.,and in the last five years they had increased
to 55,000,0001. (Cheery.) And in the last year, 1847, • year
of severe depression, they were 58,971,0001. And yet it was
said that the principles of free trade bad failed, that we did
nothing but import, and that we had to purchase our imports
with gold. (Cheers, and tie. of " Question.") The expe-
rience of the last two yearn had served to convince him that
it was in a diminished price of food, and the gua-
routes for its continuance, that we must rest our
hopes of increasing prosperity. (Cheers.) The government
now 'roused that the house should listen to • proposal for
considering the navigation laws with a view to extensive and
important improvement. lie thought they had arrived at
a period when it was desirable to consider this motion
seriously. When he looked to the positioe of our colonies, in
the abrogation of the principles of free trade from their pro-
duce, the state of many European countries which claimed
from us the lame advantages in navigation we insisted on
with them—to our reciprocity treaties and the multitude
of conflicting claims ariong out of them—and to the muti-
lated and than, red state of the navigation law as it ex-
fisted, he found many reasons for taking that law into
consideration. The speech of the hon. member for Bucks
had scarcely touched the question. If he could have shown
that the relaxation of the navigation laws would diminish
our means of national defence, and endanger the national
security, he thought, differ', g in this respect from the hon.
member for the West Riding, that a powerful, perhaps a
fatal objection, might be urged against sacrificing the
national mem ity tesny interest. (Hear.) But it wae neces-
sary for those who maintained that view to show that
these laws did conduce to that end. The amendment called
upon them to maintain the fundamental principles of the
navigation laws. Now what were those principles? The
navigation laws were established to destroy the maritime
power of the Dutch; but what was their effect? To
give the Dutch a direct advantage over us in
the intercourse with the United States. (Hsu.)
Therefore they gave these formidable competitors the whole
trade of the United States. (Hear) Now, the principles
of the navigation laws, as laid dawn by Adam Smith, applied
to the coasting trade, the fisheries, the carrying trade, and
colonial intemmrse. The coasting trade and haberies were
to be preserved by government. At present the carrying
trade was reserved for British vessel., or for foreign vessels
carrying the produce of their respective countries. The
right hon. gentleman said that he bad conferred with Mr.
Huskisson ; and that he was ready to carry reciprocity
further than it was carried now. Why, there was no
!treater breach of the fundamental principles of the naviga-
tion laws than that very system of recipe city ; and bow
could the right hon. gentleman ask them to preserve the
fundamental principles of the navigation laws, when he him-
self admitted that he had laboured day and night with Mr.
liuskisson, and was even now prepared still further, to un-
dermine the very principles he was so anxious to uphold ?
(Cheers.) lie observed the right hon. gentleman shake his
head ; but be would convince him at once by, the arguments
of thou on whom he himself relied, that reciprocity treaties
were breaches of the fundamental principles of the navigation
laws. Mr. Young was asked before the committee if he
thought the British shipowners sufficiently protected? lie
replied, " No ; Lis protection was invaded by the reci-
procity treaties." Mr. Richmond, another very able wit-
ness, said that " lie could not consider the navigation laws
afforded the shipowners much protection. They were com-
pletely mutilated by the reciprocity treaties. Every treaty
took something away. He could not have conceived that
teose treaties left eta little of the navigation laws as
he found remaining. In fact those laws were virtually
repealed." And yet in the face of this the right hon. gen-
tleman came do e n there and exhibitea his " fundamental
principles"—(loud laughter)—and asked them to pass an
instruction to the committee that those principles should be
observed. (Cheers.) Well, then, as to the colonial inter-
course. When Adam Smith wrote on that point, about
1775, he did not foresee the reparation of America and the
circumstances which had since occurred. From that period
scarcely a year had passed without an infringement of their
" fundamental principles." And he must here observe, that
on the occasion of every such infringement there was pre-
cisely the same Port of outcry of " ruin to the shipowner."
(H, ar.) In 1782, when they wished to admit Ireland to
participation in the colonial trade, the shipowners loudly
complained ; and those of Liverpool, in a petition which
they addressed to that house, declared that, if any such
thing were permitted, Liverpool must inevitably be reduced
to its original insignificance." (" Hear," and laughter.)
So it was in 1825, when the house not acting on
theories, but driven by the necessity of the case—for the
question mu reciprocity or retaliation—adopted the principle
of reciprocity treaties. So it was on every other occasion
when relaxations were adopted. In 18.33 the Shipowners'
Society absolutely declared that "the declining quality and
extent of British tonnage, the embarrassment, decay, and
ruin of the British shipowner was now an incontrovertible
position." (" Hear," and laughter.) Be it to: that was
proof that they ran no risk in modifying these laws.
But the fact was, the Shipowners' Society was wrong. In
1833, when " the decay and ruin of the British ehipowner
was an incontrovertible position," the British tonnage on the
register was 2,634,000 tone, whilst in 1846, under the appli-
cation of free trade principles, it was 3,817,000 tons.
(Hear, hear.) What, too, did Mr. Richmond lay? "I am
sure," he said, " that I do not exaggerate when I de-
clare that half the capital embarked in shipping during the
last 25 years has been lost, and that the other half is to •
very great extent totally unproductive of profit." He was
certain Mr. Richmond would not say a word he did not be-
lieve. He took his statement as a great authority ; and if
that was the .moat of what protection had done for the
shipowner, surely there was nothing in the statement to
show that it would not he for his benefit that there should
be a change. Could that change be made for the benefit of
the merchant, the capitalist, and the manufacturer, without
injury to the shipowner, or to the naval superiority
of the country ? If it could not, he dropped the whole
question ; but he thought it capable of proof that it could.
141836, the tonnage of this country was 2,792,000 ; in 1842,
3,81,9,000; in 1847, when free trade ought to have been
fatal, 3,952,000. Our seamen numbered in 1814, 117,000;
in 1827, 151,000 ; in 1842, 214,000 ; in 1847, 232,000. It
was in the extent of our commercial marine and
the number of our seamen that our main re-
liance was placed in war. As to impressment
that system applied equally, whether the navigation laws
were maintained or not. But had not the time arrived when
it was incumbent on them to consider
atio
whether it would be
possible ever again to put that system into opern. (Hear,
hear.) Let them consider the changes which had taken
place in our naval as well as our C7mmercial marine. After
a long peace it might be expected that the men serving in
our commercial marine would be much less qualified
to perform the duties of a man-of-war than the men
who served in merchant vessels only during the short inter-
vals of peace. Then consider the progress steam navigation
had made--how little reliance could be placed on their tieing
able to work steam-vessels by men taken by chance from our
merchant-ships. The value of impressment, therefore, was
much reduced • but in either case, as he said before, the
value of that system would depend upon the strength of our
commercial mama. Now what would be the
fears?effet
of a change upon that branch ? What did we
The member for Buckinghamshire, said of the Baltic ports,
that they were closed by the ice during tour months of every
year. they
our highly-favoured position with that of
thou cluntriee ? (Hear, bear.) Take France, France

had a strict nrieratioa law. Had it improved her commer-
cial marine ? (Hear, hear.) Did it no', on the contrary,
suggest a doubt whether naval superiority did not depend
on the habits, pursuits, inclinations, and associations of a
people rather than ot. any code r f laws whatever. (Much
cheering) Then, as to the United States : new there was
examined before the committee upon this subject a Captain
Briggs, " hailing," as they c di it, from Baltimore, hat who
mu employed as the master of a liner between the United
States and this country. Captain Briggs was as good a witness
as he ever saw. He was examined as to any. cir-
cumstances which could entitle our shipowners to
any protection as ageing the shipowners of the U cited States.
Ile was esker! what were the wages of shipwrights in the
United Slates. He answered 10.. a day. Our wages were
only 6.. a day. If they relied, therefore, on the argument
that the Norweigan ves•els could be built at a much lees
price than our own on account of the lower wages of the
shipwrights, they had at least no cause to fear the United
States. Capt. Briggs was then ermined as to wages.
He was asked how much he paid American seamen f
He replied 64.. a mcnth. ile was baked it he always em-
ployed American seamen. He re pled no; that he came to
Liverpool and engaged British seamen to whom he paid 50s.
a month. W.ll, then, there was at once a difference be-
tween English and Americas vessels to the extent of 14s. in
favour of our awn country. Then as to ship.building : let
them see whether there eras a chance of our being able to
compete with the Unit, d States. The evidence of Capt.
Briggs was to the effect that, for shipbuilding pur-
poses, the Americans obtained canvas and copper
from England and cordage from Russia, but paid
10 per cent. more for it than the English. Shipwrights'
wages and those of seamen were hither, and timber was
nearly on an equality. Under all these circumstances. what
fear wan there of competition with America / (Hear, hear.)
Capt. Briggs also Mae d as his opinion that we could build a
twelve year ship se cheaply iii England as they could a ten
years' ship in America. But the Ames icans had tome ad-
vantages. They ha , advantages in the greater intelligence
and activity of the masters, and in the temperance
and morality of their examen,—but in none of
these points had we any sight to claim protec-
tive laws. (Hear.) Take, then, the can of our colonies.
If freight could he had cheaper at New York than at Mon-
treal how much longer could we resist she claim of Canada fur
the removal of the present rest, ictions (lieu., hear.) On the
grounds he had rat, d ha had come to the conclusion that
the time had come for the consideration of the navigation
lows with a view to their extensive alteration. With respect
to the policy of • repting our emoting •rade, and also that
of obliging our ship owners to h +ye their vessels threeeeurtha
mann, d with British eubjects, he should ri serve himself for
a future menden. On the question of reciprocity treaties,
he thought it was deserviog of consideration, whether they
were not r themselves often causes of great ernharressmint.
They appeared perfectly fair and easily managed in theory.
but when they came to be reduced to practice, they
often gave rise to questions of very great difficulty. In his
opinion, the great advantage lay in independent legislation
on these matters. He feared that the power proposed to be
Riven to thecrown of re-estetilehing restrictions atter a trade
hod 0111,e been opened would lie must difficult in operation. It
looked very like inverting the usual ord. r of theconstitution.
The House of Commons would r. lax while the crown would
restrain, and he I. red that that was a position which the
crown wont: find difficult and unpleasant. (Hear, hear.)
He thought it would be much better to give a temporary
force to the act. Suppose it were sent back to the Howie of
Commons at the end of five years, would not that he better
than a continual multiplication of treaties ? Ile should
advise those gentlemen who were anxious to exclude all
improvement to consider the great truth, that the prosperity
of a commercial marine di pended, not ~n a navigation law,
but on the proseerity of our m inufacturec Whatever tended
to promote the prosperity of your commerce and manufac-
tures could not fail to he beneficial to your shipping interest.
Great reliance had been placed on the authority of Mr. Has.
kiseon, but instead of r, lying on any particular dictum of
Mr. Huskisaon they should look to the great principles he
had laid down, and which were of universal application.
Having quoted at some length Mr. Iluskisson's opinion asto
the advantages of Gradually removing all restrictions from
our colonies, and citing the advantage which relaxation had
proved to India, the right hon. baronet concluded by saying
that our duty to our colonies was, to bring them as much r
possible into contact with the nations of Europe. and to
abandon that principle which had heretofore regulated the
conduct of all countries with rep ct to their colonies—that
of making their interests subservient to those of the mother
country. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the necessity of going into
detail was obviated by the excellent speech of the right hon.
baronet. (Hear, hear.) lie was also relieved from the
necessity of replying in detail by the fact that in several
speeches on the opposite aide, of two hours duration, while
there was much of sarcasm and investigation, there was very
little which had any reference to the navigation laws.
(hear, hear.) The noble lord who had opened
that evening's discussion had argued as if we dealt
with other countries merely for the purpose of serving those
countries. (Hear, hear-) He had spoken of our taking ice
from the American people as if we did it solely to oblige
them. (A gentlemen on the opposite side said " Rice.")
Well, ice or rice, we took either to •übserve our own in-
terests, and for no other reason whatever. In fact, it
seemed to him that the necessity of removing these restric
tions was so obvious as not to require that he
should detain the house any time in discussing it.
The whole question turned upon whether these laws were
essential to our naval supremacy. They were designed by
Oliver Cromwell as a means of injuring a rival power; but
it was doubtful whether the Prot. ctor, if he were present to
night, would vote for an amendment which went to pro-
hibit the descendants of the puritans in America from trading
with the sons of their common ancestors in this country.
The noble lord denied that, taking into consideration the re-
lative Nair of the work done, the coat of shipbuilding in
this country was materially higher than it was elsewhere;
and certain it was that, despite every disadvantage,
imposed upon it by our present system, British shipping com-
peted, and successfully, with foreign chipping in the carrying
trade. He contended that already the reciprocity treaties
which we had formed with various nations had virtually
abrogated our navigation laws, as far as those nations were
concerned. He considered that the removal of the
restrictions imposed by what practically remained of our
navigation laws would, so far from injuring our commer-
cial marine, early benefit it. He regarded the attack made
by Mr. Disraeli upon Mr. Potter and other ornate of the
Board of Trade as altogether unworthy of the honour-
able member, reflecting that all those gentlemen
had done was in obedience to tittle public duty, and in pur-
suance, at the lame time, of their conscientious private
judgment; and, moreover, that they were not able to attend
there to answer their assailants. (Hear, hear.) Re felt
that it was the high mission of the house to act up to the
knowledge of the times, to draw closer the amity of nations,
and to give proof that England was equal to the destinies
that awaited her. (Cheers.)
The house divided—For the amendment 177
Against
The house then went into committee, the resolutions
were agreed to and reported to the house, and the bills were
brought in.
The house then, at a quarter to three o'clock, on the
motion of Lord J. Roscoe, adjourned to Thursday, the
15th instant.

ELECTION COMMITTEE —YESTERDAY.
DuaLuc—Thecommitteegavetheirdecision respect-
ing the rate collector. They declined committing him, but
desired him to be more cautious in future. The scrutiny was
proceeded with, and one sots was struck off.

mita the chief grievance on which that movement is
founded. But no; the middle class of this country
are too selfish, too divided, too fond, each of them, of
hugging his own grievance, to lend any efficient
support to the general one. Look at the Corn-Law
League, ssith the Times, would that have ever
prospered if it had not been a wealthy class, who saw
material profit in the agitation, and who had " a per-
sonal interest in this particular concession ?' "
The wealthy mercantile class of the country have,
however, as is pretended, no interest in reform, and
none whatever in economy, in a rescue of the repre-
sentation from the hereditary aristocracy, and of the
high government ii.fluence from the House of Lords.
That house is about to reject the repeal of the navi-
gation laws, and is determined to prohibit the RoTns-
CHILDS and GOLDSMIDTS from ever sitting in the
Commons. There is no wealthy class of Englishmen

who have an interest in its reform.
But if the Times has no sentiments save those of
contempt and despair for the middle class and their
theories, it has a very great respect for the political
demands of the lower class. Chartism is formidable!
and respectable in the eyes of the Times. It aims,
forsooth, at a " prac'lest amelioration," towards which,
it seems, the reformers do not strive. There is common
sense and feasibility in chartism, none whatever in re-
form. Therefore, if the government is to choose which it
should listen to, the middle or the lower classes, or
to which agitation it should make concessions, de-
cidedly these concessions should be made (or promised)
to the chartists. Such is the political philosophy of
the Times, that safe journal, in the year 1848.
Now it appears to us, that in all this tine spinning
out of words and twisting of ideas, there is not a
grain of either truth, sense, or fairness. There is no
set of men in the world, past or present, who are
more open to the sacrifice of even their practical in-
terests, to what they consider conscience, than the
middle class of Englishmen. There is no nation,
that has ever been so ready to sacrifice material
wealth and enjoyment to religious scruples, for ex-
ample, as the English, and not merely to religi-
ous screples, but to homane ones.
Let any one peas in review the principles and the
questions which have most agitated and interested the
English public during the last half or whole cen-
tury, to begin with negro emancipation, and to en
with the parlamentet}, reform of 1831 ; and he will
find that "private and personal interest" had no in-
fluence whatever. On the contrary, it was a public,
a humane, a religious, a sentimental interest, if you
will, which animated all clever' in this country.
Take especially the reform cry of 1831. Who had
so very personal an interest in the carrying of that
bill, for which, nevertheless, the country was wild ?
Indeed, as to the interests in it, we have but to look
at its consequences. Has the reform parliament
practised more economy than the non-reform
parliaments ? Quite the contrary. has it de-
stroyed the monopoly and the paramount
influence of the aristocracy ? It has not.
Has it advanced the men, the talents, or the ideas
of the middle and mercantile classes to power? In
no perceptible degree. Where, then, were the "pri•
vats anclpensonal interests" which carried the Iteform
Bill? Far from such motives having been influen-
tial, the agitation for the Reform Bill was for an
abstract principle, from a pure love of fairness and
justice rather than from any calculation of what was
to be gained.
And thus it is with the new reform. No one sup-
porter of it contemplates what he shall gain. But all
are so disgusted with the monopoly and corruption
and imbecility, which reign, and which a genuine
reform would remove, that the outcry is raised, not
in. selfishness, but in common shame.
If a demos in human shape were sent down at
' this moment to present to Englishmen a doctrine
most likely to prove their ruin, that demon could not
choose a theme more in his infernal character than
to allege that chartism should be looked to and re-
spected, whilst the reform proposed by the middle
class party should be scoffed. Yet suck is the preaching
of the Times. It coincides completely with the theories
of the most dangerous French rev,lutionists, the bur-
den of whose declamations is, contempt of the bour-
geoisie as a selfish, a mutually jealous, and incapable
class, whilst everything generous, and efficient, and
great, is represented as likely to emanate solely
from the working class. France of 1848 has split
upon that rock ; and the first character 61 the epoch,
IIE LAMARTINE, has gone to wreck upon that rock also.
There never was a more dangerous or more atrocious

error.
For our own parts, we feel confident that tbie coun-
try cannot go on long without reform or revolution.
The Times, and the parties which it supports, prefer
running the risk of the latter to even considering the
former. We consider ourselves the true conservatives
in holdieg the very contrary opinion, and recommend-
ing the very opposite poles..

THE carelessness and insuffic'eney of the report of
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK'S committee will be seen at
once on reference to the inquiries it wu appointed to
make. The terms of its appointment run thus :
" Resolved, that a select committee be appointed to in-
quire into the present condition and prospects of the interests
connected with and dependent on sugar and coffee planting
in her Majesty's East and West India possessions and the
Mauritius, and to consider whether any and what measures
can be adopted by parliament far their relief."
The terms of this reference are almost entirely dirt-
regarded by the report; the duties thus specifically
assigned the committee have been left nearly alto-
gether unfulfilled. In the first place, it will be
observed, that in the report there is no notice taken
of coffee, its whole burthen is monopolised by sugar.
This is suspicious—nay,it is more than suspicious ; it is
suggestive that the committee was originally intended
to be a mere sugar-planter's committee. If so,
the intention has been completely realised—thanks
very much to Mr. CARDWELL, the free-trade member
for Liverpool, who, with Mr. GOULBURN, absented
himself when the report was finally considered. We
are not informed whether the interests dependent on
coffee planting in her Majesty's possessions are pros-
perous or not; and this omission is important: for
the actual condition of these dependencies cannot be
known without information on this material item of
their production and we are called upon to submit
to a heavy burthen because another item of their pro-
duction is at present unprofitable. On this ground
alone it would, we submit, be dangerous to act on the
committee's recommindation. The whole case re-
ferred to them has not had their consideration.
In the next place the most careless reader of the
report must have noticed a still greater omission. It
refers entirely to those tropical colonies in which
slavery formerly prevailed ; the planters of the West
Indies and the Mauritius have again a monopoly of
its contents; not a word is given—not a thought is
bestowed—on the subjects of either sugar or coffee
planting in her MAJESTY'S" East Indian possessions,'
which were equally referred to the committee's con-
sideration. India, as a sugar and coffee exporting
country, is ignored by this report. Yet, witness after
witness assured the committee that India can supply
the whole world with sugar; and the chairman of
the East India Company himself was examined as tol
the effects of the act of 1846 on the sugar trade of
India. A large section of the anti-slavery party
look to India for the means of suppressing, by its
facility of sugar production; the slave trade and
slavery ; and to the whole of England the problem why
India, with its fine sugar eoil, and its teeming population,
does not furnish us with larger and cheaper supplies of
sugar is not only most interesting but important. Is
the obstacle, the largeness of the demand for internal
consumption, the higher prices obtained by exporta-
tion to Central Asia, the want of capital, or the ab-
sence of those great works of internal improvement
which a government only can execute in India ?
These are all points on which we require the mod
precise and definite information before we can listen
to a recommendation to lay a differential duty on
foreign sugar. The case of India for protection moat,
if it exist at all, be essentially different from that of
the West Indies and the Mauritius. There was
neither slavery nor slave-emancipation in India—
neither scarcity of labour nor high wages
there—neither vagrancy nor sqluitting Lambe
suppressed there. Food presses against r
there ; an industrious, hard, and continuous
working people inhabit the sugar districts
of India. Why, then, having all that the
West Indies and the Mauritius want, does India re-
quire a prolongation of protection for other six years?
These colonies are said to need protection for six years
that they may intermediately obtain labour and sup-
pressvagrricy. India has labour to excess, and
o nothing of vagrancy. On what ground then
is the sugar of India to be protected ? You search
the report in vain for an answer. In their anxiety to
protect the planters of the West Indies the committee
conveniently forgot India—just as they overlooked
the people of England.