The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-17 00:00:00

ELECTION COMMITTEE.—YEsrEnn

DCHLlN.—Scrutiny continued. Four votes Were
erected to, but the e4mmittee &tided on retaining them
on the poll.

fa epprefiL

MAILS.

The Were India Mail.. excluding licrunida, Nano; Havana,
Ilonolures New Orteeno, Vete Crux, Tampico, and Porto lUeo, and
In nting thore for 7oludeira, Jeemel, Car:liege:l itinta 31011114
Canis, Panama, Wood Coent of Staub America, and St. Juanele.
Nwaregt., will be ma K• ui on the evening of the 17th June.
The m for VV., 'nouns When. Maeira, Cada, and Gibraltar
gel be made up tin the morningof tic 27th Juno.
toe overland MAUS Greece, the lonian Island,,
Col.a. Ceylon, India, Gong-Kong, and China, rid Southatur-
ton, will be made up on the marelng of the 20th June.
the ou.oUt lur liriach North A“le,1,11, and the Milted Slane,
will be mane up on the evening of the 2-Ird June.
Tho overland ebeed main, cos Nferacillote, to the Mediterranean,
Entot, Cot liong-liong, he., will be made up on the
evening of :he 21th June.
Toe lIIAVA tor New South Wales, Van Diemann Lund, and New
Zealand will be made up oar the evening of the 30th June.
The mails far the Wad ...not of Africa and SLAM= will be made
tap on the evening ol the 30at Jane.
The main for the Brun, the River Plate, Home Video, Pernam-
buco, lonia, llooleire, end Buenos Ayroos, will toe made uo on the
evening of the CAI July.

NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS.
The number of STASH'S batted by the authorities of tb.
Ettartip-orrice, during 1347, to the
DAILY NEWS was 3.447.009

we believe, le within eight per ant. of the number
Laced to the Morning Ilerala, Mor:iing Chronicle, and
iossatnq i'osr, ALL PUT 700E711RK.
In t %HOU to 'Le above, issued to the DAILY NI:Wt3,
I<:on• s.l l'aecr,there were issued hr the Evensni Edition,
TUE EXPRE63 778.714

Whic:t wax more, we believe, than wvte iasuad either to
the Globe or Stan•'ori. Evening Parwrs.

81017 WATER aT LONIUM aiIDOZ.
TM Dal —Manua& la mil. NO It •aanoar. 34 .ala. past
Ta gasaw—alarar a =la. goa AnandeS. 13 ad-• P.. 3.

LONDON. SATURDAY, JUNE 17.

TILE recent vote and conduct of the French National i
Assembly look very like the plain declaration, We
will keep a republic as long as we can ; but if we are
to submit to king or mater, let him be a BCONAPARTE.
HENRY TUE FIFTH is a candidate who claims t e
throne in the name of the legitimist and noble class, of
a certain number ot the peasantry-, and of a large por-
tion of the priesthood. The Orleans family are, after
all, the favourite cf the boveyeeis,*e and of constitutional
politiciaca Tho name of BCONAPARTE answers
to the popular sentiment. The chiefs of republicanism
indeed abhor a farnly and a claim, which is the
most imminent and formidable menace to their us-1
cendancy ; but the rank and file of democracy would
take a BCONAPARTE readily, as the meilleure des
republiques.
This, indeed, is not astonishing. The shower of
reproaches and vituperation heaped upon both the
BOVRBON branches, not merely. by their popular anta-
gonists, but by the constitutional opposition, cm-
slated three-fourths of accusations of pusillanimity, and
of the want of Buonapartian and warlike qualities.
That Louts PHILIPPE sacrificed the dignity of France
to the jealousy of England ;—this was a ten years
cry, rained and repeated, r ot by the democrats, but
by middle-class politicians. The BARROTB and the
TRIERS thought that by this cry they would com-
pel the government to be spirited and liberal; and
that under their guidence as miuisteis, France might 'I
become constitutional in its domestic, and Buena-
paeist in its forei.ea policy.
They thus called the wolf, and the wolf has
The o,Lans princes have been expelled in a great
;erasure by the contempt thrown on their ultra-
pacific temper. Constitutionalkm has gone out of
repute and fashion with them ; and the popular senti-
ment, misled for a moment to place hopes in repub-
licanism, swells forth into a gigantic expression of
ffuonapartism. With a BUONAPARTE the French may
bid Rood bye to constitutional liberty and to peace.
A BUONAPARTE, who should refuse to make war,
would be a greater anomaly and absurdity than a
monarch who sprang from the revolution of July, at-
tempting to imitate the obese and old courtier system
ot intrigue, miscalled government, which was the
invention of Louis XVIII.
The revolution of February, 1848, was made for no
earthly reason. And it is the destiny of this revolution
to make war for no earthly purpose. Indeed, it was
our fear from the first, that Lours-Blancism would end
in this. Contempt of the bourgeoisie, a horror of the
middle class, a determination to snub, thwart, and
depress it, and render it subservient to the interests
and caprices of the indigent populace—such was the I
aim of the comtuuniets. This having been found im-
practicable in peace, and through the agency of M.
BLANC, the next idea is to effect it by war, and
through the agency of a NAPOLEON.
The most }weird, the most dangerous, and at the
same time the most false and sophistical' work ever
published, is certainly the "History of Ten Years,"
by Louts BLANC. It is truo its sentiments have been
but too popular, and explain mueh of what is taking
place. M. liwe recounts that the restoration of 1814
and 1815 will r cted, not by the all ed powers, 11
Lot by the Ft :ioargeoisie, who sacrificed the

great popular party and popular principle represented
by Duo:up/dug to the establishment of their own
citizen supremacy. This supremacy, wielded during
three reigns, has, it seems, sacrificed the honour and
glory of France to its material prosperity, and the in-
terests of its operatives to those of its shopkeepers. To
reverse all this, to put a stop to the material prosperity
of the country, and make the industrious citizeu
disgorge his wealth into the hand 4 of the indigent,
whether as a workman or a s tidier—such is the
bright idea of a French philosopher in the middle of
the nineteenth century.
And the philosophy scouted as an industrial sys-
tem, is welcomed as a warlike enc. There cannot
be a doubt that an active spirit is at work, and a
serious meet ment getting up for a BUONAPARTR
re,ginie. Ministers have opposed it, we think, with
every good rca on, end proposed the exclusion from
Franco and from the Chamber, of M. Lours 'Slums-
PARTE, who on two occuions showed himself capabl •
of the most foolish and culpable attempts on an estab-
lished government and upon the peace of the country.
There was every reason and every ground to keep in
exile at such a time a prince with such precedents,
and of a chat actor and claim tf) well known.

The government did its duty consequetitly, in pro-
posing this exclusion. But the chamber, fin no rea-
son apparently, save that of spiting a government,
which it durst not overthrow, has admitted Louts
NArtn.tiox by a similar majority to that which has
excluded the Bounntss. Surely the Prince DE
JOINVILLF:, who obeyed the orders at the republic,
has as much claim to enjoy the rights of a French
citizen as Louis BUONAPARCE. And iedeed we ism
say the ()rleanists in the assembly voted fur the
admiAsion of Louts BUONAPARTE, as an indirect
mode of showing the injustice of excluding the
OILL.F.ANS.

NVhatever tho result, the vote of the Assembly die•
plays a strange reeklessnev, an insidious rather than
an open and manly opposition to republicanism. It
gives a sarong encouragement to all pretenders t the
Fn nch crown, otTerin.r even a premium and prefer-
ence to him who strove to grasp that crown by f.rce,
above those who showed a deference and respect
for tho orders of the ruling power. ('he 'Na-
tional Assembly relemblsa pretty much a lady who
declares that she is a willing prize to the boldest ra-
visher.

Ix so far as the merits or demerits of the Navi-
gation Laws aro concerned, the cavil of Mr. G. F.
YOUNG and his plagiarist Lord G. lIENTINCE about
the statement of the tonnage of British wet foreign
ships, from 1824 to 1816. prepared by Mr. Poteree,
and presented to the House of Comm ms in 1817,
might be paseed over in silence. The sole objection
to that return is, tient in the title the woad "unpro-
tected" is used instead of "less protected." This in-
accuracy could deceive nobody, for ese relyely knows
that no portion of English shipping is entirely with-
out protection. Mr. GEORGE FRIDERICK YOUNG
had asserted that the vessels trading to countr es with
which wo have reciprocity treaties were left de facts
without protection, and that wherever tees was the
ease foreign shipowners had got the better of us.
The return in question divided our English shipping
into two classes : one clews mitten Mg, that por-
tion of our shipping which Mr. YOUNG alleged
to have been deprived of protection and to
be declining in consequence; the other that
portion which he admitted to be still pro-
tected and (at least comparatively) flourishing. The
return being meant as an “rperimenteem creels, tc•
show b 7 analysis what foundation there was fur Mr.
Yousns assertion?, his phraseology was adopted in
the title. Ii any serious blame attach to it i inaccu-
racy, that gentleman ought to bear it. All that the
table could show, or bo expected or believed by any
person to show, is the comparative increase in that
portion of our shipping which still receives the full
protection of the navig dime laws, and in that portion
which, in consequeuce of reciprocity treaies, receives
a less amount of protection—according to Mr. G. F.
YOUNG no protection at all. had the hues in the
table borne out Mr. YOUNG's assertion we should
have• heard nothing cf this pitiable verbal criticism.
Turning from this miserable cavil to the substance
' of the table, we do not find its accu -acy impugned.
The tonnage employed in the trade to countries with
which we have reciprocity treaties is given in one
column, the tennage. employed in the trade to coun-
tries with which we have no so h treaties is given in
another. It is not alleged that the ehippine. trading
to any country with which we have no reciprocity
I treaty is transferred to the wrong column or rice recut.
It is nut alleged that the figures in the official returns
of tonnage have been falsiti, d, or that these returns
are incorrect. The return is an unexceptionably
truthful and correct document.
"But," say the protectionists, "the inferences drawn
from the table are fallacious." That may be, and yet
the table may be perfectly accurate. But let us see
in what respect the inferences are fallacious. The
table shows that the tonnage engaged in the trade to
countries with which we have no reciprocity treaties
—that is, the tonnage of the shipping which enjoys
the maximum of protection—incre.ised from 1824 're
1816 in the ratio of 94.37 per cent., and that the ton-
nage engaged in the trade to countries with which
we have reciprocity treaties—that is, the tonnage of
the shipping which Mr. Cl. F. YOUNG stye has no
protection—increased in the ratite of 182.98 per cent.
This establishes the incorrectness of Mr. Yoesn's
assertion, that the diminution of protection by the
operation of reciprocity treaties had injured our
shipping. " But," say the protectionists., "in the
case of China, Russia, and Braz 1, which have no
ships, the reciprocity treaties are a dead letter; in
these instances, our ships are protected by a natural
navigation law, and the tonnage trailing to these
I ceuntries ought to have been entered in the protected
column." If this be not "special pleading," we know
not what is; but to humour the gentlemen, Mr.
PORTER good-naturedly made the transference. The
result is, that the tonnage of the shipping fully
operated oa by reciprocity treaties is shown to have
increased during the period mentioned in the ratio of
234.54 instead of 182.98 per cent., while the tonnage of
the shipping not exposed to the operation of reciprocity
treaties, either because they do not exist or because
accident has prevented them from taking effect, has
only inereneed in tree ratio of 91.32, instead of 94.37
per cent. The protectionists have in ide their case
worse, insterd of better. But properly the t inna.:e
engaged in the trade to China, Russia, and Brazil,
ought to be left out of the account altogether, as tell-
ing neither one way nor another. Excluding it on
this ground from bah columns, we have 91.37 per
cent. for the ratio of increase in the stringently pro-
tected shipping; 234.54 per cent, for the ratio of in-
crease in the shipping which has partially been de-
nuded of protection. Treat the data in what way we
will, the general result is the came : in proportion as
protection has been withdrawn—as competition has
been augmented—the dem end for Britishshipping has
increased more rapidly. From an addition
subsequently made to the table it appeers
that while the tonnage of British shipping em-
ployer! in the trade to all the countries with which
we have reciprocity treaties, has increased from 1824
to 1846 in the ratio of 182.98 per cent., the tonnage
of the foreign shipping employed in competi.ion
with them has only increased is the ratio of 137.70
per eerie. So much for Mr. G. F. Yousn's assertion,
that " in the ease of all those countries with which
we have made reciprocity treaties, and we have been
compelled to run a race with them, they have oatrua
its:
This is the plain unexaggerated undistorted cha-
racter of this much-talked-of return, and its bearing
on the question of the navigation law. We now
turn to the treatment which Mr. PORTER has experi-
enced at the hands of Lord GEORGE BENTINCE with
reference to the return.
Lord GEORGE has not merely, like his more wary
coadjutor Mr. YOUNG, misrepresented the report, and
called it inaccurate and delusive. He has ac-
cused the Board of Trade of giving direc-
tions to prepare a false return, and Mr.
PORTER of having deliberately prepared a
false return, with a view to influence the
discussion of the navigation laws. Lord GEORGE
went farther—he asserted in the Hoare of Commons
that "It wee confessed that it was a return which
bore a deceitful character on the face of it. He had
seen the evidence given on oath by Mr. PORTER.".
The assertion that the Board of Tiede had given
directions to Mr. PORTER to prepare a delusive
return might have been contemptuously disre-
garded as one of Lord GEORGE'S customary rash
and exaggerated imputations. It is sufficiently
contradicted by the examination to which we have
subjected the return, and by which we have
shown that it is perfectly fair and truthful. But
Lord GEORGE'S assertion that Mr. PORTER, when
examined on math by a committee of the house of