The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-24 00:00:00

ik..o4krTitD&Y WEN!NGL MARCH, 24'
.• 1849.

'lva! 1.04.1

eft four
' There
it *NAM
re erre de.

"at atlas

terimbable is shim a shoetsofferfa— He saighttablettogt
reeipoeftgArtskeemorward somtheigreli It the
ese nem agges. As lag ge.
mielK the of Ming eu the of nelpositr,
Gannon et et iming dales. Sthl
then mid bar missy, at all id t reciprocity. It
mei fa the very astir, st exchange ; and he =Meta awl that
b Mold be a smiths. posedlog the emend of re•Mietioes
tisk=i ditipizi4tgestagelimee druid make similar re-
p/ Of VW dale he had endeavoured
le betide the moil -imam to which the navigation
laws relisvai, arraythe seignial see Ming trade, and re-
lolanda* peetheivethelli was to he tread in the various eels
famed Mess Kr. Hasidemmes dm be the regulation of the
trade with the Blithe pennesim.
It,. I. WILSON said he mild not for a moment suspect
that his boa. Mend wished to frustrate the free-trade policy
In which the boon had embarked, but he could have little
diffistaty i elawieg that it was only by the mesas which
the gnomon penned that this poltey could be:rmecela
caroled en. The yams yrapialt by the government
snare tothementre the itheentages of a broad and entendre
primal, of realimag without subjecting it to the ineonve-
Wows ond Medlin whisk arose from exkim_
Mead
feesonigediem buse. Thaaldarit of his ken. Mead was to
amble Itha man In Alan fern other eamaien similar
seuesesione to these whisk me eared to them bat he
thought that tooth Km ben. Mend and the right hon. gentle-
men the member kw the thatensity of Oxford (tie. Glad-
stone) most admit that Nan peemeded on the principle of
neditional kaiiiefrisa they sane retain in their hands the
power Cl rekthatesa He could KO no difference between
refine, M emethe to anther country what that country
reamed te itmethe to them, ginintresing a direct NstrictiOß
en Statesmen biom ie it one on them. (Hear,
hear.) H. thatight his Wt. d did not wish to prevent
the free auserbtion Cl the pods and produce of Asia,
mad America boa the continent of Europe. What
he undrrmteod him to proms was, that this country should
not sake the soatemed concessions unless it *malt be
aims to the eathfise. of the Queen in council that ethic
enustrime did sot retain similar restriction' to those whisk it
We. proposed to remove. There was, in feet, scarcely •
country in the world which imposed similar mtrictiam.
Belgium, for example, had not one restriction like those
which wen impelled by this country—the restrictions of Beg-
in& ham gestehetsee of oacludue, the e. etri•tieso of Bel-
gium were netrietions of differential duties. France, in.
deed, bad some similar restriction", but all restrictions were
not Milar. His hon. friend bad spoken very truly of the
dithenlty of ounim eat the triumphs of reciprocity with
regard to tariffs. The Fame objection, however, applied in
the preset cam and whatever might be said about the dith
• of negotiltion under the bill, he apprehended that
the dianthus of the Board of Trade under the amendment
would prove much greater. Did hie bon. friend mean
to say, in effect, to other stations, " If yon will
throw open your navigation entirely to us. we will throw
ours open entirely to you ?" He thought such a principle
would be attended with great inconveniences. Suppose the
United States replied to the invitation in the spirit in which
their legislation had bee. serried on. As soon as the United
Stalin was allowed to p into our colonial trade, all the
coastwise with whisk they now had treaties would buVantly
dossed the same privilege. Having permitted the United
States to trade in the Eastern Arelopelago, how could they
refuse to make a similar concession to Holland ? Wes his
hoe. Mead prepared to disturb nearly the whole of the exist-
ing treaties, in order to carry out his views? The bill
itself would carry out what he had in view much more
effectually than his own amendment. The effect of allowing
the goods of Asia, Africa, and America, to be imported into
this country it was easy to forme'. Of what value would be
the restriction on the direct trade when, for the purpose of
evasion, it would only be necessary for a ship top to
Rotterdam, land its cargo, take it on board again, maths'
bring it to this country ? The government had, in the pre-
paration of this measure, carefully considered the state of
oar treaty relations with other countries. And, first, me is
the United States, the case was not at all what many hoc
gentlemen seemed to suppose. Government did not proceed
here on the calculation of mere contingencies, but on the
distinct wourance, not of Mr. Bancroft, however respectable
and authoritative that would be, but on the distinct assernes
of an actual act of Conroe. (Hear, bear.)
The report of the committee of the General Ship-
owners' Society of London, which he bad remind
a few days since, appeared t a presume in the government
an entire ignorance of the state of the American law on this
subject, whereas it was the committee itself which was in
may wader a misapprehension. The committee assumed
that the postrammat were proceeding on a mere promise of
the Ameigna emeutive which it was very likely the Amo-
eba. game= maid eel support, upon the roength of these
nessliedem with the Assent:tut government, whereas there
me se negothelms pending at an, for the simple reason
that no negotiations were requisite, the feet being that it was
perfectly in the power of the American government, without
whether application to Congress, to extend to everycountly
theism or like concession which every such country should
Mead to America. This was the direct purpose of an met
;il=sem already in existence ; so that the paring of the
ff
smegare would itself place us, with relation to Ame-
rise, in the position which the hon. gentleman contemplated
to attain by his motion. (Hear, hear.) Again, as to Swe-
den. Ia Sweden there were no restriction, whatever on
minden, except those which were specially directed against
this seentry, in retaliation for our restrictions. Sweden pro-
hibited ear ship from resorting to their colonies, or from
emaying to its home ports the produce of America,
11411 a, and Asia; but this was not the general prin-
deb Of the Swedish law, and it was perfectly well un-
derstood that so soon as our restrictions were re.
wed es against Sweden, those of Sweden against
us would be abolished. (Hear, bear.) As to Russia, at wu
' only within the last two years that Russia had passed a law
imposing on foreign couatries the same :intentions which
each foreign restrictions imposed on Russia ; the law, how-
ever, is virtue of the existing treaty, could no* operate
against England until 1861, and if the present measure
passed it would not operate against us at all. (Hear, hear.) It
was quite tree that France imposed more restrictions upon
Ode main than she imposed upon any other state, but our
peon mem, which compelled France to a direct trade
with the Int Indies, by preventing her receiving the produce
Clthe Kest ken this country on the favourable terms which
I=srdier sograted, rendered the restrictions harmed by
In mace drably injurious to us. And as to Franco,
wtL ItKh cad Ksidem, what chance did his hon. friend
mo detain, Asa asentries adopt his views ? France 2nd
Span maintained the trade with their own colonies, and of
their own colonies between ash other ; and what advantage
did the hon. gentleman propose that should make them give
up this position ? Suppose we did say to Spain and Frans*,
we will admit you into our foreign carrying trade. This
would only be admitting tom into active competition with
America, with Holland, with every commercial community,
with the whole world. The hon. gentleman might wait for
esesturies before he could offer such advantages as could in-
twee Frame and Spain to make the concessions he contem-
plabLAKear.) But because France and Spain were not in
• melltim to act with us on terms of reciprocity, were
Trinidad, were the West Indies at large, to be deprived of
the advantages of a direct trade with those countries, and to
ramie subjected to those vexatious, those expensive, those
1111th kommis, to which the importations of French and
Spend. produce into than Wands were now exposed
by the amardty of the whole of this produce passing
first tire* the respective French and Spanish colonies?
(Hear, hoer.) Again, as to Holland, was the hon. gentle-
man preparn to deprive us of the eminent adventures we
derived km the concessions given us by Holland, in relation
to the Dutch Baronial trade 1 Should Holland
restrict us in relation to the trade with Java ?
Or suppose that America should refuse to lye us her
ooesting trade, which was not included in the act of congress
to which he hsd referred, were we, for this reason, to de-
pries our West India Weeds not only of what it was pro-
posed to give them, but of the valuable right which they had
so many years pommeled, of direct importadon of supplies
from America ? (Hear, hear.) As to our warehousing trade,
he believed so course could be adopted more calculated to
benefit that branch of industry the. the course now pro.
posed by her Majesty's government. At present this trade
was limited, because foreign goods which came here in
foreign ships other than those of the producing country
were not admitted for home consumption. Remove this
restriction, and a great impetus would at once be given to
our warehousing trade. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. GLADSTONE, in the two or three sent:mem he
uttered, was, at all events in our part of the gallery, almost
entirely unintelligible, gathering, as we did, bat a word or
two of each sentence. He stid that after the manner in
which his scheme had been withered by the unkind shadow
thrown over it by Ilia hon. friend opposite—(laugh er)—he
would not now go into the matter, but content binisylf with
saying that be should not vote for the hon.genUeman's propo-
sition, simply bemuse he thought it ineffective for the object
in vise, and impracticable in itself.
•• • • -

Mr. M. GIBSON said that of the three expedients before
the committee—reciprocity, conditional legislation, and re-
taliation—he disliked the plan of the government the least,
bat, nevertheless, had anon& objections to it. His object in
voting for repeal of navigation laws was to enable English-
men to select freely the ships in which to transport
their goods to the destined port. It was not • ques-
tion about foregoers at all. (Hear, hear.) The only
qaestion was between the British shipowners, on the
erne hand, and the British people on the other. The
British people asserted the right to select as they pleased the
ships in which to transport their merchandise. and the Bri-
tish shipowners said, " No ; you shall use my ships or nose."
He (Mr. Gibson) did not seek to give anything to the
foreigner; his object was to restore to her Majesty's subjects
that civil right, of which they ought never to have been de-
prived—the right to send their goods in whatever ship they
pleased, and at the cheapest posible rate ; and, unless there
mild be shown some national disadvantage in the exercise of
this obvious civil right, he should support the bill on this
plain ground. Of the three plans reciprocity was clearly the
went. He had frequently observed of gentlemen who
had been ill of the protection malady, that the
Ant symptom of convalescence was the reciprocity
stage—the perfect recovery being free trade. He
had himself been in the second stage, but had quite
recovered. In his opinion, the great principle was to
give freedom for our own sakes, and not in respect to any
conditions from other countries. (Hear, hear.) &i.dprocity
was out of the question whoa we considered our treaty obli-
gations with other countries. Take the case of Sweden. Our
minister at the court of Sweden had emphatically iasisteil
upon this construction of our treaty with Sweden, that
whatever Sweden granted to other countries, conditionally
or otherwise, should be given unconditionally to us. Having
misted
upon this CealtrietiOn we could not coarsely.' get
oat of it we mast great to Sweden the same privileges,
without condition. which we granted to any other country,
mad Innisg granted them uncondititnallp to swami,

.. .
WS we WO4/ An Ma awiegaim.Humlit. kaki% do.,
IhaAug the fiaMirreil nation dame would follow. (Hear.)
,epen A up= It any attempt to oarry oat the reel-
proeity system in connexiast 1%4 mum* would
iavolve us in buretrioaMe di As to the pro-
orders in ernsacil, be bad doubts whether
was even a Wks Marto bare the regulation of trade to
ordure is saeema~li Or to permit the executive to levy duties
en thil isnMesi of sommodities without the consent of
parliament. He would net say it wee naeonstitational to do
so, for the term sesidtados seemed to have no very definite
meaning, bat he would my that in his opinion it was ray
unwise as a matter of policy. (Hear, bear.) As a general
rule it would be far bitter, when any ease did preeent itself
which seemed to require that the coarse of trade should be
interfered with, or that the taxation of the country should
be iacreased, to appeal to parliament, rather than leave
mach nice mitten to the discretion of the council.
(Hear, ham.) He held in his band a paper which
he had :lamed for, in illustration of the effect of
past orders in connell upon trade s and be these
*nod reason to assign the origin of many of
the complabate of oar colonies, in a great messam.
to these very orders in council. The navigation laws of
themselves did permit foreign ships to trade with our colonies
ender certain conditions, to the effect that the ship should
wily carry the produce of their own countries, and should sail
direct from these countries ; bat then an act a parliament
declared that foreign ships should not enjoy even this limited
mivasge, unless specially authorised by an order in coned].
Now, what wee the extent of restriction which the with-
holding of sods orders in council imposed on the trade
of the world ? Why, at this moment, they absolut ly pre-
cluded our colonies from communication with one clear half
of the world, for example, Belgium, Sardinia, Naples, the
Papal States, Lama, Tuscany, Greece, Morocco, Turkey,
Brazil, non, Uruguay, Sr. Domingo, to., and to a great
extent with France, Holland, and Spain. It was impos-
sible to estimate the evil effected by the operation of this
order in council principle. He trusted that when this
measure came into operation the government would exercise
this privilege of inning orders in council on a very different
principle from that on which it had been hitherto exercised,
or reel little progress will bare been made by this bill.
He wished the power so conferred was altogether out of the
bill.

Mr. R. Palmas said a few words, which were answered
by Mr. BRIGHT.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped the committee would confine
itself to the question that wu under discussion, and reserve
ergratrywurterignta against or for the principle of the bill,

Mr. BERRIES mid that the declaration of the tight
honourable gentleman respecting the desire of the govern-
ment to afford ell the information possible on the sub-
ject of the navigation laws was not borne nut ; for on
looking into the matter, he found that whilst the bill
'of the right hen. gentleman for abrogating those laws
was introduced last year in June, the correspondence with the
foreign powers, which was intended to en'ighten the house
on the subject. was not commenced until December ; so that 11
the bill might have mimed into a law, had the
parliament so pleased, without any of t!at im-
portant informa ion reaper ing it having been before
the house. But the government had not succeeded in
obtaining from any of the foreign powers an intimation of
what they intended to do towards meeting the concessions
made to them by the present bill. With respect to the pre-
sent question, there was no doubt it had been tatistactorily
proved that the clause was retaliatory. But it would be
difficult to enforce it in the case of the most favoured nations
who would not make any concessions in return for the abro.
gation of the navigation laws. How could retaliation be
enforced in the We of France and Spain. which nations
were amongst the most fsvoured—and how difficult would it
not he to make relaxations to the ships of other nations which
France and*Spain did not par?tallei As to America, was
made to appear that the abrogation of the navigation laws
would be immediately reciprocated by the operation of acts
of Congress now in existence. If any one carefully read the
sections of these acts which bore on the question, be would
find that they did not fulfil the purpose attributed to them ;
and, although there did exist another act of Congress—that
of 1817—tearing on the question, no reference was made to
it in the correspondence. The acts in qutstio t referred to
duties on goods, and cot to ships, and consequently they did
not bear upon the navigation Uwe. Unless Mr.
Buchanan was more candid than he had been
in the correspondence on the table, he could
place no confidence in any expectations held out by
the government that the United States would meet England
half-way in her concessions. There was no disposition on
the part of himself and his party to protract the different
stages of the bill by any unduc opposition; but be must de-
clare that he could only consent to meet foreign nations on
the principle of reciprocal advantages, and upon that he took
his stand. The proposed clause was a mere blind and al-
though he should not feel the airitfaction which resulted from
doing a good action in voting for the government, he should
nevertheless vote with ministers against the amendment.

Mr. LABOUCHERB rose for the purpose of ezpresaing
his entire confidence in the candour, good faith, and liber-
ality of Mr. Buchanan, which the right hon. gentleman
opposite had questioned.
Mr. HERMES entirely concurred in the sentiments en.
premed by the Provident of the Board of Trade towards the
illustrious individual referred to.

Mr. Ald. THOMPSON observed that it had been stated
that America had conceded all we were about to concede to
America; but he asked what consideration could America
give for the enormous advantages she would receive. From
her geographical position, America would have a decided
advantage in bringing to this country eke productions of
Cuba and Beard. The hon, member for Westbury had
alluded to the ease of Mr. Brooke sending a cargo of sugar
from Java to Holland. Mr. Brooks did not find a British
ship at Java, bemuse the tonnage dues at Java were
so enormous, that British ships were all but ex
eluded from the trade, and therefore Mr. Brooks had
no alternative but to send by a Dutch or American ship.
The hon. gentleman also stated that this measure would give
great stimulus to the warehousing trade of this country. lie
could not conceive anything more calculated to injure it.
At the present time, nearly the whole produce of the East
Indian empire was brought to this country. and from this
country the continent of Europe was supplied. If ships be-
longing to the German states, to Holland, Russia, and Swe-
den. were to participate in our East Indian trade, and bring
their goods to this country, there could be no question,
that instead of London and Liverpool, and other great
ports, being the depots of thu produce of the eastern
empire, the docks and warehouses would be comparatively
empty. The hon. member for Kilmarnock had said that
the shipowners were alarmed in 1828, and in crder to show
how unfounded this alarm was he gave an account of the
increase of our ships in Landon, Liverpool, Glasgow, and
Greenock. Although there was a great increase of shipping
in these ports, foreign shipping had increased far more eon-
siderably than English ships had increased. The shipowners
of 1826 never entertained the apprehension of losing our
colonial trade • what they apprehended was that by the re-
cipe telly of 'trade they would lose the carrying of bulky
articles. Between the years 1524 and 1846, British vessels
employed in trade with Sweden had fallen off 26 per cent :
with Norway, 71 per cent ; Prussia, 33 per cent. The ships
which passed the Sound in 1824 were—British, 4,363 ,•
foreign, 4,376. In 1844 the British ships were 3,900, and
the foreign ships had increased to 12,164. He well recol-
lected that in 1826 the skipping interest feared they would
lose their legitimate share of the carrying trade of the north of
Europe, and this anticipation had been realised. He agreed
with the bon. member for theUniwersity of Osford,when he said
that he looked at this measure as a great shock to the com-
mercial interest. Although he thought the principle of the
hon. member for' Kilmarnock was round, he thought there
would be great difficulty in carrying it out, and therefore be
doubted whether he ought to vote in favour of it ; but if
they should succeed in getting the clause introduced Into this
bill, it would not induce him to look with more favour
upon it.
Mr.WAWN looked upon this measure ass premium upon
the building of ships abroad, and should give it his most
decided opposition.
The question having been put,
----- - - - -

Mr. BOUVEHIE said he would not trouble the house to
divide ; but Mr. WAwN having in•iated on a division the
emingttee divided, when the numbers were—

For the proyi so
Against it 132-117

The dins' vru then agree' to.

Clauses from 2 to 10 were agreed to.
Clause 11 being proposed, enacting that no goods should
be carried coastwise from one part of the United Kingdom to
the other ezoept in British ships, but providing that this
should not extend to prevent the carriage coastwise of goods
in foreign mails arriving or departing for parts beyond the
lest,

Mr. GLATOBTONB observed that the right hon. gentle-
man the President of the Board of Trade had said that, in
the opinion of the highest authoriti,s, there was no danger
in admitting foreigner to carry on the wasting trade on the
footing of an equality with British ship., on the same regu-
lations to which British ships were subject That being the
case he did not think this clause might to remain in the bill,
sad should vote against it. Take the case of the north-east
coast of Scotland, producing oats for the Lyndon market,
which came in competition with those of Damask. The
Danes were to have the choice of all the ships in the
world, but the Scotch owner was obliged to send his oats in
a British ship. He thought that on the principle of
equality in dealing, the committee ought to refuse to pass
this clause.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the coasting trade staid
nn a different footing front other trades in respect to restric-
tions. This was a branch of trade which no country in the
world had ever admitted a foreigner to share. An hoc.
member had stated that this measure would be • great
rhock to the commercial interest. His belief was that the
true interest of the commercial marine rendered this altera-
tion necessary, but he was unwilling to increase whatever
there was of alarm by a proposal to admit a foreigner to a
trade which bad been enjoyed exclusively by the shipping of
the country itself.
After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. GLAD-
STONB,

Mr. LABOUCHERE explained that all that wu intended
by the clause wu to give to colonies which were geographi-
cally noighbenn, power to make trade among themselves a
coasting- tvade. • For example—the West India Islands or
the Au.tralosian group, would come within the same of the
clause. He did not see that there would be any dlactaity in
carrying it into operation.
_ _

Mr. I)IBRA,Eif observed that if the power of giving
effects to tide daunt was to be left to the queen In council, the
introduction of the term "neighbouring" was quite wine-
cassary.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said hi lad unfortunately intro-
duced that term to please the right boa. member for the
University ef Oatord. (A laugh.) The right boa. member

bad'arted the objection, that under the clause as It stood
originally, Australia sad Canada sight all Chelanlves
asigbboura

fir. GLADSTONE wished to know, es the queen in
council had no power to construe laws, how the question of
neighbourhool was:to be decided in doubtful ewe.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sugges'ed
that the clause might be 'Mowed to pan, deferring any alte-
nition until the bringing up of the report. He thought that
the insertion of the words, " two or more possessions which
her Majesty in wizen shall deem to be neighbouring,"
would meet the difilonslty.

Mt. F. SCOTT wished to know what was to be done with
a colony which wee so unfortunate u to have no neighbours.
Ceylon had no neighbour, neither had St. Helena. Re
wished that ministers would either define neighbourhood or
postpone the clause until the question was leaded.
The words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
hating been pat from the their,
Mr. GLADSTONE objected to the rinds& of the
clause, not es a ammonia principle, but ea a principle of
legislation. In his opinion subordinate legislatures should
not We the power of legidadng with reference to the sub-
jects of benign states. No matter what the amount of self-
government you gave to your Wades, the imperial govern.
=ant must always stand between them and foreign states,
and for this reason, that it might be able to fulfil its treaty
engagements. There were many foreign nations to which
we were bound by treaty to give all legal privileges, but if
this clangs passed a colony might step in and prevent the ful-
filment of our engagement. Another objection be had to
the clause was, that by establishing so many centres of legis-
lation, great impediments would be thrown in the way of
imperial arrangements with foreign powers.

LABOUCHERE said that the object of the elanse
was simply to give to the colonies the power to deal with
their own coasting trade, in the manner most conducive to
their own interest,. In the ease of Canada, it was of espe-
cial importance that this power should be conceded. As to
the Sifficolties started by the right bon. member, the power
given to the Queen in council would always provide a suffi-
cient remedy.
After a short conversation,
Mr. ROBINSON objected to the claw'. If it merely
gave to the colonies power to open their coasting trade, he
should not have objected to it, but he would not delegate to
them any powers which belonged properly to the Imperial
government.
Sir R. PEEL put the case of a power to which one of our
Antonio' had given the privileges of a westing trade, and
which power afterwards declared war against the imperial
government. What provision was there made for each a
case ?

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that a declaration of war would
overrule all navigation laws.
Sir R. PEEL—And yet the colony might know nothing
of the foreign relations of the mother country, nor whether
there was any probability of war. If the mother country
war to determine what countries should have the coasting
trade of our colonies—it the power given to the colonies was
a power which they could not exercise without the consent
of the crown—why not let it originate with the crown instead
of :first siring it to the colonies, and they neutralising it by
withholding it except upon the consent of the crown?
Mr. DISRAELI observed that the objection of the right
hon. baronet us fur as the law of nations was concerned, was
not tenable for a moment. According to all decisions upon
the subject no difficulty could arise, and even the mere de-
claration of an embargo would settle the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite agreed
with the hon. gentleman. Whether the state of war arose
before or after the royal anent, whether the law was to be
carried out by colonial enactment or by an order in
council at home, the effect would be precisely the same ;
and the substantial answer, therefore, to the right honour-
able gentleman's objection was, that war between this
country and any other would override all colonial legislation.
The right hon. baronet asked how the retaliatory clauses
were to erect colonial legislation ? if we were to give our
colonies the power of managing their coasting trade, they
must have the power of doing so as they pleased. including
the power of retaliation and suspension. The East India
C.mpany had such power at present, and could exercise it
consistently with the treaties entered into by this country.
Sir G. CLERK complained that the clause was inconsis-
tent, the latter part being restrictive instead of Telexing.

Mr. LABOUCHERE-said he only wished to propose re-
striction where manifestly just and fair' and to deal with our
colonies as we did for ourselves. He wished to leave them
that which was not only strictly, bat technically, their wag-
ing trade. This was particularly desirable in the cue of our
North American colonise, which were within eight of the
United Stites. To say that a vessel should not go
from a port in Maine to New York, or from Bt.
John's in New Brunswick to Halifax in Nova Scotia,
would be nominally fair and equitable, but actually a great
injustice. Although the countries might be foreign, yet for
all purposes of navigation they were the same. He thought
the difficulty raised would not practically ensue, or it would
have occurred long since in our Indian empire Although the
clause nominally restricted, under the circumstances it was
I but fair and just.
After some further conversation to the same effect, in
which Mr. HENLEY and Mr. Haulms declared tnemselves
in favour of Mr. Gladstone's view,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he would move, uan amend-
ment to leave out all the words after the word " that," for
he purpose of inserting words to this affect, " That it shall
be lawful for her Majesty in council, upon an address or
joint-address from the legislative council, or council and
assembly, or proper 15.gislative authority of any of our Bri-
tish possessions, praying her to authorise the conveyance
of goods or passengers to any other part of such pos-
onions, to direct that such conveyance shall take place in
such way as her Majesty shall think fit." He proposed to
strike out altogether the intercoloniel part of the clause.
The committee divided—For the clause l6B
Against it lO4-54
The clause wu then ordered to stand part of the bill.
On clause 16, which lays down the repletions to be ob-
served in navigating ships to entitle them to be registered as
British,

Mr. ALEXANDER HASTIE moved the omission of the
proviso requiring such ships to be navigated by crews com-
posed of at least three-fourths British seamen.
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the question was
whether they should now abrogate that enactment which
obliged all vessels in order to sequin the character of British
va meets to be navigated by a certain proportion of British sea-
men. He believed that the burden this obligation imposed on
the shipowner was more nominal than real. It was admitted
by these parties who 'gave evidence before the committee,
that if they were allowed to take sailors from all parts of the
world, they could avail themselves of that privilege only to a
very limited extent, and that, generally speaking, their vet-
eels would still be navigated by British seamen, and Mr. 0.
F. Young, as well as other witnesses, also admitted that no
relief would status from altering the proportion of three-
fourths se now existing. If the amendment was carried,
therefore, while it would create great practical inconveni-
ence, no real advantage would be conferred on the ship.
owner. If the restriction were altogether done away with
they might have vessels manned and commanded by foreign-
ers altogether, and nothing British about them but the nation
of their owners. How could this country be answerable for
vessels so navigated, or what claim could she have to the
character of British, or the security of the British flag ?
If the proposition were merely to alter the proportion of
British sailors required, he did not think that any strong
objection would be raised to it, but the shipowners them-
selves would tell you that that would be no relief to them.
Mr. DUNCAN supported the amendment, as being ne-
cessary to enable the British shipowner to compete fairly
with the shipowner of other nations.
Mr. BRIGHT had been told • few days ago'by the cap-
tain of a British ship, an intelligent and able man, who had
commanded a vessel of 600 tons for 16 years, and who wee
also pert owner, that the abolition of the navigation laws
would be no disadvantage to him nor to his sailors; but he
said that it would be necessary to alter this clause, which
compelled every British ship to be navigated by at least
three-fourths British seamsn. This gentleman further
told him that English sailors were the most tur-
bulent seamen on the waters. (" Oh, oh.") Though
they were in some respects more hardy and ably
than foreigners, they were generally much more
difficult to manage, the reason being that they knew they
must be employed ; and though the abolition of the clause
might not result in the manning of British ships by foreign
sailo.s to any extent, it would operate as a check °nth/ Eng-
glish sar.ors, and induce them to pursue a more rational
course of conduct ; and perhars become as reasonable, and
as easy to manage as those of any other country. (" Oh,"
and hear.) With regard also to the proviso at the end of the
clause, this captain declared that its effect was most unfavour-
able. He said that English ships required in consequence
more men in proportion to their tonnage than American
ship.. The American ships were manned on the avenge
with 34 men per 100 tans; while the English ships required
5 men per 100 tons to meditate them • and this difference
aro'e in consequence of the opinion that prevailed that the
regulation required one British sailor fur every 20 tons, and
which the seamen were under the impression the law '
enforced. If the Americans could navigate their ships with
31 men per 100 tons, surely the English sailors could do the
same. (Hear' hear) This captain, therefore, considered
that it would be an advantage if this proviso were left out.
He admitted that there was no law on the subject ; but the
marginal note in the old navigation law had led to a con-
trary impression, and had produced much inconvenience.
If the hou. member for Glsagow divided on his amendment,
he (Mr. Bright) should vote with hint. H. had no notion
of this left-handed justice by which the humus of the public
were considered by the carrying of this bill, while the inte-
rests of the shipowners were sacrificed. In his view, the
shipping interest should have the same freedom of trails as
was accorded to the manufacturer and the corn ur ,wer, and
that all restrictions which they considered injurious to the
carrying on of their trade should be removed.
Mr. G. ROBINSON could not separate this question of
the manning of our ships from that of the defence of the
country. He could not, however, understand the right lean.
gentleman in requiring British ships to be manned by three-
fourths British sailors, when he had given it out that the
British sailors were the most unruly and unfit for their duties
of any in the world.
Mr. MOFFATT said that the clause was adverse to the
whole spirit of their recent legislation. The complaint of
the shipowners was that they could not build their ships
cheaply nor sail them cheaply. With regard to the latter
Point, tam was no question that the maritime nations of the
Noah were able to sail their vessels more cheaply than the
ship sweets of this country. This was a fair gr mud of com-
plaint on their pert. Supposing the amendment were carried,
the shipownere of this country might get sailors from Sweden,
Norway, and D 'nark. These countries had something less
than 30,000 sailors. New, the only consequence of intro-