The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 14.
INSOLVENT MEMBERS' BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. GOULBURN was not prepared to offer any oppo-
sition to the second reading of the Bill, but there were
many points involved in it which he considered required
the serious consideration of the House. The Hon.
Member who had introduced the had
rather addressed himself to the objections which were
made to the Bill, than to giving any reasons for the
mode in which he had proceeded with it. As the Bill
was totally different to the one first introduced, he
thought they ought to have had some reason why the
alterations had been made. The Honourable Gentleman
did not intend to apply the principles of it to the House
of Peers as well as to the House of Commons, but he
found when a principle of this kind was adopted, the
forms of the House uniformly applied it to all persons in
Parliament. The privileges of Parliament were much
more extended than at present; and at one time the
Members of both Houses of Parliament had the
privilege of not being sued in any Court of law,
but it was thought advisable to introduce a Bill
to alter the law in that respect, and the provisions of it
applied equally to both branches of the Legislature.
'The mesne process gave a right to arrest Members of
Parliament until they should give security to answer an
action of debt, and that power might have been used as a
politic al engine to prevent the carrying of certain measures.
The mesne process had, however, been materially di-
minished, and arrest was now limited to cases where a
judgment had been obtained against a debtor. The
present Bill proposed to deal with a very limited
class of cases, but he thought it gave an
opportunity to creditors of Members of Parlia-
ment, who might have a strong political object in
view, to resort to imprisonment with a view to obtain
their end. Such a course might tend to discredit the
eharacter of a Member, and might prevent him, at a
moment of importance, rendering a service to his
country.—(Hear, hear.) There had been cases,
when party spirit ran high, of a party bring
rendered useless as a representative, and unable
to perform his duty. Those were considerations which
ought not to be omitted when the details of the Bill
were taken into consideration by the House. The
Bill involved a question of Parliamentary privileges, over
which they themselves had absolute power, and without
the interference of the other branch of the Legislature.
They would find a number of instances in the journals
of the House, in which Members had been arrested upon
judgments pronounced against them, sometimes been
discharged, and sometimes permitted to remain in con-
finement. He thought it would be much better to deal
with the question rather by a resolution of the House than
by an Act of Parliament, because, if they passed an Act,
and found afterwards that it interfered with the proper
discharge of the duties which Members owed to their
constituents, they would have no power to alter it with-
out the sanction of the House of Lords; whereas, if
they dealt with it by a resolution, and found any
evil arise from it, they might make alterations
from time to time, and so abate the evil. He would not
say a word about the details of the Bill, and had merely
made those observations with the view to prevent the
House coming into direct collision with parties with re-
spect to the arrest of Members.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS thought that the House was
much indebted to the Hon. Member for Devonport for
introducing the Bill. Nothing would tend more to ele-
vate the character of the House than the passing of that
Bill, and he hoped her Majesty's Government would
extend the principle which it involved to both branches
of the Legislature.
Mr. HENLEY was anxious that tho second reading
should be postponed, to enable Members to
have more time to consider whether they should
give their assent to the principle of the Bill, which there
could be no doubt was a very large one. It was quite
clear that the object of the parties who introduced it
was to carry its principle step by step to the
other branch of the Legislature. The main ground
for the introduction of the Bill was to assimilate the
case of an insolvent person to that of an insolvent trader,
but he thought thahey were not at all analagous. A.
trader who, from nforeseen circumstances, was un-
able to pay his debts, received his discharge
in full upon surrendering up all his property
to his creditors—but it was not so with insolvent per-
sons. The bankrupt received his certificate and was a
clear man for the future, and could be elected to
serve in that House, and to hold other offices.
Bet the insolvent man who was involved in
debt could not get clear, although his property could
be taken as freely as that of the bankrupt. Therefore
there was this essential difference between the two
cases, the trader being a bankrupt received his certifi-
cate, and immediately afterwards could be elected a
Member of that House, but the insolvent could not be
similarly elected unless he satisfied all his debts in full.
A Bill of that sort depended very much upon the de-
tails, and he would not take the responsibility upon
himself of opposing the second reading, but would
merely suggest its postponement until the House had
given it a more mature consideration. It
ought never to bo lost sight of, that it did
notinvolve the privilege of Members, but the
privilege of constituents—(Hear, hear)—and he thought
it extremely likely that the House might occasionally
get into some kind of squabble, from parties being
e!octed who wero nut properly qualified.
The Bill was then toad a second time.
On the motion that the Bill be comMitted,
Mr. GREENE suggested that the whole subject con•
tained in the Bill should be referred to a Select Cone
mittee, who eliould report to the House, and that the
House should then proceed to legislate upon the matter.
He put it to the Government whether this would not
be the most advisable course to adopt.
Mr. E W ART hoped his Hon. Friend would postpone
the Bid for a fortnight, and that he would afterwards
proceed with it until it was passed into a
After a few words from Mr. MILES and Mr. GREENE,
Sir G. GREY expressed himself favourable to the
postponement of the Bill for a short time.
• Mr. SIOFFAT I' assented to the postponement of the
Bill for a fortnight, but expressed his intention to oppose
the reference of the subject to a Committee up stairs,
eince every Member must have had sufficient practical
e.xperience of the necessity or not of the measure.
The Committee on the Bill was then deferred for a
fortnight.

THE NAVIGATION-LAWS.
On the motion of Mr. LABOUCIIERE that the
House go into Committee on this Bill,
Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition against the re-
peal of the navigation-laws.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition in favour of
their repeal from Montreal, signed by the Mayor, the
President of the Board of Trade, and a number of
merchants.
Mr. WAWN and Mr. HAWEC presented petitions to the
same effect.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished, before the Speaker left
the chair, to offer a few observations upon a matter of
much public interest. Were it not a matter of this
nature, he assured the House he should not have re-
ferred to it at that period of their proceedings.
The SPEAKER inquired if it had reference to the
navigation-laws ?
Mr. GLADSTONE said it had. It aro3e out of a
speech recently delivered by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Hull (Mr. Baines) to his constituents. The
speech was a, very manly and straightforward one, but
being made by a Minister of the Crown he considered
that he would be excused if he asked a question
with respect to it.—(llear, hear.) The accuracy of the
speech he had not the means of judging.—[Mr. Baines
intimated that it was correct.] The speech being re-
ported in the Morning Post of the 9th of February, con-
tained the following passage:—" Then there is the
subject of the navigation-laws. It is perfectly
well known that the Ministers introduced
a measure with respect to those laws, against which I
voted. I divided against the Ministers at every stage of
the Bill. I felt it to be my duty to do so. And though
I differ with many of my constituents—gentlemen
of great intelligence who still think that they
ought to be repealed, yet I am not of that
opinion—on the contrary, I think that the
principle of the navigation-laws ought to be retained."
And on reference to the division lists he found that the
Hon. and Learned Member had in the last session voted
against the Government on the question.—(blear,
hear.) The question he had risen to ask was,
whether the measure recommended from the Throne
by her Majesty, and to-day to be introduced by the
Hon. Member (Mr. Laboueleere),uld have the support
of the Hon. and Learned Member?
Lord J. RUSSELL would answer the question of
rho Right Hon. Gentleman by a statement of the facts
as they had occurred. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, now the President of the Poor-law Commission,
was offered by him, in the name of her Majesty, the
office he now held. lie replied that he had rt, o objec-
tion to accept the
office, hut tnat he
•
feared his opposition to the Government with re
speet to the navigation-laws would present an
insuperable objection, since he had voted against the
Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) re-
plied that he considered the department so important,
and the services which he believed him capable
of rendering equally so, that he intimated
to him that he should not in any way
interfere with his opinion on the navigation-laws.—
(Hear, hear.) Understanding from him that upon every
other subject he agreed with the views of her Majesty's
Government, he considered him in every way qua-
lified to become one of the Ministers.—(Hear, hear.)
Many precedents were on record of different Govern-
ments having adopted a similar course with respect to
some of their members. For instance,! there wasl the
Hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who, though a
member of the Government, voted against the Alien
Bill, and who, in addition, spoke against the policy which
guided the Ministers in introducing thatßill. Again,the pre-
sent Lord Lonadale voted against the Catholic Disabi-
lities Bill, yet the Duke of Wellington, then at
the head of the Administration, allowed him
to continue a member of the Cabinet. With
the exception of the Honourable and Learned Member,
the other members of the Government concurred in the
Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws.—(Hear.).
The SPEAKER having left the chair, and
it having
been taken by Mr. BERNAL,
Mr. LABOUCIIERE preovcoelevedded
utpoon sayhim thatof
the duty had again devolved
calling
the attention of the nettse
o r the
laws which regulated the navigation this
country,
and he rejoiced that he was enabled to do so at
BO early
a period of the session, when the House
would have an
ample opportunity of discussing
those important questions, which discussion, he
trusted, would lead to
the solution of
subjects
which, he was sure, could not be delayed without the
most injurious consequences to the mercantile and
commercial interests of the British empire. They
had last session long discussions upon this subject, and
though they did apt lead to any procUcal couolusiwa,

yet he trusted that the time which was then devoted to
the question was not altogether thrown away or lost.
He trusted they should be enabled to approach the sub-
ject in the present session, having cleared away many of
the preliminary difficulties which had been encountered
upon the threshold of this question, without
passing over the ground they had traversed,
and that they should be prepared, without protracted
preliminary discussion, to advance at once:to consider
the measure which the Government had felt it its duty
to submit to that House. He was glad that this
country and the colonies had had, during the interval
that had elapsed since the last session, an opportunity of
considering the whole question, the magnitude of which
he was not disposed to underrate. It would indeed be
most satisfactory to discuss and decide upon the
question after the inhabitants of the most distant
parts of the empire had had an opportunity of
expressing their opinion and forming a judgment upon
it. Under these circumstances, he should compress
what he had to say into the briefest limits compatible
with the vast importance of the subject. The main provi-
sions of the measure of last session were these :—With re-
gard to one great branch of the navigation-laws, that part
which regulated the coasting trade and fisheries of the
the country, ho did not in the measure of last
year propose any alteration, with the exception of a
modification in the regulation relating to fisheries, and
with respect to this portion he did not propose
to make any alteration, but in the proper part of his
address he should more particularly allude to this.
Last year he stated that the necessity of the naviga-
tion-laws was contended for for many things—in the
words of the Hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries),
three fundamental principles: the first was that portion
the object of which was to secure to this country the
monopoly of our colonial trade; next to secure to this
country the " long -voyage trade;" and the third was
that principle which endeavoured to secure to this
country the possession of that indirect European
trade. With respect to the colonial, he might
not inappropriately repeat now what he stated
last year, that it did appear to him that
that policy which the House had adopted with
regard to depriving the colonies of protection—(Hear,
hear)—of protection in the markets of this country—be
that policy right or wrong, it was not then necessary
for him to discuss; but, believing that a great
portion of the House were not prepared
to retrace the step which it had taken (Hear,
hear)—considering that the protection enjoyed by
the colonies in the markets of the mother country,
and that the time was not far distant when protec-
tion would be withdrawn from them altogether,
it appeared to him the height of injustice to refuse the
colonies the abolition of those restrictions upon naviga-
tion, of which, in all periods of colonial history, they had
I so much reason to complain ; but at the present time it
would be an intolerable injustice to maintain these
restrictions upon their colonial trade—restrictions which
be had no hesitation in saying were incompatible with
the connexion that subsisted between the most impor-
tant of our colonies and the mother country.
These were the arguments which he last ses-
sion advanced in favour of the proposition then before
the House, but more in detail than he intended to sub-
mit them on the present occasion. He had produced
numerous communications from Canada and the West
Indies, all complaining of the injustice of the
present laws. Lord Harris had detailed the ad-
vantages which would be derived by the im-
portant colony of Trinidad, if it were allowed to
carry on an interrupted trade with Spain and France.
He begged to remind the House of the arguments
heretofore advanced by him. As Australia, Canada,
and their other colonies developed themselves, com-
posed of Englishmen, was it to be supposed that
they would rest satisfied with restrictions of this de-
scription?—(Hear.) Was it not the part of true wisdom
to take the step proposed by this Bill, rather than com-
ply with it when irritation and agitation compelled
them to accede to it. The interval that had
elapsed had only brought additional proof of the senti-
ments of the colonists, and he would fain hope that the
attention of the House had during it been
called to the papers which were last ses-
sion laid before the House. The Honourable Member
then referred to a dispatch of Lord Elgin, setting
forth the views of the inhabitants of Montreal,
New York, and Quebec, and the evils which
the manufacturers and producers of the far west expe-
rienced in consequence of the existence of those laws—
since they prevented them from obtaining the true
advantage of all those internal means of com-
munication which had been constructed at such
an enormous outlay.—(Hear, hear.) The patience
which Canada had evinced pending the repeal of
these laws deserved their utmost gratitude, and
they would show but an ill sense of it if they
did not early accede to their wishes. Ono docu-
ment had been furnished to Lord Elgin by
two persons of high respectability and influence,
to which he had called the particular attention
of the Home Government, stating that they were unable
to execute an order for 250 tons of Scotch pig iron, in
consequence of the oppressive nature of these laws.
The third of those main and fundamental principles, on
which the system of the navigation-laws rest, consisted
in those restrictions which attempted to secure to this
country its own carrying trade. With regard to the
operation of those restrictions he thought it right to re-
mind the House that this was a policy that could be only
successful s long as it was confined to ourselves, and
so long as foreign nations acquiesced in it. If every
nation attempted to insist on that indirect navigation,
we should gain nothing, but should infallibly be
losers. In a gain in which all would lose sum,,thing,
we should assuredly lose the most.—(Llear, hear.)
Foreign nations were altogether agreed, that if we mount
to keep this carrying trade to ourselves they would re-
taliate upon us. During the last session of Parliament
he stated the situation in which we stand in regard to
Prussia in this respect. He knew Hon. Gentlemen
treated with great levity any menaces from Prussia;
but, in his opinion, it was not wise so to treat them.
But was Prussia the only country which was expected
to speak similar language to us if we insisted on this
policy ?; Ho ventured to call the attention of the
House to the trade with Russia; there were few
trades of more importance to this country than that
which we conduct with Russia. Abounding in raw pro•
ducts as Russia did, and England being eminently a
manufacturing country, two such countries were formed
by nature to have commerce with each other. How did we
stand with Russia in respect to this indirect trade? We
made a treaty with Russia in 1843, which was to last for
ten years, and which would, therefore, expire in 1853.
By that treaty Russia engaged to admit British ships
into Russian ports upon equal terms with her own
ships. Was it likely, when that treaty expired, that
Russia would not retaliate upon us, by putting the same
restrictions on cur carrying trade as we did upon hers?
(Hear, hear.) At this moment an English ship might
take a cargo of sugar from Cuba to Russia,
but a Russian ship could not take a cargo from Cuba to
London. Now could we believe that Russia, when this
treaty expired, would allow this state of thin.gs to con-
tinue?—(Hear, hear.) But what had Russia done? In
1845,tw0 years after the signing of this treaty,the Emperor
of Russia publs,hed an ukase against all nations that did
not treat Russian:ships in the same way they did ships of
their own nation. Was it not much better, when we had
to discuss this question without the exasperation which
at a future moment would render its discussion incon-
venient—was it not much wiser, and had it not more of
true dignity—by a timely concession, not to the de-
mands of Russia, but to the demands of equity—(Rear)—
and a true and enlarged policy, to put those laws on a
consistent and sound footing, and so to prevent the evils
that, by a postponement of the question, must inevitably
be ours? These were, as he had stated, the three main
principles on which our system of navigation-
laws was founded ; and he proposed in the COW:I3C
of the last session, and he should now propose to the
House, to deal with these restrictions in such a
way as that the Privy Council should have the power
of re-enacting them wholly or in part, with regard to
any Government with respect to whom it maybe for
English interests that they should be so re-enacted. He
would remind the House that the main alteration with
respect to the manning and building of ships was to
admit foreign ships to British ports, if British owned
and British manned ; he therefore proposed to break
down the monopoly which at present existed. With-
out anticipating the discussion on this point, ho must
say that subsequent experience had only confirmed the
conviction he then expressed, that that most important
trade, he meant the trade of ship-building in Eng-
land had nothing to fear from this competition.
Since the House had discussed this question additional
information had been afforded by the evidence
taken before the House of Lords. He had looked
narrowly into that evidence, and he thought Honour-
able Gentlemen could not look into the statements
made before the House of Lords without coming
to the conclusion that, of all the trades in the world,
there
was nothing in which we could more successfully
compete with foreign nations than that of ship-building.
—(Hear.) To compare this country with the United
States of Amer-ea, what did he find? He found that all
the main articles of iron, copper, sail-cloth, and
many others, were immeaHsuerabfly cheaper in En-
gland than in America.
to cordage we had
America in that respct; with
regard on
to advantaged with regard
thetimber we were
over
on an equality; with regard to labour we werealso
samen
upon
an equality, so far as wages were concerned. But he
must allow that there was one point on which
we were not upon an equality with the United States,
and he feared the statements put forth on that point,
before the House of Lords, were perfectly correct. Mr.
Murray Wigram stated before the House of Lords that
the wages of shipwrights, in New York were about the
same as the labour in London ; but there was this
difference, the shipwright in the United States gave
his whole day's work for his wages, and the
shipwright in London worked as a combination man.—
(Hear, hear.) Did the House mean to state that the
trade of this country was to be burdened by mer-
cantile difficulties, or to grow up, in order to
protect a combination of shipwrights?—(Hear.) Was
that a point to be pressed upon him in legislating
on a question of such importance? The remedy for this
was to expose those who resorted to such unfair means
to render their labour dear to their employers, to the
competition of others, and so prevent that combina•
tion, by giving to the employer tho fair labour
of the employed.—(Hear' hear.) With respect to the
duties imposed on timber used, in ship-building
in this country, he would again appeal to the evi-
dence of a gentleman who altogether disagreed with
him (Mr. Labouchere) on the subject of the navigation-
laws ; he appealed to the gentleman to whom he had
already adverted, viz., Mr. Murray Wigram,
who was one of the largest shipowners in
the world. It would be impossible for any
man to give his evidence before the House of Lords
in a
respectmor ef r a ntke
, candid,thoseduties
and h
h
o truthful
tmmaenrnieor .r a
il-sli
ng h
He
tsaid,o
with
price of ship-building in England, " the amount of
timber duty payable
trifling—it was bu,upon foreign timber is
3s. 6d. a ton in the

case of a merchant ship of :690 tons." On ,
the other hand, mahogany was admitted duty free;
it was the same with other valuable foreign woods, and,
therefore, it was quite a mistake that those duties on
foreign timber impose any material charge on the Bri-
tish ship-builder. He would quote now the name of
another gentleman who was must strenuously opposed
to any change in the navigation-laws. He referred to
Mr. George Frederick Young. That gentleman stated
in 1847, before a Committee of the House of Commons,
that " the quantity of foreign timber used in the con-
struction of ships in this country bore but a small pro-
portion to the whole quantity employed." The next
alteration to which he (Mr. Labouchere) would advert,
and which he proposed last year, was with respect to the
number of apprentices which shipowners were obliged
to take. They had constantly complained of this obliga-
tion, and he thought it was highly proper that
they should be relieved from it at a time
when the House was making the proposed
change in the navigation-laws. Those therefore were
the principles of the measure which lie proposed in the
last session. He proposed absolutely to repeal
those three principles of the navigation-laws,
viz., the restrictions on the carrying trade,
the restrictions on the colonial trade and the restrictions
on the " long-voyage trade;" and also to modify the
laws which regulatEd the registration of ships and sea-
men so as to allow the British shipowner to purchase his
ships from foreign ship-builders, and also to abolish
the obligation to have a certain number of
apprentices. He had during the interval of the recess,
in connexion with her Majesty's Government, carefully
considered the objections made to this Bill, with the
earnest desire to adopt any suggestion which ap-
peared to them to be an improvement in the
scheme which he had originally propounded.
With respect to the coasting trade of this country the
Right lion. Gentleman the Member for the University
of Oxford stated, by way of objection, that by diminish-
ing, or continuing unimpaired, the restrictions on that
trade; we were placing ourselves at great dis-
advantage in trading with foreign countries.—(Hear.)
He adverted especially to the case of the United States
of America, and he asked what could be more unequal
and unfair than that, while we allowed the Americans
to engage in our foreign and colonial trade, by retaining
those restrictions, and by preventing them from sharing
our coasting trade, we debarred ourselves from sharing
that important trade along the coasts of America, which
partook more of the nature of a foreign trade than of a
mere coasting trade. He (Mr. Labouchere) felt it very
difficult to meet that argument. He certainly thought if
we bad made no change in our coasting trade we could
have no claim in equity or justice to ask the United States
to admit our ships to their coasting trade. Nevertheless
he had thought it better to consider this part of the sub-
ject with a view to see whether he could not meet the
difficulties he felt at the time to opening the
coasting trade, allay the alarm that had
been felt among the seafaring population of this country,
and also the danger that was anticipated to the revenue
by allowing foreigners toparticipate in the coasting trade
of this country. After maturely considering the question
he had come to a conclusion which he trusted
would meet with the approbation of the House, and
would have its effect, if adopted, of not exposing
the revenue to any danger, or excite any alarm.
There were two branches of the coasting trade to
which he had turned his attention particularly; the
one was steam navigation, with which he did
not think it possible foreigners could compete
with this country. Ho proposed to maintain that de-
scription of coasting trade which existed in going to and
fro from port to port entirely in this country; and any
restrictions that he proposed to abolish with respect to
foreigners he also proposed to put an end to with
respect to English vessels—he intended to allow
either English or foreign vessels to touch at Bri-
tish ports if they were bound for abroad. He thought
it desirable that such facility should be given to
the coasting trade of the country. The altera-
tions he had adverted to were the only alte-
rations of any consequence he proposed to
make in the measure he had laid before
the House in the course of last session. There were
some minor alterations in the Bill, but it was un-
necessary for him to advert to them then, as they
would be fully considered by the Committee. There
were many points raised on the discussion last year to
which he would not then advert, because there seemed
to be a general desire that the resolution he intended to
propose should be agreed to, in order that it might be
considered in Committee.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON wished to know whether
it was the intention of the Government to endeavour to
enter into any understanding with America on this

subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that in a conversation he
had had with tho American Minister, Mr. Ban-
croft, that gentleman had stated that he
considered it most desirable that a convention

relative to the coasting trade should be concluded with
America and England, and that if such a conven-
tion was drawn up he would sign it to-morrow.
—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Bancroft had further stated
to him that he was willing to throw open the coasting
trade in the modified manner he (Mr. Labouchere) had
stated to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He could only
conclude by assuring the House that if he
believed that the safety, honour, and welfare of this
country would be put in jeopardy by the measure he
would be the last man to bring it forward, or give it his
support, but feeling convinced that it would abolish
us-less restrictions, recruit the maritime strength of the
country, and tend to its security, he had no hesitation
in bringing the measure forward, and ho felt as little
doubt that it would meet with the approbation of
the House.—(Hear, hear.) In particular, he entreated
the House to consider the situation in which they stood
with respect to the colonies, and asked them not to delay
the question shich was now brought forward for
their consideration.—(Hear, hear.) He had been much
gratified by the assurance given by the Right
Honourable Member for Stamford that he
did not intend to resist the resolution ho proposed,
in the first instance. In conclusion, he trusted that the
measure he proposed would give stability to the commerce
of this country and contentment to the colonies. There
were two subjects to which he had promised to allude
but which he had inadvertently forgotten. One was
with respect to the light dues; on that subject he intended
to re-introduce the Bill he had brought forward last ses-
sion, with some slight alterations, and he was in hopes
that he should be able to pass it during the present
session. The other subject was with respect
to the Merchant Seamen's Fund. Ti ere was no
question, in his opinion, connected with the mercantile
marine of the country more important than that.—
(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to say that the Merchant
Seamen's Fund was at present insolvent. He had
introduced a Bill on this subject during the last session
founded upon the report of tee Commissioners that had
been appointed to investigate the question. The recep-
tion that measure had met with in that House was
not such as to induce him to persevere in that
Bill, but ho had since considered it to be his duty to
reconsider the subject, and ho was in hopes that he
should be able in the course of the present session to
introduce a measure very different from that of last year
upon the subject, and that at an early period of the
session.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Friend of his, one of
tho Lords of the Admiralty, had considered the
subject of the measurement of ships, and he was in hopes
that in the present session he would be enabled to intro-
duce a me 4sure which would put an end to the objections
that had been taken on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that
the resolution he intended to move was slightly
modified from last year, the only alteration he
proposed in it being—" And to amend the laws relating
to the coasting trade of the United Kingdom."
Mr. HERRIES thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite had placed him in a situation of some
embarrassment as to the course he ought to pursue.
It was generally understood in the last session that
this question should be so placed, that during
the present session, they should begin the discussion
whore they left off last. He thought that the House
would pursue a wise course if they postponed, till the
second reading of the Bill, the main question to be
considered in the present case.—(Hear.) He thought
Members had some ground of complaint against the Go-
vernment for they course they had pursued in refusing
information to Members while it was given to
other parties.—(lfear, hear.) He was in hopes, from
all he had heard, that the Right Honourable Gentleman
would have been ready to tako a step much more
in the right direction than that which he had done,
and that the alteration he had intended to pro-
pose in the resolution brought forward last year would
have been much more effectual. Now, he thought
that that was essentially right. An English ship could
not load on the coast of America for a voyage,
say to California, a distance of 10,000 miles, under the
denomination of a coasting trade. He did not see why
the exclusive advantages that we now enjoy should
all be abandoned for a merely supposititious ad-
vantage—for it should be remembered that this
measure had not respect to America alone,
but to every country with which we have
commercial relations. The only benefit which was re-
tained, or rather proposed to be retained, was the right,
in the event of other countries not giving equal advan-
tages in return, of imposing retaliatory measures. But
was this benefit at all likely to be retained ? Judging
from what had already transpired he should say cer-
tainly not, for the system which they pursued was de-
cidedly progressive. Let them see if any other
countries had shown the slightest disposition
to return the favour which we were gratuitously
conferring. What had been the conduct of France?
Why, at this very moment France was deeply engaged
in carrying out their restrictive measures, and when ap-
plied to to grant reciprocal advantages to this country,
the French Minister coolly and very properly replied by
the question--On what ground do you ask us to do this?
You have candidly acknowledged that the reduction of
your duties was made solely for your own benefit, and
wherefore, then, should we, on any ground of gratitude,
give you these reciprocal advantages? We may be un-
fortunate in not taking your view of the matter; but in the
meantime we mean to take care of ourselves.-
-(Hear, hear, from both sides of the House.) Well,
and this was virtually the reply of every other Minister
to which application had been made for international
treaties.—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the West
India islands, on'what basis had they any right to ground
a hope that the West India colonists would be induced
to employ Britgh shipping in preference to that of
America or any other country ? None at all.
of our urisla ownndg, islands—
theyandh had destroyed d a
By the very principle which they had adopted
they had made the slave-grown sugar equal, in
respect of privilege,the tratotde that
tof
actually consigned them to absolute ruin.—(Hear, hear.)
Then as to Canada, what had been done there?—[Mr.
Labouchere interposed the remark, that. what had been
done wa
Lordsun Elgin'sder the advice
adovpicienioofnLtoordbeE Elgin.] Lord
weighed
againstElgin!
the
and was
opinion of the whole of the Canadian population, and
nattat the force of the principle of the heYigAtion•