The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-13 00:00:00

LOUGHCORRIB IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr: DIVETT moved the second reading of the Lough
Corrib Improvement Company, Incorporation and
Amendment of Certain Public Acts Bill.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY opposed the second reading of the
Bill. • The Board of Works in Ireland had already ex-
pended a large sum in improving the lands in question,
and he trusted that the improvements of the Board of
Works would be allowed to go on.
Mr. DIVETT said that all he wished was that the
whole subject had been referred to a Committee up stairs.
Mr. J.
pARKER would recommend to his Hon. Friend
who had the charge of the Bill to postpone its second
reading until the proceedings in Chancery were deter-
mined.
After some observations from Mr. B. DENISON and
Mr. AGLIONBY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that for seven years this company had done nothing,
and the only question was, whether the Board of
Works in Ireland, should or should not be allowed
to do that which this company failed to do. The
proprietors of the land through which the
works were to
,go were well satisfied with the
course the Board of Works had adopted. This measure
was brought forward to endeavour 0 put this company,
that had rested upon its oars, and done nothing for ten
years,. into possession of all that the Board of Works had
done. He thought the course pursued in bringing in
thil Bill was monstrous in the extreme, as it was an
attempt to deprive the country of the work that had been
done by the Board of Works in Ireland.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading
Against it ...
Majority against it
The Bill was accordingly lost.
PETITIONS.

... 36
... 55
... -19

Mr. BROWN presented ---apetition from Liverpool
praying that the navigation-laws might not be repealed
until the duties on timber had been abolished.
Mr, MOSTYN presented a petition in favour of inter-
national arbitration.
Mr. CAYLEY presented a petition to the same effect.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from the Dundee
Chamber of Commerce against the repeal of the navi-
gation-laws.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Man-
chester Chamber of Commerce to the same effect.

Mr. FORBES presented a petition proposing certain
alterations in the Scotch Marriage and Registration Bill.
Mr. C. LEWIS presented a petition from a number of
solicitors praying for the abolition of the attornies cer-
tificate duty.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petition from
Stafford, in favour of international arbitration.
Colonel DUNNE presented a petition against the rate
in aid.

An LION. MEMBER presented petitions from the Great
Western Railway Company against the present system
of rating railways.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition in favour of
the measure for the complete enfranchisement of copy-
hold tenures.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Sheffield,
praying for a reduction of the public expenditure.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S
S.
SISTE
air. S. WORTLEY said it might be for the conve-
nience of the House that he should state now that it wa
not his intention to move the second reading of his mar-
riage Bill, to-morrow. He would therefore move that the
order of the day for the second reading be discharged,
with the view of fixing the second reading for Thursday,
the 19th of April—The motion was agreed to.
SCOTCH LUNATIC BILL.
Mr. FORBES wished to ask the Lord-Advocate
whether he would so arrange the stages of his Btll for
establishing lunatic asylums in Scotland as to give the
counties an opportunity of expressing views upon the

measuri%

The LORD ADVOCATE said he did not propose to
take the second reading till after Easter, which would
afford ample opportunity for the counties to express their
opinions upon it.---(Hear, hear.)
TURNPIKE TRUSTS,
Mr. FORSTER moved for a return of the number and
description of the turnpike-trusts in the county of
Middlesex north of the Thames, the length of the
roads, and amount of debt and interest on each trust
respectively, at the date of such return.—Agreed to.
THE CONVICT AIITCHEL.
Mr. LOCKHART asked the First Naval Lori of the
Admiralty-Ist. Whether, when the Board of the Ad-
miralty issued instructions to Commander Wingrove,
with respect to the treatment of the convict Mitchet,

they were not aware that there was no spare cabin in
her Majesty's steam-sloop Scourge. 2d. Whether it was
not possible for Commander Wingrove, by fitting up a
temporary cabin, by taking one of his officers into his
own, or by some other means, to have complied with the
Admiralty orders, and to have saved himself from the
neces3ity of associating day after day with a convicted
felon.

Sir FRANCIS BARING said he wished to have an
opportunity of making some further inquiries
before he gave an answer to the inquiries of the Hon.
Member.

SLAVE-TRADE.
Mr. MOWATT presented a petition from Penryn,
praying the House to take measures to prevent the con-
tinuance of the slave-trade.
NAVIGATION-LAWS.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented petitions
against the repeal of the navigation-laws- from New-
castle-upon-Tyne, Deal, Swansea, Goole, and other
places.
NAVIGATION LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Upon the order of the day being read for resuming the
adjourned debate upon the navigation-laws,
Mr. GLADSTONA rose, and said he could have no
hesitation as to the vote which he should feel it to be his
duty to give upon this question. Being convinced that
the time had arrived when Parliament ought
definitively to consider the question of the navigation.
laws, and being prepared to assent to a great change in
those laws, he could not refuse or hesitate to vote for the
second reading .of the Bill. With regard to the justifica-
tion of the change, he should be content to rest it either on
the statements of the friends of the existing law, or upon the
statements of its opponents. If he took the statements
of the friends of the existing law they were so much
exaggerated, and so diametrically opposed to facts upon
many most important particulars, that out of their own
mouths he thought there was no difficulty in showing that
a great change ought to take place in that branch of
their legislation. For instance, he might refer to the
evidence given by Mr. Richmond before the Committee
of the House of Lords, a gentleman who, after being de-
puted, in 1847, to represent the interests of a most im-
portant board before a Committee of that House, was
again deputed in 1847 to represent the same body
in 1848 before a Committee of the House of Lords.
He said that the statement of Mr. Richmond would lead
any impartial man to the conclusion that those laws
ought to be changed. What were his representations?
That for many years past—he believed for the last 20
or 30 years—one half of the capital embarked in the
shipping trade of this country had been lost, and that
a large proportion of the other half yielded
no remuneration. Therefore, according to his state-
ments, and his experience was extensive, only a small
fraction have been successful, whilst a great number
have been only sufficiently fortunate to save themselves
from universal ruin. Using a homely expression,
he said it was true many entered into the trade,
but only to " waddle out of it like a lame duck for
the stock exchange?"—(Hear, hear.) Rarely, he said,
persons were to be found zo take theplaces of these ruined
individuals. But, for the sake of argument, admitting
this to be untrue, on what right, he asked the
House, were persons embarking in the trade to
be exposed to similar evils. But without going
into individual opinions, and costs and charges, he con-
sidered that they ought to be governed, in legislating
uponthese laws, by the fact that of late years they had in-
troduced many modifications into their commercial code;
and, in making these relaxations, it had always been the
practice of those who advocated them to appeal to the
standard of living and the cost, and to show that the
cost of living was greater here than in competing coun-
tries abroad, upon which the figures of Mr. Richmond
were most conclusive. He (Mr. Gladstone) freely ad-
mitted that this was not a case in which they
were to be guided by the pure and unmixed
doctrines of political economy.—(Hear, hear.) He
wished to see these laws repealed on many grounds—
one important point in which was whether the defences
of the nation would or would not be thereby injured. If
he believed a change would bring about a diminution,
far less an extinction, of our commercial marine,
he should not support the repeal of these laws.—
(Hear, hear.) He appealed to past experience
in defence of the change he was advocating. They had
been engaged for many years in introducing relaxations
into the navigation-laws. Thirty years had expired since
they commenced that modification, but only twenty-
four years had elapsed since these changes became
numerous and extensive. Let him compare the state of
British shipping before those epochs. In urging the ques-
tion, he was quite content to take his stand upon the
official papers upon which Mr. Richmond had relied.
The third report of the Committee of the House of
Lords showed the increase and decrease, distinguishing
the shipping of the United Kingdom and the colonies, as
compared with what had taken place with regard to the
shipping of the United States; also what was
its progress during the years of restriction as
compared with those of relaxa'ion. The, veracity
of the figures was beyond dispute, but if they were
unfair, they were unfair in favour of the existing laws;
because since they began to relax them by treaties of
reciprocity, a practice had prevailed of deducting the
gross total of shipping tonnage, showing the progress of
the increase of tonnage before the period of the relaxa-
tions to which they had referred. From these returns
it was evident that the figures before reciprocity treaties
represented a greater tonnage than the figures
of what had taken place since represented.
For 35 years, from 1791 to 1824, when we formed our
first reciprocity treaties with the Baltic powers—in those
35 years we added to our tonnage 1,480.000 tons, or at
the rate of 30,800 tons a year. In 24 years, from 1824
to 1847, we added to our tonnage 1,393 000 tons, or at the
rate, instead of 30,000 tons a year, of 58,000 tons a year.
But it might be said, and said truly, that a considerable
portion of that increase was due to colonial shipping,
and that the rapidity with which colonial shipping had
increased was not a fair test or criterion of the
shipping of the United Kingdom. That was
practically true, because a proposal was made a few
years ago by the friends of British shipping
to lay a differential duty on British shipping,
for the purpose of checking it ; but, speaking of the
United Kingdom only, it still remained true that it had
been advancing since the relaxation of the navigation-
laws, and advancing at an accelerated rate. From 1791
to 1824 it increased at the rate of 27,000 tons a
year ; from 1824 to 1847, in twenty-four years
the increase was 960,000 tons, or 40,000 tons a
year against 27,000 tons a year during the
period of relaxation. He did not know what fair or
sufficient inference could be made from those figures
that our shipping had not increased as rapidly as
the shipping of the United States. He granted.
that it had; but if they took the foreign 'trade of the
United States, and the coasting trade into account, that
comparison was palpably unfair. If they looked at the
territory of the United States, with its immense
tracts of virgin soil, the House saw how they had em-
ployed their great natural highways, off, red by their
lakes and rivers, under a state of circumstances which
had no parallel to ours. They must also take
into account the fact, that before we relaxed our na-
vigation laws, the shipping of the United States
was increasing more rapidly than ours ; but
,if the House wished te make a fair compari-
son with the shipping of the United States, he
would appeal to the increase of British colonial
shipping. How did that stand ? The figures
stood thus—between 1790 and 1847 (he now,
,took
the whole period of Mr. Richmond's statement in the
first instance) the shipping of the British colonies
increased from 96,000 tons to 634,000 • tons.
The shipping of the United States increased
565 per cent.; so that vast as had been the increase of
the shipping of America, the shipping of the
colonies of this country had grown with
a still more astonishing rapidity. He would
finally compare the increase of British colonial shipping
before 1824, when we were comparatively under a
system of restriction, and since 1824, when we had
been more under a system of relaxation. In 34
years, from 1790 to 1824, British colonial shipping, ac-
cording to Mr. Richmond's tables, increased from 96,000
tons to 211,000 tons, or at the rate of 3,300,000 tons per
annum. In the 24 years since 1824, down
to 1847, while we had been relaxing our law, British
colonial shipping had advanced from 211,000 tons to
644,000 tons, or, instead of the rate of 3,300 tons a year
at the rate of 18,000 tons a year.—(Hear, hear.) So far
therefore, he said, that disregarding all arguments of
a purely scientific or abstract character, and dwell-
ing only upon the result, experience proves
how small a reason we have already had
to change the system introduced by Mr. Ilus-
kisson and his followers; and the results had
been such as conclusively to prove that we ought to go
forward with increased courage in the path in which our
predecessors trod.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He came
then to the manner in which a change in
the navigation-laws ought to be carried into effect.
There were two points to which he wished more espe-
cially to refer. The first was with regard to the pecu-
liar interest of the Shipowners' Society; and the second
was as to how far it might affect our mercantile marine.
—(Laughter.) Now, with regard to the first, there was
one evident call for the protective duties, and he
would be one of the last to ever impose upon
them any obligations which in duty to the State
they were not bound to bear. He would refer
again to the authority to which he had already referred,
and might observe in limine that he was: one of those
on whose knowledge of the subject he fully depended.
He said that the shipowners had met with no sympathy
for their interests similar to that which had been shown
for the welfare of other portions of the manufacturing
community, and that their interests ought, above all
others, if the national welfare were , to be
respected, to be cared for. He must say,
that if any interests were to be respected, the
interests of this body of men was above all
others paramount, and that if justice was to be shown to
any people it was to be shown to the Shipowners' Society.
—(Hear, hear.) Now he was notprepared to enter into
the question of the Shipowners' Society any further than
to say that it they were suffering from any unfair
imposition, they ought to be relieved from it.—(Hoar,
hear.) He was not unaware that a great portion of
the mercantile marine was engaged in the service of

the North American shipowners.:-(llesr, hear.) He
was not desirous, on the one hand, zo uphold any
system that should draft from our mercantile
marine, perhaps the best men which we had in the ser-
.

vice; neither was he anxious on the other to prevent
the shipowners of this country from obtaining all
the advantages which they needed.—(Hear, hear.)
Therefore, he was bound to say, that it was an
incumbent duty on the Legislature and upon the country
to relieve them from those duties on timber by which
they represented themselves to be so heavily oppressed.—
(Hear, hear.) To do so was but in accordance with the

system which Mr. Huskisson had promulgated, and in
accordance also he might say with those principl,.s of
free trade which of late had been so fully carried
into effect.—(Hear, hear.) He had no sympathy
whatever with those who were desirous of preserving the
eXClUdive duties. (Hew, hear.) They could not

think of sending up to the House of Lords any
Bill which was not in accordance with th; ruie
laid down by those who would preserve such du-
ties. (Hear, hear.) He tnousht that the only
plan would be, so far as that objection was concerned,
was to do away with all the duties.—(Hear. hear.) lie
must say in justice to the Reformers thenseives that they
were in no way desirous of exaggerating their cese.
But there were larger interests than theirs concerned,
and the welfare of the country was at any rate
a matter of more consideration than the prosperity
of any private body whatever.—(Hear, hear.)
There was another compensation to which he
thought the shipowner was entitled. With re-
spect to our relation with Norway, it had been
argued that the Norwegian vessels, being better
calculated for the timber trade, it might be
said that they would injure the shipowner it it was
thought they would answer equally well tor voyages to
India. Now he denied that such an argument could
stand for a moment. But the shipuwning
at the present moment was not equally managed
over the whole surface of the globe ; it was divided into
particular fields, and in those fields, although the ship-
owners of this country had their share, foreigners
had not.—(Hear.) They were proposing to open
to foreigners those fields of employment. Now,
he thought that such being the case the English ship-
owner was enticed to ask from Parliament that it should
secure to him entrance into those fields of employment
from which he was at present excluded, and an equiva-
lent for those fields into which they proposed
to let the foreigner.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that
they might do much by constitutionel legislation. The
Americans, he considered, had set them a good example
on that subject. He was assured that the Bill as it
was at present drawn, without alterations, would lead
them into entanglements and ditlicuLies with foreign
nations ; for he had already seen a disposition
to fence on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
they would avoid such anomalies by means of con-
stitutional legislation, such as giving her Majesty
power by an Order in Council, or by enacting at once
that the vessels of foreign nations giving privilege to
British vessels in their ports, should enjoy the same
privilege in the ports of this country.—(Haar, hear.)
If any state, for instance, such as Prussia, which has no
colony, were to give up all the privileges of its naviga
tion unconditionally to British vessels, then he should
say, let that nation receive unconditional concessions
from this country.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Board of Control con-
tended, on Friday night, when he made a most lucid
and able statement on the subject of reciprocity,
that the contra principle was impracticable, and opposed
to all precedent. On the other hand, he (Mr. Gladstone)
contended that it was according to all precedent and ex
perience, and that it was far more easy to carry out
that contra principle than the plan of the Government.—
(Cheers.) On the one hand, he contended that they ought
to proceed by conditional legislation; while on the other,
the Government contended that they ought to repeal the
navigation-laws, reserving power to re-enact them against
all states that would not reciprocate.—(Hear, hear.) He
must be allowed to say, with regard to the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that every word he said against
reciprocity told with equal force against retalia-
tion.--(Hear hear.) It was infinitely more easy to
stand upon a system which existed, and which was
embedded in our laws, by relaxing that system.
than by sweeping it away, and allowing new interests
to grow up under that new state of things.— (Hear.)
In fact the country now had a claim to reciprocity, and
it was better to enforce that claim than to say to all
foreign nations, " We will rataliate against you if you
do not make he concessions."—(Hear. hear.) There
had been one answer made to this objec-
tion, and it was, that it was intended
that the retaliation clauses should be a dead letter, and
that they would never be put into force.—(Hear, hear.)
Well, if that were the case, get rid of them, and he
would join any one in getting rid of them rather than
allow the Bill to stand as it does.—(Hear.) He thought
if they did not proceed conditionally, they had
better legislate directly without retaliation.—(Hear,
hear.) Extraordinary cases might arise where
retaliation would be necessary, but they would be so few
that whenever they did occur Ministers, might easily
come to Parliament for some special legislation on the
subject.—( Hear.) One great objection of these retaliation
clauses, which were not to be acted upon, was that they
placed the Government in scarcely an honest position in
negotiating with foreign powers, because it would
always be supposed that they had vitality, and might at
any time be enforced.—(Hear, bear.) These clauses,
in fact. would prove derogatory to a country.
like this; whilst, in the next place, retaliating pro•
eoedings in almost every case defeated themselves, and
the best thing they could therefore do was to get
rid of them altogether. Now let them see
if it was not fairer to the shipowners that they should
rather adopta system of conditional legislation. It might,
indeed, be objected to him that the system was novel, but
those who thought so were mistaken, for at this mo-
ment we acted upon "that principle with every country
in the world. True we had, in the first instance, bound
ourselves with treaties, but with the single unimportant
exception of the South-American Stites and Russia, the
terms of those treaties had expired ; and in
respect of the United States, the Baltic States.
France, and Holland, we now stood precisely on the
game footing as if we had legislated conditionally, as he
proposed.—(Hear, hear.) We had the power of
withdrawing from the United States of America the
privilege which her shipping enjoyed, and America, on
the other hand, could withdraw the privileges which she
conferred on our shipping, and he certainly could see
no reason why they should not now adopt a conditional
system of legislation.—(Hear.) With regard to the
coasting trade, he doubted much whether the condition,
upon which it was proposed to allow American
vessels, would be permitted to participate in
it, he doubted much whether the terms would
be accepted by America. They had much better, instead
of giving them a part of the trade, throw the whole open
to them, on condition that they did the same for our
vessels in respect of their coasting trade.—(Hear, hear.)
He understood that a paper was in circulation contain-
ing an answer from the Americans to the overtures
made by the British Government, from which it ap-
peared that there was a disposition on the part of the
American Government to reciprocate all commercial
privileges. But he thought they ought to ask them-
selves, according to that homely and old es-
tablished saying, but on that ground no less
applicable to the present occasion, whether " a
bird in the band was not worth two in the bush."
He confessed he would rather have a distinct
engagement from America than a declaration
from a Minister, or from a President, who was about
to quit office in three or six weeks.—(Hear, hear.)
There was great instability on the part of the American
Government with regard to their motives, for in 1842
they passed highly restrictive measures, and in 1846 they
relaxed them; he found there were serious apprehensions
that the same appliances which carried the Presidential
election might be used in a way detrimental to the in-
terests of this country. He believed that
America was perfectly content to give equality of
privilege. It was evident, however, that protective
principles were very strong in America, and though
they were not so strong with reference to shipping as
they were to manufactures, he thought it would
be most rash on our part to throw away all
our advantages, and to give to America all she
asked upon the assurance of an evanescent Minister.
The time had now arrived for the final Parliamentary
settlement of this question, and he for one was prepared
to part altogether with our navigation-laws. He
had never heard anything to convince him that
a foreigner ought not to be admitted to our coasting
trade if he could find his way to our coasts; but the
Right Honourable Gentleman, by his measure,
still retained a dictinction, with regard to the
coasting trade, in favour of British ships.
Having allowed Canada perfect freedom in this respect--
in respect of vessels—he did not envy the
Government who, on account of separate in-
terests, should feel disposed to withdraw this
privilege. Was this class of retaliation to stand ? What-
ever told against that plan, a more limited and graduated
plan in regard to the colonies, told with tenfold force
with respect to the system of retaliation. There were
a great variety of cenflicting interests. He thought
they were not justified in looking upon Canada
as an exception ; but if that was to be the
case in respect of Canada, he was not sure it was so with
others. The House of Representatives of New Bruns-
wick had not seat any memorial upon the subject, but at
a meeting of the magistrates, merchants, and in-
habitants of St. John's, a memorial to the Throne was
agreed to on the 26th of June last, stating that the
repeal of these laws would prove prejudicial to the colo-
nies, inasmuch as there was no reciprocity proposed and
no provision made for the conveying of the colonial and
inter-colonial trade.—(llear, hear.) He did not know
that the public expressed the sentiments of the whole of
the inhabitants, but it appeared that they were in favour
of a system of conditional legislation. It appeared,
further, that colonial opinion had a mixed bearing upon
the matter. The Hon. Member for Westbury objected
to the system of reciprocity, because foreigners had
nothing to give, adding that the United States formed
ail exception. When he said this, he conceded the
whole point, since the ships of the United States com-
peted in the ports and markets of the whole world, and
the British merchants would gain more than they lost
by the competition of the United States. He believed,
however, that our marine, as compared with the
American navy, was susceptible of improvement, The
effect of those laws might be summed up—to make
ships go with half cargoes, where they might have full
ones, and to make them go out in freight
and to come back in ballast instead of carrying a cargo.
—(Hear, hear.)—Then repeal and do away with that
evil. Let them equalise as much us possible
the carrying of cargoes, and leave their amount and
value to be regulated by those interested in them. He
thought the power sought to be conferred on the
colonies of passing laws with respect to the deten-
tien of foreign vessels, and upon other matters,
should not be removed from the jurisdiction or
Parliament. Can ids, and the navigation of the St.
Lawrence above Montreal, and the navigation of the
Lakes, formed an exception. He anticipated that great
inconvenience and many evils would arise from the
power which would thus be placed in the hands of the
Colonial Legislatures in this respect.—(Hear, hear.)
Now he knew the Right Hon. Gentleman did not de-
cidedly depart from that principle, but he thought if he
passed those laws, which were to govern the access
of foreign ships to colonial ports, he would find out of
those laws there would necessarily grow questions relat-
ing to their construction, arid that they would
have one of two difficulties—either the construction of
those .colonial laws would be referred to Downing-
street, which he thought would not be satisfactory
to the colonies, or else the House would
have a direct diplomatic relationship, or some-
thing in the nature of one, between the colonial govern-
ment and the courts of foreign powers. lie thought that
would lead to very great inconvenience. lie did nos

wifTerstend why the House might not
deal with
our colonial coasting trade exactly as they
dealt sea h this question, end that the House
should make any reservation whatever of the
British co trado, the colonial coasting trade, er ct
my no kind r.)* trade b?tween one portion of the Queen'sdorniLloes and the other. They could not be very min'
Ruin° with respect to those principles on other statiei.
Ile was afraid the time would be long before
they rec;,ived as full and adequate a recognition
as they did in that House. He could not
also deny the withholding reciprocal conduct
on the part of foreign nations, not only
to those countries, but also to other countries of the
world. He thought that justice to the shipowners called
on the House to proceed on this path—(Hear)—but be
did not know whether the shipowners thought so too.
The Hon. Gentleman then went on to advert to the
circumstance of the Honourable Member for
Hull, the President of the Poor-law Cointnisiou,
having been excused from voting with Ministers on
this question on taking office, and he could
not but deprecate the evil precedent of her
Majesty's Ministers being divided on a great national
question like this, notwitstanding former Governments
had acted similarly with respect to Mr. Wynne and Lord
Lonsdale, who voted against the policy of the Govern'
ments with which they were connected on two occasions,
the last being in 1129, when Lord Lonsdale, under the
Duke of Wellington's Administration, voted against the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The presadents referred
to by the Noble Lord might form a technical and Par-
liamentary vindication of his cora!uct; but, when her
Majesty, in her Speech from theThronv, recommended to
the two Houses of Parliament a particular course in re-
spect to a subject of high national policy, it was not well
that her Majesty's servants should be divided in 'regard
to carrying their Royal Mistress's recommendation into
effect.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman who
introduced the measure stated, that if it should not be
adopted by Parliament the connexion between the
mother country and Canada would be endangered.
Giving the Right Honourable Gentlemen credit for sin-
cerity when he made that declaration, might it not be
asked whether a question which involved such might,'
considerations was one upon which her Majesty's ser-
vants ought to be divided? It must be assumed that the
Dune of Wellineton was aware of his strength in 1829,
and knowing that, he hsd the power to carry his measure
in both Hous-s, was reluctsnt,without necessity, to sever
an old political connexion. If the Noble Lord could de-
clare that he was equally confident of carrying his Bill
in that and the other House of Parliament, the practical
inconvenience which might result from the incident to
which he had alluded would be averted; but, speaking
g, nerally, nothing could derogate more from the moral
influence which a Government ought to possess than to
adept a course of conduct which showed that, in their
opinion, a consistent course of action upon a great ques-
tion of national policy was of less importance than a
consideration of the convenience of a particular depart •
ment.—(Hear, hoar.) He hoped that nothing which he
had said upon this point would be looked upon as
hostile to the Right Hon. Gentleman in question, whose
appointment he believed would prove highly advanta-
geous to the public interests.—(Hear, hear.) A Noble
Marquis who spoke on Friday gave utterance to some
gloomy anticipations respecting a great change in the
navigation-laws. Let them not be deterred by those
vague and dreamy vaticinations of evil, which never had
been wanting when any great change was proposed, and
which never would be wanting in this free countrh
where every man found full vent and scope for the ex•
pression not only of his principles, but of his prejudices
and his fears. Let them not be deterred by those ar
prehensions from a calm and serious examination of this
question, connected as it was with the welfare of the
country. Let them follow the steady guiding light of
experience, and then be confident that He who had pre'
served them through the past would likewise be sufficient
for them through the dangers of the future.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROBINSON contended that the navigation-laws
had not had the effect of giving the shipping interest
an extravagant rate of freights, and he proceeded to
show that the increase of their colonial trade, which
had been adverted to by the Right Hon. Gentleman the,
President of the Board of Trade, arose from the fact or
that trade being confined to British shipping. For his
own part. he would much rather see the navigation laws
abrogated by one sbort code, than vote for the second
reading of the Bill now before the House, relying on the
Government to indemnify the shipping interest by 9
retroval of their existing disabilities. Would the Go'
vernment before the Bill passed into law, if indeed it
ever became the law of the land, consent to take the
duty off timber, remove the duty on marine insurances,
modify the apprenticeship clause, and allow them to matt
their ships with the sailors of any country the'
pleased? Since 1837 the rates of freight had been
so low that the shipowners had more reason of coal'
plaint than had the shippers of goods for want of cow"
petition in order to reduce those freights. He did
not deny that some of the colonies might ask *
change in those laws, but what he asked, particularly
in regard to America, was, that the navigation of the
St. Lawrence might be thrown open to foreign yesseles
that might be a good enough argument for a Canadian.
but so far as the interests of the empire at large were
concerned, he could not agree to its justice or poll*
The Hon. Metriber for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) said the
ether night, that were any great rise of rates in ship'
ping to take place, the shipbuilders and shipowners
would ruin themselves in building vessels, in order that
they might profit by such rise. But did Hon. Gentlemen
think that the shipowners were so mad as to throw out
their money on any such enterprise without a good prose
pact of a sufficient return for it? But in regard to
that Iron. Gentleman's speech, he must say that unless
Government had stronger reasons for repealing the na-
vigation-laws than ha had urged, their case was weak
indeed. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more
improper than the conduct of the Government
in regard to this question. What was the use
of appointing Committees of Inquiry both in that
and the other House of Parliament, if, as the Noble
Lord stated to the London deputation, who waited upon
him the other day on this subject, the Government had
made up their mind upon it, and that no opposition
could sway the conclusions they had come to regarding
it ? The letter sent from the Foreign-office to the other
powers, respecting the change they meditated in those
laws, was also most reprehensible, and without entering
into the merits or demerits of the free-trade police':
either of this or of the last Government, he felt bonad
to say that by exposing this country to the unlimited
competition of foreigners, they were doing that which
would paralyse both the commerce and the enterprise of
the people of this country. There were two ctrcuta"
stances which ought to influence every Government in
this country in dealing with public questions; these were
the state of the labouring classes and the financial affairsof the country. Now, ho would ask the Noble Lord at
the head of the Qovernment, when the shipping interest
was ruined, when commerce was crippled, when the la-
boar market was glutted up-where, he would ask,
were
the labouring classes to be sustained, or how were the
finances for the carrying on the affairs of the countrey°
be provided? Under the navigation laws British 91;
ping had increased to a large extent. Do away with d navigation laws, and British shipping would greatlY de-
crease. Let the Hotise consider what a disadvantageous
position this ceuntijr would be placed in were such a
measure carried. America at the present time was a for-
midable rival to this country, but he believed, were the
navigation laws repealed, that in the course of ten year 9
they would have to sustain a conflict with America for
the maintenance of their West India colonies. Even now,
the colonists were discussing whether it would not be
better for them to throw off the yoke of this country, and
league themselves with the United States; and, as eon'
netted with those colonies he would not say, but • that
treated as.they were by this country, it would be better.
What had this country to de) with the colonies, after they
had given up trading with them? All connexion
with them after that was useless and expensive,
entailing upon this country the expense of lt
large army for the protection of those colonies, al
having abandoned them, there was certainly no use o
putting the country to that expense. But as to Arne'
rice, and the position she held in a maritime point n
view; at the present time the amount of the tonnage 0e
shipping employed by America in the British colonial
trade was 670,000 tons, while the tonnage employed in
the same trade by all other nations, this country in'
eluded, was 500,950 tons. In the Cuba trade the Awe"
rican tonnage was double that of this and other nations
In the East ndis trade it was also larger, while the
whole tonnage of American shipping was within 600,00
tons of that of the shipping of this country. In such
circumstances they ought not to pass such a measure
the present, which would be the means of increasing the
advantages of America and other countries, while it
operated ruinously upon this country.—(Hear.)
Mr. JAMES CLAY had never, so far as the debate
had proceeded, been able to gather from the President of
the Board of Trade, whether he meant still to consider•
under the present measure, that the commercial marine
was the must fitting nursery for seamen for the nail'
If he did so, what was the use of ordaining each British
vessel to be commanded by British captains, and manned:
for the most part, with British crews? And if he die
not do so, why should he deprive the c nnmercial marine
of all remuneration for raising those seamen, as was done
by the present measure? It, however, he had no other
objections to the measure than those, they might be re•
inedied in Committee; but he had another objection t°
tie measure, and that was, it was unaccompanied by
other measures necessary for the shipping interest of this
country, to act their part in the race of competition t°
which the measure, if passed, would subject then'
Among the measures which ought to have accompanied
it, he might mention one for the reduction of the lighw, dues, another for the abolition of the duty on marine ill'
Etrance, and a third for the total abolition of the dull
on timber for shipbuilding purposes. He should there-
fore vote against the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. 1101INBY said that though he had voted in ft:
your of the free-traders before,
yet on this occasion ""
felt bound to give his vote against the party, because
they were opposed to reciprocity; and expressed his as:
tonishment that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gleed
stone) should have expressed his resolve to support tos
second reading with an intention to oppose the coastiPg
clause in Committee. He next animadverted on the op.
jection raised' by the Hon. Member for Westbury (Mr'
Wilson) against reciprocity, and contended that the el'
dente of Sir J. Strickland was opposed to this Bill, be;
cause he stated before the Committee of the House °I,
Lords that there were 102 to 76 men from the merchant
sbke-rfovireeethienet(hmellnßitoty:eal
oNf atvh)e•, though
House
of
te.
Commons,had
that those of the merchant service in the Royal
ware only 5 per cent.; also, that the evidence
_f
Thomas Byien Martin, of Sir Thomas Cochrane,anclleft
Captain Berkeley, were against this measure. Ile r
adverted to the uselessness of the petitions of 29ilif's
persons in the city of London, and of other petit.r_,
from various scaports, against it, and contended :7
British captains and British shipwrights and sea
were equal, if not superior, to those of any other core
try. Finally, he considered that it was nothingnothingmoc!

cal with
is they
House
Gf the
ade, or ef
• Queen's
ery sea-
rr
stat?,i.
before
:ognition
ild not
conduct
it only
?.s of the
rs called
—but he
t 80 too•
to the
ser for

sters on
coUld
of bet
natioOal

nanent9
.nd Lord
Govern'

:castone•
Ider the
inst the
rt ferred
nci Par-
hen her
!laded to
3 in re:

not well
i'regard
ion into

bee°