The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-26 00:00:00

Obruina "k`ult

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1849.

Notwithstanding the determined hostility mani-
fested by the Protectionist party to the great and
comprehensive measure introduced by her MAJESTY'S
Government for the reform of the Navigation Code—
notwithstanding the intimation given by the recog-
nised leader of the party in the House of Lords, that
" he was fully prepared for the consequences of its
rejection"—notwithstanding the subsequent attempt
to mutilate the Bill in Committee by amendments
completely altering its character, and neutralising the
beneficial results that might have been expected
under the now improved system —notwithstanding
the boasts of the Protectionist press, their significant
allusions to the fact " that proxies would not count in
Committee," and the repeated conferences held by the
principal members of the party as to the course to be
adopted, when the anticipated success had crowned
their exertions the Bill was carried in all its
integrity, and all its clauses were agreed to
without change or modification. We most
heartily congratulate the country on this most
auspicious result, and we equally congratulate
their Lerdships on the wise and prudent discretion
manifested throughaut -the-xecent proceedings on this
all-iMpOrttlat Alibied. There is now a fair And

reasonable prospect that the principles of free trade
will be fully land fairly carried out—that all restric-
tions will be removed from the free importatiOn of
every i.rticle of commerce by the carriage thereof as
well is the purchase being open for fair competition
to the inhabitants of every country.

The majority of 10, by which the second reading
of the Bill was carried in the House of Lords,
and which it was asserted was owing to
the proxies given by Noble Lords ' ho
bad not heard, and who consequently could
not have been influenced by the arguments adduced
in opposition to the measure, was increased in Com-
mittee on the several divisions that took place on
Lord STANLEY'S amendment, which,lif carried, would
have completely altered the character of the Bill, and
which, it was truly stated, would interfere so materi-
ally with its principle, that no Peer who had voted for
the second reading could consistently support the
amendment ; the majority was increased to 13,
while the subsequent amendments of the Earls
of ELLENUOROUGLI and WALDEGRAVE were ne-
gatived by majorities of 13 and 12 respt ctively. But
those majorities, although conclusive as to the feel-
ing of the House, did not indicate the real strength
of the Government on the question. That was more
fully exhibited in the abandonment of all further
opposition by Lord STANLEY, and the bitter tone
in which he spoke of the conduct of those who " en-
deavoured to compensate for the manner in which
they spoke of Ministers out of doors by the assi-
duous and steady support which they rendered the
Government within the House." It proved how clearly
the Noble Lord perceived the futility of the hopes
he had vainly cherished of a speedy return to official
duties, and of the re-enactment of protective imposts
on the food of the many, for the exclusive benefit of
the few. That, indeed, was the real question at issue.
So long as a shred of monopoly remained, so long as
any class in the empire was permitted to retain exclu-
sive privileges, so long there was a hope, however
extravagant, that the palmy days of landlordism might
be restored; that a sliding-scale might be re-
established, or that at least a fixed duty
of six or eight shillings per quarter might be
imposed ; that the nation would consent to the com-
promise which was indignantly refused some ten
years since by the Corn Lords, but which they
would now be but too happy to accept.
The apparent object of Lord STANLEY'S amend-
ment was to establish a system of "reciprocity,"
analagous to the famous reciprocity statutes (4 GEO.
IV., c. 77, and 5 GEo. IV., C. 1), originally intro-
duced by Mr. HUSKISSON and Lord WALLACE.
No person could, however, perceive more
clearly than the Noble Lord himself the
absolute impossibility of carrying out the
views which he put forward so crudely and hastily,
and, as he himself admitted, without sufficient con-
sideration. He must be well aware that the " reci-
procity statutes" had been followed by " reciprocity
treaties ;" that England had entered into solemn and
binding contracts with many nations, and that the
general bases of these contracts were a fixed propor-
tion as to the nature of the privileges that should be
respectively granted to other countries. Many states
were under these compacts entitled to be placed upon
the footing of the " most favoured nation." We
could not, therefore, open our ports to the shipping of
one country willing to concede the equivalents re-
quired by the amendment, and keep them closed
against the vessels of another that would enter into
no new stipulations, but declare its intention of
abiding by the existing treaties, and claiming the
same privileges that might be accorded to the other.
As, for instance, if we should conclude an agreement
with America (if the restrictions still to be retained
on certain unspecified articles, and which could not
be bartered or surrendered, would permit of such an
arrangement), we could not refuse the same advan-
tages to France, although the French Government
might refuse to modify their regulations and restric-
tions in any degree. This, then, would be the condi-
tion of affairs under the new Act :—" In case it should
be made to appear to her MAJESTY that any foreign
nation was willing to concede to the ships of this
country the like privileges and advantages as
were enjoyed by, or intended to be conferred
• on, the ships of such foreign country, or ad-
vantages equivalent thereto, it should be law-
ful, &c., &c." Here, then, no relaxation could
be permitted to France, unless she were IN illing "to
concede to the ships of this country the like privileges
and advantages as were enjoyed by, or intended to be
conferred" on her own ships here, cr " advantages
equivalent thereto." But as France would enter into
no such bargain, no new privileges could be granted to
her shipping.

We might then reduce the question to a syllogistic

form :

Every new privilege conferred upon the shipping of
America must also be conferred on the shipping of
France ;

No new privilege can he conferred on the shipping
of France ;

Ergo—no new privilege can be conferred upon the
shipping of America.
The Act would, therefore, remain a dead letter on
the statute-book, a memorable example of hasty and
inconsiderate legislation. The British Parliament
and the British nation are, however, preserved from
making themselves so truly ridiculous, from being
tulde the laughing-stock of the civilized world, by
the prudent and discreet course adopted by their
Lordships, who have also thereby averted the disas-
trous comequences that must have resulted from a
collision between the Houses, and the general excite.
ment and confusion that must inevitably have fol-
lowed the accession to power of a party opposed to
the wishes and feelings of a great majority of the
people.

Having once decided upon emigration from the
United Kingdom, the majority of settlers are either
embarrassed as to the place of their destination, or
find themselves, by a precipitate movement to one or
other of the colonies, plunged into a state of very
unexpected, and, in many instances, altogether irre-
parable involvement. Anything that can at all tend
to guard against the repetition of these evils must be
regarded in the light of a national benefaction.
Any one who can assist the judgment of the eini•
grant in the selection of the most appropriate region
for colonization must be looked upon as having con.
ferrei an inestimable boon upon the community.
Various attempts have been made recently
to pioneer the road of immigration ; and
many individuals have undertaken to point
out the tracks leading to certain competence, if
not to possible profusion. Here, however, is the
grand blunder—the rock upon which so many em-
bryo fortunes have been wrecked—the notion that by
transferring their little how. ehold to the backwoods
of America, or to the midst of the unpruned vegeta-
tion of Australia, any adventurer may leap with a
sudden bound into the possession of countless luxu-
ries and inexhaustible treasures. Little do these
sanguine speculators know of the reserve of futurity
if they conjecture for one moment that in their log
cabins they will experience anything like that moral
cies
elephantiasis resulting from civilization, the embaras
richesses. Little are they aware of those innu-
merable privations which are the inevitable concomi-
tants of emigration.
Of all the safeguards against the dangers surround-
ing the inexperienced settler, the very best that has
yet come to our knowledge is a little volume,* penned
by a gentleman evidently well versed in the subject
upon which he has written. The wording of the
title-page, given below as a foot-note, sufficiently ex-
plains the utility of the pamphlet, and a glance
through the contents will amply evidence the valu-
able and practical character of its in'ormation. A
wider range of settlements could scarcely have been
taken in at one survey, a fact which must be in-
stantly apparent when we remark that the author
has here successively recounted the advantages
and disadvantages of Nova Scotia, New Bruns-
wick, Cape Breton, Prince Edward's Island
toge:her with the whole of the Eastern and Western
division of the Canadas—New England, the Western
States, the Slave States, Texas, Oregon, California,
Vancouver's Island, and the entire extent of the
different climates subject to the model Republic. At
a single glance, therefore, the reader who meditates
emigration may survey the countries open for his re-

* " The Settler's New Home; or, tno Emigrant's Lo-
cation, being a Guide to Emigrants in the Selection of a
Settlement, and the preliminary details of the-Wyage."
By Sidney Smith. Yp. 106. John Kendrick, London,
1549.