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

of the coasting trade of that country was actually carried
on in British bottoms. There might be a difference in
favour of Spanish and French vessels, but still he would
contend that it was so trifling on the whole trade as to
be utterly useless in making the calculation of pro•
portionate benefit.—(Cries of " No, no," from the Op-
position.) If Hon. Gentlemen questioned the statt went,
he was fully prepared to go into the whole matter, but
he would not do so then, because it was evident from the
declarations opposite that, as a shipowners' question, the
whole principle had been altogether given up since last
year. (Cries of "No," from Mr. Alderman Thompson and
others.) Yes, he contended it was so, for those Honour-
able Gentlemen had altogether shifted their ground, and
now, instead of looking upon this as a merely mercantile
matter, they desired to make it a national question.
On that ground also he was prepared to meet them, but
be would not do so now ; and he would only further
notice the remark of the Hon. Alderman upon the
difference of price between American and English oak,
by saying that although there was a considerable dif-
ference in the prices of the two woods, the former it should
be recollected was white oak in the rough,which would only
last, when made up, for seven years, whereas the English
oak spoken of, was properly prepared for shipbuilding,
and vessels constructed of it were calculated to endure
for twelve years—(Cheers)—in active service.
Mr. ROBINSON could only say that if the Ministry
were determined to carry this measure through the
House, and l:act the strength to do so, that fully im-
pressed as he was with the disastrous consequences of the
measure he should give them little further trouble.
-Yet, while making this statement, he could not but re
cal to their recollection the testimony which had now
been so abundantly given, and warn them of the
certainty that it must greatly tend to destroy our
naval superiority, and pauperise the country.—(Hear.)
He denied that the Canadians had expressed a stronger
wish than they did last year for the repeal of the
navigation-laws. There could be no doubt, say
what they would, that the Canadians must have
a protective duty of five shillings on corn.
The geographical position of Montreal was such that no
alteration in the navigation-laws would do any
good for them. If the Government altered the
navigation-laws with respect to Canada they
would not afford them any benefit whatever,
but would rather prevent their enterprise and perse-
verance in trade. He objected to giving the Queen in
Council any right to interfere in the question of recipro-
city. He was willing to consider the question of the al-
teration of the navigation laws, but it was a question with
him how far any alterations could be made in them
with a due consideration for the maritime supremacy
of the country. It was said that the alterations
in the navigation-laws would increase commerce.
What commerce, he would ask, would it improve?
Not English, but foreign, he would venture to
say. The whole of the evidence that had
been taken before the Committee in the
House of Lords was entirely against the pro-
position made by her Majesty's Government.
He would advise the House not to make any alteration
in the navigation-laws, and if foreigners chose to reta-
Iliate,
they should let them do so.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said that the state of trade gene-
rally, notwithstanding all that had been said, was most
deplorable; but, considering that the measure proposed
by the Government was calculated to improve commerce,
he should give it his support.
Sir JOHN TYRRELL thought if the ports of this
country were to be free to every one, the House
ought to be informed from what source the revenue
of the country would spring. The advocates of
the Manchester school must have entered into a con-
spiracy. They seemed to be plunging on this headlong
course, notwithstanding the destitution and the
increase of vagrancy in Ireland, and the po-
verty in this country.—(Hear.) If they looked at the
case of Canada and the West Indies, it was but justice
that there should be a relaxation of the restriction on
trade; but generally he objected to the whole course of
their legislation on this subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped the House would allow
this resolution to pass at once, and so allow the other
orders on the paper for the day to be gone into. He
might state that during the recess her Majesty's
Ministers had entered into a correspondence with the
Governments of foreign nations, informing them
what course the Government of this coun-
try meant to pursue on the subject of the
navigation-laws, and asking those Governments
how they intended to act on that subject ; and that the
correspondence should be laid on the table of the House
in a few days.
The Marquis of GRANBY said he agreed with the
observations that had fallen from his Hon. Colleague
the Member for Stamford, but as he would have an-
other opportunity of stating his views with respect
to the principle of the measure; he would reserve what
he had to say until that occasion.
After a few words from Mr. J. O'CONNELL,

Mr. HENLEY said he understood the Right Hon. the
President of the Board of Trade to say that an American
vessel coming from America to London might discharge
part of her cargo and take in another part and go to Lon-
don. He wished to ask if that was so?

Mr. LABOLICRERE said, under the plan he pro-
posed, an American vessel would be enabled to coma
from one port in England, and then to another English
port, and: take in a cargo from the first to the second ;
but she could not carry on a regular to-and-fro coasting
trade.

The resolution was then agreed to.
The House resumed.
On the question that the report on the resolution he
received,

Mr. lIERRIES hoped that some time would be allowed
to elapse before the House was called on to agree to the
second readitu, the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN of the Committee brought up the
report, and leave was given to bring in a Bill founded
upon the resolution.