The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-10 00:00:00

The United States would not answer us.—(Hear, hear.)
They were a nation most careful in all their proceed-
ings ; they had no answer to give us. The House
would all remember the letter of Mr. Ban-
croft. Austria was vastly surprised that we
could not understand what the merits of the case were.
Could they wonder at that? When she was willing
to concede much to this country, we turned the
cold shoulder to her, and said, she must give up
all her protection. We had got a very positive
answer from Belgium, but Belgium would not assist us ;
she had been just to herself, and said No, I will continue
to protect my own commerce.—(Hear, hear.) Belgium
would not conform to our system; and was this
country prepared to put the screw upon that
country ? Belgium had done that which every
enlightened country ought to do, and that was to pro-
tect the subjects under her rule.—(Cries of "Hear,
hear.") The Prince who ruled over Belgium had car-
ried from this country the wise principles of commercial
policy which prevailed here whilst he resided amongst
us. Ministers addressed themselves also to France.
Nothing could be more civil than the terms in which
France replied; nothing more positive than her rejection
of the proposition submitted to her. It was evident that,
notwithstanding the missions which had been dispatched
to enlighten foreign nations on the subject of free trade
—France, Belgium, Germany, and America still conti-
nued in a state of darkness. In spite of the orations
which the Hon. Member for the West Riding had made
at banquets—which certainly did not appear to have
been got up on the cheap market principle—France,
Belgium, Germany, and America continued Protec-
tionists in their policy.—(Hear, hear:) The Noble
Lord at the head of the Government said that he
was opposed to protection because it always
injured the party protected. That declaration was
so contrary to all experience that it was wonderful
the Noble Lord should have hazarded it. It was
hardly possible to point to any great manufacturing in-
terest which had not at the outset received protection.—
(Hear, hear.) When we commenced the cotton mana-
facture in rivalry with a distant country, we excluded
its productions, and fostered our home manufacture by
the imposition of a heavy duty.—([fear, hear.) Could
any one suppose that France and Prussia, which were
making great progress in the cotton manufacture, and
America, which consumed five times as much raw cotton
as she did a few years back, could have withstood our
competition without protecting duties? Not a loom
would now be at work in any of those countries had it
not been for the protective system which they adopted.
—(Hear, hear.) Their cotton manufactures had grown
up under protection, and were now flourishing. In vain
we told them to leave manufacturing to us, and that we
would give them goods in exchange for theirs. They
were resolved to take a leaf out of our book and
to protect their own manufactures; and they were right.
—(Hear, bear.) Having now disposed of the evidence
on which the Government relied for the support of their
case, he would proceed to consider what was really the
question at issue. On the one hand it was contended
that the fiavigation -laws secured to this country a large
commercial marine, that such a marine was auxiliary
and necessary to a great naval power, and that, there-
fore, it was desirable to maintain the navigation-laws.
On the other hand it was contended that the navigation-
ha's inflicted injury on consumers by enhancing the
price of commodities, that a great commercial marine
was not essential to a naval power, and that, therefore,
the navigation-laws ought to be repealed. It resulted
from that state of the question, that the continuance or
abrogation of the naval laws ought to be depend upon the
balance of advantages or inconvenience resulting from
them. The proposition advanced by the opponents of
the navigation laws, that a great commercial marine was
not necessary to a great naval power, might be dispo=ed
of very briefly. The navigation laws were imposed
solely for the object of creating a great commercial ma-
rine upon its admitted requirement by a great naval
power. That had been avowed by all persons who had
been concerned in imposing or maintaining those laws.
The only persons who maintained an opposite opinion
were the Hon. Member for Stoke, and his ally, Sir J.
Stirling. The evidence opposed to that of Sir J. Stir-
ling by Sir T. Cochrane, Sir B. Martin, Admiral
Dundas, and Admiral Parker, was of such a nature
as, without disrespect to Sir J. Claridge, left
that gentleman without a leg to stand upon. There
was another witness to the importance of a great
commercial marine, whom it would hardly be fair to
pass over on the present cccasion—the Hon. Member for
the West Riding. Addressing a meeting at Manches-
ter, the Hon. Gentleman referred to a passage in history
between France and America, and said—" At that time
—I have it from the Americans themselves—the French
bad three times the force of ships of war that America
had. Admiral Mackau was in the Gulf of Florida, with
a fleet large enough to ravage the whole coast of Ame
rica and bombard her towns; but did France rush into
war with America? She paid the money. Why? Because
she knew well, if she provoked an unjust war with the
United States, her men-of-war were nothing compared
with the force that would swarm out of every American
port when brought into collision with another country.
France knew that America had the largest mercantile
marine, and though at first the battle might be to the
stronger in an armed fleet, in the end it would be to
that country which had the greatest amount of public
spirit and the greatest amount of mercantile ships and.
sailors." The navigation-laws gave us the exclusive en
joyment of a vast international maritime commerce. Our
commercial policy had been relaxed to some extent by
Mr. Huskisson, but that Minister did not give way on
the pretence that he was conferring an advantage on this
country, but because he could hold out no longer. With
reference to the change proposed, no one asserted that
we were compelled to make it, and his (Mr. Herries's)
maxim was, " Hold what you can—concede what you
must."—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that the navigation-
laws did impose a restraint, and, inasmuch as they did
so, tended to enhance the price of provisions.—(Hear,
hear.) Hon. Gentlemen cheered that as a concession;
but it was part of the principle always maintained on
that (the Opposition) side of the House; but he could
show, on the accumulated testimony of the first mer-
chants of London, that the addition was inconsiderable
compared with the importance of keeping up a great
mercantile marine. But what advantage w ould be gained
by the abrogation of those laws in regard to the dimi-
nution of price, and who would gain it ? In itself it
would be inconsiderable, and would be frittered away
before the consumer could feel it. And what said the
merchants, who ought to be the most sensible of the di
minution or enhancement of freight? Mr.Horsley Palmer,
one of the first merchants of London, was asked whether
he had experienced any injury or inconvenience from the
navigation-laws? His answer was that he was not aware
of any. Mr. Robertson, a great China and East Indian
merchant, said they never interfered with him. Mr. Bo-
sanquet, a large West India and East India merchant, said
he did not see that he suffered at all from them.—(Hear.)
He was asked whether he could suggest any alteration of
those laws by which the general trade of the country would
be benefited? His answer was that he was not at all
read in them ; he had looked over Mr. Ricardo's book,
and the answer to it, but still what he knew amounted
to so little that he could not safely answer the question.
Mr. Russell Elliot suid he had suffered no inconvenience
from them in his own transactions, and other eminent
merchants in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, gave
similar testimony. Their saying that they did not know
the navigation-laws was the best testimony that those
laws did not press heavily upon the merehants.—(Hear,
hear.) But the Government had undertaken—most
rashly, most unwisely—to unsettle those laws, upon
which the foundation of our naval power depended.—
(Hear.) Without sufficient reason, they had entered
upon a course which had about it this fatality, that un-
fortunately if the result did not answer their expecta-
tions they could not retrace their steps. Let them once
abandon those laws, as cumbrous and useless, and never
again could they clothe themselves in the armour they
had hitherto afforded them, however much they migh

from 1821 to 1847, but rather than trouble the House
with detailed statistics, he should contsid himself with
stating the averages of six periods. The three years
ending 1823 give an average of 76,000, the two years
ending 1826 gave 205,282, the three years ending 1831
gave 115,666, the three years ending 1837 gave 182,806,
the three years ending 1841 gave 319.110, and the two
years ending 1844 were 154,005. In 1846 the quantity
was 213,000, and in 1847 it was 266,000. The various
depressions and elevations in freights which took place
during these periods must be fresh in the recollection of
Hon. Members, and he would ask, was it fitting that
laws should be permitted to remain on our statute-book
which exposed commercial interests to such fluctuations?
That system must be regarded as the best which pro-
duced a steady uniformity, rather than that which ap-
plied sudden stimulants and checks as sudden. The Right
Hon. Member for Stamford had enlarged on the impor-
tance of the navigation-laws with regard to their poli•
tical influence upon the defences of this country. He
(Mr. Wilson) would not now enter into the question
whether a commercial navy was needful for the support
of the royal navy or not ; but, admitting that the Right
Hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his conclusion
that a commercial navy was necessary for the mainte-
tenance of the royal navy, he (Mr. Wilson) would ask
whether that royal navy would be best supported by a
system of laws which increased the commercial navy, or
by a system which depressed it.—(Hear, hear.) He
would ask the House to observe what had been the effect
of the commercial measures lately adopted by the Legis-
lature upon the number of men employed in the com-
mercial marine of this country. In 1842 the number of
men so employed was 181,000 ; in 1847 it was 232,000.
lie contended, then, that a free trade system, which had
thus increased the number of men, was the best adapted
to carry out the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Tho Government being of opinion that the time had
come when the restrictions upon shipping should be
abandoned, and when shipping—like all other branches
of industry—should be exposed to a healthful cempeli-
don, the only question was how this object was to be
accomplished. Ile believed the Government had taken
not only the wisest course in the proposition they bad
made, but the only course practicable in order to be of
benefit to this country with regard to navigation and
shipping. He regretted that the Right Hon. Member
for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) was not in his
place ; for that Right Hon. Gentleman, in the course of
one of the most able speeches delivered on this question
during the last session, had spoken in favour of proceed-
ing by treaties upon the principles of reciprocity.
Mr. C ARD WELL—Not by treaties.
Mr. WILSON.—Upon the principles of reciprocity
then. He (Mr. Wilson) would endeavour to show the
great inconvenience, if not the practical impossibility of
proceeding upon such principles. He objected to reci-
procity, because it was a bad princip!e; because he con-
sidered it against a wise policy, and because he thought
it was very inconvenient if not impossible, in practice.
lie believed one of the greatest errors the Legislature
could now commit would be to do anything that might
sanction the opinion which had gained ground too
extensively on the continent, with regard to the viers
by which this country had hitherto been influenced in
its commercial policy. lie thought nothing could lot
more prejudicial to the extension of free-trade prin-
ciples than that wo should sanction a notion, on the.
part of foreign Governments, that we made concessions
—not for the benefit to be derived from those conces-
sions, but for the purpose of obtaining corresponding
concessions from other countries. He had found the
most fallacious and erroneous opinions held by foreigit
Governments and by foreign Ministers, as to the motives
by which this country was prompted in its commercial
legislation; and he should feel great regret if, by any
Act of that Hteise, they should appear to shrink from
the principle they had so broadly put forward during
the last five or six years, that of legislating for the in-
terests of this country, regardless what other nations
might do. He believed it was not until they convinced
foreign Governin- ins that they legi-leted upon this prin-
ciple that those Governments would begin to perceive
that there was something worth having in free trade.
At present those Governments said, " You offer us reci-
procity, but it is not a fair reciprocity. You are an old
country; you have large capital and vast colonial pos-
sessions, and it is very well for you to offer us these
reciprocal advantages, when you know that we are not
in a position to avail ourselves of them." He had
heard foreign Ministers say, "Do not send am-
bassadors to urge free trade upon us; it will only
excite suspicion on the part of the people that we are
g ,ing to sacrifice them to your greatness, and to your
capital." He believed, therefore, that any attempt to
offer terms of reciprocity to other countries would not be
attended with benefit, but would throw difficulties in the
way of foreign Governments which might be disposed to
meet them. But, if they went upon the principle of re-
ciprocity as Toho
thosewhogivit woliats scrtled,elwiboeudldbgyirMe
little; to
give much I would give much; to those who give all I
would give all;" where was the country which could give
them anything corresponding to what they gave? If
they did proceed upon the system of reciprocity, it must
be upon a well-defined principle of equivalents; but there
was no such thing in existence. If England threw open
her colonial trade to many foreign countries, those
countries had no colonies which would enable them
to give reciprocal advantages. He objected to proceed-
ing upon this principle, because there was no other
country in the world, except the United States of
America, from which they could have anything re-
sembling equivalents. The Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) who addressed the House last night en-
larged at great length upon the principle of reciprocity,
but his remarks referred to reciprocity in general, with
regird to produce as well as shipping. He (Mr. Wilson;
admitted that there was a great distinction between re-
ciprocity in articles of produce and reciprocity in navi-
gation. It was clear that, if they placed retaliatory
duties upon the produce of another country to meet
duties imposed by that country on their goods, they did
not visit the same interests. If Prussia imposed high
duties upon their cottons and woollens, they could only
retaliate by putting high duties upon the timber, or corn,
or other produce of Prussia. What was the conse-
quence? The Prussian Government first punished the
woollen and cotton manufacturer of England by imposing
high duties upon his manufactured goods, and he was
again punished by his own Government, who imposed
high duties upon the raw material from which be manu-
factured those goods, or upon the food which he con-
sumed.—(Hear.) If they acted upon a system of recipro-
city with regard to produce, they must give perfect free-
dom of trade to those nations which gave them the same
advantage
o r
in other cases, duties
owith
hthe duties foreign coun-
res
pond n
g they
in mustamount
w
coun-
tries imposed upon their goods. The result would be,
that for every country in the world they must have dis-
tinct and different tariffs.—(Hear.) If, however, they
imposed restrictions upon foreign shipping correspond-
ing with the restrictions imposed by other countries on
British shipping, they had, at all events, the advantaee
of meeting directly the same interest, and the restriction
would he more likely to be felt by the country against
which it was directed. What, than, were the objects of
repealing the navigation laws ? The great objects they
had in view were, to do justice to our colonies ; to
answer in a becoming manner the addresses to the throne
from Canada, and the numerous petitions presented
to that House from large commercial bodies in
Canada, Australia, and the West Indies, who
complained that, but for those laws, they
could send their produce to this country by
foreign ships at a cheaper rate than by English
ships. It was no answer to those parties to say
that we could not enable them to employ Dutch or
Spanish ships because the Governments of Spain or of
Holland would not enter into the views of reciprocity
entertained by the British Government; but when ex-
isting, palpable, well-defined evils were to be remedied,
he could not understand why we should make our policy
dependent on the caprice or ignorance of foreign Go-
vernments. He also objected to the principles of reci-
procity on account of the great practical inconvenience
to which they led. He had referred to the great variety
of tariffs which would be necessary in carrying out a
system of reciprocity with regard to produce; and an
analagous difficulty would arise with respect to the navi-
gation-laws if they were carried out on the same principle
of reciprocity. They must have various kinds of navi-
gation-laws, differing in degree ; they must have
a great variety of complicated and difficult regu-
lations to correspcnd with the restrictions im-
posed on British shipping by different foreign coun-
tries. If we found one country that was disposed to
give all, and to which we were obliged to give all in re-
turn, it must be recollected that there were 20 countries
which had treaties with us, enabling them to claim being
placed on the terms of the most favoured nation; and
whatever privileges were given to other nations must be
extended to those countries, whether they gave us any-
thing or nothing.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to reci-
procity, because he believed it would lead to great eva-
sions of the law. Suppose a treaty of reciprocity in na-
vigation existed between this country and Hamburgh,
what guarantee had they that the ships of a third
country, with which England had no such treaty,
might not become the carriers of foreign produce to
Hamburgh, which might be brought to this country
in Hamburgh ships? He might observe that he
thought the Right Honourable Member for Stamford
(Mr. Herries) had thrown some very unworthy im-
putations upon the United States in doubting the sin-
cerity of the professions they had put forward as to
their conduct in case the English navigation-laws were
repealed. He (Mr. Wilson) could only say that the in-
timation the United States' Government had given was
in conformity with the standing policy of their naviga-
tion-laws, which had been for years past to give to

of the petition. The fact was the petition proceeded
from the Protectionist section of the Montreal
Board of Trade, and a counter-petition against protec-
tion had been signed by the free-trade members of the
board. But the petition from the Protectionist section
of the board alluded to by the Right Hon.
gentleman prayed, firstly, for a repeal of the navigation
laws, and the throwing open the navigation of the river
St. Lawrence; and secondly, for a ss. duty. Two other
petitions had proceeded from Canada, one from the Board
of Trade of the city of Hamilton, in favour of the repeal
of the navigation laws, and a second from the citizens of
Montreal in public meeting assembled, also praying for
the repeal of the navigation laws. An address to the
Crown had also been received from the Legislative
Council and Commons of Canada, praying her Majesty
to use her influence with the House of Commons to re-
peal the navigation laws. There was indeed every reason
why the population of Canada should be favourable to
the repeal of the navigation laws. It was well known
that the navigation of the St. Lawrence between Montreal
and Quebec was very difficult, and that the inland navi-
gation of the country was, generally, expensive and diffi-
cult. There was, therefore, the more reason why
the Imperial Parliament should not superadd
artificial impediments to the natural restrictions which
already existed in the way of the Canadian trade. The
Canadians had opened up ship canals in the interior and
had borrowed 2,000,0001. from this country to enable
them to open a communication with the Western lakes
of America; but of what use was this outlay, or what
prospect was there that these 2,000,0001. would ever be
repaid, if the House imposed restrictions at the mouth
of the river St. Lawrence which prevented the Canadians
from entering upo❑ a fair competition with the Ameri-
can shipowners? He would now follow the Right Hon.
Gentleman to the West Indies, and he regretted that
soma very recent correspondence, which would be laid
before the House on Monday, was not already in the
hands of Honourable Members, because it would be
seen from the testimony of the highest autho-
rities upon West Indian matters, that the ques-
tion of the navigation-laws was increasing in
importance the more it was considered. In Jamaica
numerous public meetings had been held during the
last six months, and the language held was that there
could be no reason, except for the navigation laws, why
Jamaica and Trinidad should not become what they had
been before, the central emporia of trade for the Spanish
Main. Coming to the continent of Europe, the Right
Hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware that the greatest
portion of the continental powers had a perfect treedom
of trade with regard to shipping, and all that the Go-
vernment had to fear was lest they should be reminded
that such or such a treaty was about to expire, and that
a more liberal course was expected from this country.
Austria had given us all she could, and had a right to
feel disappointed that we had not given her similar and
reciprocal advantages by the relaxation of our naviga-
tion-lass.—(hear, hear.) The present was peculiarly
a time suitable to the introduction of such a measure,
because a sufficient period had elapsed to witness
the effect of the great free-trade measures upon the
shipping interest. Since 1842, when these relaxations
in our commercial code might be said to have com-
menced, there had been a great increase in the imports
of the more bulky articles of shipping. A few figures
would show how much advantage the shipowner had de-
rived from the recent changes in our legislation. Look-
ing first at the continental trade previous to 1842, they
found that live stock were excluded, and that the ship-
ment of grain was so seldom and so accidental in its oc-
currence as not materially to benefit the British ship-
owner. Flax, hemp, and timber were subject to duties
more or less high. In 1841 no live animals were im-
ported into this country ; in 1848 the number was
195,000. In 1841, 1,738,000 cwts. of flax and hemp
were imported ; in 1848, 2,300,000 cwts., an increase of
30 per cent. The average import of grain had been
2,000,000 quarters ; during the two last years it hal
amounted to 12,030,000 and 7,000,000 quarters re-
spectively. The importation of currants in 1841 was
173,000 cwts.; in 1848 it was 400,000 cwts., an increase of
more than double. In 1841, 4,700 tuns oF olive oil were
imported from the Levant; in 1848 10,000 tuns. In
1841 the imports of provisions of various kinds were
91,629 casts.; in 1848 they were 600,000 e►vts. The im-
ports of cotton wool in 1841 were 4,357,000 cwts.; in
1848, 6,362,000 cwts., an increase cf 2,000,000 cwts. in
six years.—(Hear.) The imports of sugar had increased
from 4,905,000 cwts. to 8,209,000 cwts. in 1847. Our
imports of coffee in 1841 sere 43,317,7621 b.; in 1848,
57,000,0001 b. Of sheep's wool 56,170,0001 b. were im-
ported in 1841, in 1848, 70,521,0001 b. But the most
important change bad taken place in the shipping of
timber. In 1841 there were imported 700,000 loads of
timber from British possessions; in 1848, 1,500,000
loads. In 1841 the total quantity of timber imported
from the whole world was 950,000 loads; is 1848 it
amounted to, 1,850,000 loads, or nearly double. Why
should the shipping interest not be called upon to enter
into competition with other countries when all other inte-
rests and classes had to sustain a competition with foreign
rivals?—(Hear.) The sugar refiners of this country very
naturally complained of being excluded from the pi ivilege
of taking for consumption cargoes of foreign sugar when
they were exposed by the act of last session to the com-
petition of the continental refiners. A great number of
other trades were complaining in the same way. Two
great authorities among the shipping interest, Messrs.
Young and Richmond, stated before the Lords' com-
mittee, that they thought that all the mischief
had been done already that could be done by
the repeal of the navigation-laws. He quite agreed
with them, that the navigation-laws as they at present
stood were of very little importance to the British ship-
owners. They had to compete with their American rival
in his own market, and where he had every advantage,
and they had none. They had to compete with Prussian
shipowners in like manner in the Prusian market, and
with the Spanish shipowner at Cuba ; and this resulted
purely from the policy of the navigation-laws, and
not in consequence of any measures of free trade.
Why should they be afraid of the British shipowners en-
tering into competition with the foreign shipowner in
neutral markets, when they were already compelled to
enter into competition with him in his own market? If
there were a country in the world where ships were built
cheaply it was here, if quality and every other circum-
stance were taken into the account. Since the discus.
sion on this subject last year, the Select Committee had
received most important testimony upon this point from
Mr. Minter, an American gentleman, a passage from
whose evidence the Hon. Member proceeded to read in
corroboration of his assertion. But, had they no other
evidence that British shipping fully possessed the power
of competing with the marine of other countries? that
evidence he contended might be derived from many
quarters, amongst others, from the state of the shipping
interest in the United States of America, and such evi-
dence was likewise to be found in the history of our own
shipping from 1827 to 1844. Of the American and Bri-
tish shipping entering American ports, as well as of other
tonnage entering the same ports, the account stood thus—
In 1827 the American tonnage was 918,000, the British
101,000, the other tonnage 36,000. In the year 1844 the
American tonnage was 1,977,438, the British 766,747,
the other tonnage 150,245; which showed as increase
in American tonnage of 100 per cent., and in British
tonnage of 650 per cent. He held in his hand another
statement which would show the increase that had taken
place in British tonnage between the years 1824 and
1846. There cleared inwards and outwards of British
shipping in 1824, 3,454,853 tons, and of foreign tonnage
1,506,148, while, in 1846, the British tonnage inwards
and outwards was 8,688,148, and the foreign tonnage
only 3,727,438; showing an increase on British tonnage
of 5,233,295, and on foreign of 2,221,290. If any
country could be considered more formidable than
another as a rival of England, that country was the
United States of America; and most assuredly the best
possible test of our ability to compete with all foreign
countries was to be found in the fact that American bad
not surpassed British shipping—not only had not sur-
passed the shipping of this country, but still re-
mained far abort of the point which the ship-
owners of the United Kingdom had gained;
and, although our commercial marine had long
been subjected to that test, the progress of our shipping
interest still went on rapidly. For the purpose of sus-
taining this position he should beg the attention of the
House to a statement which he held in his hand, and which
contrasted American tonnage and British tonnage from
1827 to 1844, showing the progress made by each of
those countries respectively. In 1827 the American
tonnage was 747,170 ; in 1844 it was 1,068,764, being
an increase of 43 per cent. In the United Kingdom the
tonnage in 1827 was 2,460,500; in 1844, 3,637,231,
showing an increase of 48 per cent. ; the whole increase
in the American shipping being 321,594 and that in
British shipping 1,176,731. He should now come to
the question of the long voyage trade. In that trade we
found ourselves under the necessity of competing with
the shipowners of all nations, and of engaging with them
in that rivalry under circumstances most favourable to
their interests and most disadvantageous to ours. The
vessels of the world at large in competing with British
ships had, of course, the obvious advantage of trading to
the particular ports of the countries to which they be-
longed, whereas British ships were obliged to take the

desire it. The shipowning interest, paying no less
than 5,000,0001. a year in wages, and employing an-
nually 30,000 artificers, were thundering at the door
of the house, imploring them to stay their hand in this
rash experiment. They were about to do with the sea
what they had done with the land—to try a great
political experiment. Did the aspect of affairs justify
the risk? Was there any provocation for it from within,
or any demand for it from without? Isle could hardly
conceive anything so nearly approaching dementation on
the part of the Government. It did not follow as a ne-
cessity of their former proceedings. If their theory was
right that there should he no protection whatever, still
they might justify themselves in staying their hand, and
not trying this groat experiment. Had ,the Noble Lord
presented any petition front the city he represented? All
prudence, all sound judgment, was against this plan. It
Was wild, uncalled for, and deplorable. Public opinion
was against it; and if it were possible that the Govern-
ment could learn from anything the voice now rising in
every corner of the country would teach them that the
first duty of a British statesman and of a British Legis-
lature was to maintain British interests, to uphold Bri-
tish industry, to stimulate British enterprise—(Hear,
hear)—and so to promote the glory and honour of this
great country. She had beers an useful arbiter in the
nations
eyo f tehteeyeeadr tthh,e
iarnhdelong
nmight
she mcounntiintyueof the
be so to
inlawthse which had
T h
em a
Rd g
hhte rHtohne.
mnoigt
htdieessttroeympthiroese
Gentleman then moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. WILSON, after complimenting the Right Hon.
Gentleman on the tone of his address, said he did not
wish to undervalue the opinion of so large and influential
a body as the merchants of London, as expressed in the
petition which had been presented to the House that
wn Het) the
House that Sir R. Walpole,
ond Liverpool.coming d 0
evening, and especially when it was backed up by those
of the merchants of Glasgow
House to propose one of his greatest reforms in the
commercial policy of the country, the bonded system,
was stayed from doing so by a protest from the mer-
chants of London; but he must say he did not think:that
petitions signed by 20,000 or 27,000 persons
in so large
a population as that of London would justify its being
taken as a conclusive voice on the measure now under
discussion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had referred to
the reasons which his Right Hon. Friend the President
of the Board of Trade had given for this measure on a
former occasion, and had spoken of the pressure which
the Government felt from Canada. He (Mr. Wil-
son) wished to make no invidious observations, but

outward voyage either in ballast or only partially laden,
while their foreign competitors came to this country al-
ways fully laden—full cargoes of timber, cotton, coffee,

and other bulky commodities.

If we could stand such

competition as that, what could we have to fear ? The
House would of course recollect that, apparently for the
purpose of securing to this country the benefit of the
long-voyage trade, we had laid restrictions upon our
commercial intercourse with the Continent ; the effect
of this had been to protect foreign shipping to the mani-
fest injury of British interests. He would state a case
illustrative of this. A British ship not long since con-
veyed a cargo of cotton from America to Havre; at that
time the French revolution was in progress. The owners
of the cargo in Liverpool wished not to have it left in
Havre, but conveyed without delay to Liverpool; that how-
ever they could not accomplish without transferring the
cargo to a Continental vessel. Surely that state of the law
operated as a protection to foreign shipping. In addition
to this case of a cargo of cotton, he might mention that
hides were subject to similar regulations. Now, those
were inconsistencies to which the trade of a great' coun-
try ought not to be subjected. He was aware that Mr.
Grey had recommended a plan according to which all.
goods brought into this country should be accompanied
by a certificate stating whether or not they were in-
tended for the British market. He apprehended that
that would be a mere clumsy evasion, and would never
work well in practice. The next subject to which he
thought it desirable to direct the attention of the House
was the cost of freight. Without hesitation he might
assert that freights were not raised by the navigation,
laws. Bad harvests sometimes occurred, a deficiency
in the sugar crops occasionally took place, hence sudden
den-y.11(1s for shipping, which of course caused British
freight for the moment to rise, but it was only on those
accidental occasions that such advances took place, and
they were occurrences too rare and uncertain to produce
any substantial benefit to the ship-owner. It might
assist the view to be taken of this part of the subject
if he were for a moment now to call the attention
of Hon. Members to the tonnage built and registered

opoartehdotoprgioivoeiptloo thoef Butro ci.m.fortythwisocoolduntoroyttoooplyrocmeead.
foreign countries whatever those countries were pre-
terially embarrass foreign Governments in putting into
execution any desire to adopt our policy, but would be
r e p
setting a bad example, and giving a sanction to very
erroneous and mistaken notions of the real views of this
country in respect to its commercial policy. The great
object which the commercial legislation of this country
ought to have in view was to insure as much as pos-
sible to the merchant the greatest degree of certainty
and simplicity in his transactions ; but if by acting on
the principle of reciprocity there was produced
not only more uncertainty but also much more com-
plication, the two great and paramount principles of
commercial legislation were entirely abandoned. It
might be said that the power proposed by the present
B willtaos arguing—but reserved to
othnethQauteseunbijecn at present,ouncil did in some
measure tend to create the very objectionsagain ho stwhich
he was
disposed to say very little.—(A laugh.) lie would,
however, say this—that, according to the course pro-
posed by the Government, free-trade unrestricted would
be the rule, and restriction, if they so pleased to call it,
the exception; whereas, by pursuing the other course
restrtetion would be the rule and free-trade the excep-
ti, n. With respect to the reservation, however much it
might be worth, he trusted at all events that freedom of
commerce would be the great rule according to which
this law would be carried out in reference to our transac-
tions with foreign countries, and that hostile retaliation,

he ;as very much surprised at the somewhat unfair re-

presentation which the Right Hon. Gentleman had made

o£ those sentiments. The Right Honourable Gen.
tleman contended that the petitions presented
to the House last year were in a great degree
negatived by those of the present year, and that those
of last year were presented on a misunderstanding as to
the true interests of Canada. With respect to the navi-
gation laws, he would call the attention of the House to
the petition from the Board of Trade at Montreal, to
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred. The
Right Hon. Gentleman told the House that that petition
prayed for protection. It was true,
.as the Right Hon.
Gentleman said, that the navigation laws were alluded
to in it, but that was a secondary and consequential part

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1849.

if ever resorted to, would be the rare, he hoped the very
rare, exception.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of GRANBY trusted that the House, in
coming to a decision, would not be influenced by the
argument used by the introducer of the present measure
—that whatever inconvenience or mischief might result,
the course which the Legislature had pursued for the
last four years was to be persevered in. He hoped
rather that the question would be decided on its own
merits, and that question was, whether the British ship-
owner could compete with the foreigner. That the Bri-
tish shipowner could not compete with the foreigner
might be very easily shown by the evidence given be•
fore the Lords' Committee on the navigetion• laws. Ile
believed it was almost universally admitted that ships
built in ILeigland were dearer than ships built abroad.
According to Mr. Minter's evidence, the price of Arne-
rican ships was 141, a ton; the price, however, of English
ships, class Al, averaged from 241. to 261. a ton. The
Noble Lord, after noticing the increase which had
taken place in American tonnage, proceeded to say that
in 1846 the amount of British tonnage which entered
inwards from the United States was only 205,123,
while the amount of American tonnage which
entered inwards from the same country was
435,399; and the American tonnage employed between
America and our colonies, more particularly our
western colonies, increased in the period from 1821 to
1846 to no less an amount than 1,635,828 tons. Did
that prove that the British shipowner could compete with
the American? To show the great resources possessed
by America, he quoted an extract from Mr. Mackay's
Western World, and observed, that while he admitted
the extensive resources of America, he did not agree in
the conclusion at which the author sated that he ar-
rived irresistibly, however reluctantly, that the power
of England must yet succumb to the power of her off-
spring. If native industry were protected and the navi-
gation laws maintained in their present integrity, this
country needed not to succumb to America, or to any
other nation on the face of the earth. It was contended
that though the British ship might be dearer than the
foreign, yet that, owing to its durability, the dear
,hip was the cheapest in the end ; but that he
thought a mistaken notion, and referred to Mr.
Young's evidence before the Lord's committee
tor the purpose of showing that Baltic ships lasted
longer. The House should take the opinion of British
shipowners—the men to whom it was proposed to give
the opportunity of using foreign ships. What class of
ships did they prefer? Why, in 1840 there were 1,059
British and colonial ships built, of which only 308 were
above ten years upon Lloyd's register, and 751 were un-
der ten years; and in 1846 there were 643 British and
colonial ships built, of which only 180 were above ten
years, and 463 under ten years. He himself had seen
that day a gentleman who had intended to charter two
British chips to send to Jamaica, but in consequence of
the expectation of the repeal of the navigation-laws he
had chartered two Danish ships at a reduced rate of
7s. 6d. a ton; that gentleman anticipated that by the
time the ships returned from Jamaica the navigation-
laws would be repealed.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
the reciprocity treaties, it must be remembered that the
present measure was founded upon a totally different
system; we were now going to admit foreign vessels into
etur whole trade, and the Baltic and American ships
would and must supplant ours. Even under
present circumstances our shipping had not.
increased in the same proportion as foreign; where
the British ahipping entered inwards in 1847 measured
2,564,865 tons, or, deducting twenty, five per
cent. for the difference between the new and old measure-
ment, and for the repeated voyages of English chipping,
(an English ship averaging a voyage and a half in the
year), 1,900,505, the foreign shipping that was employed
was 2,253.939 tons. But the proportion of our ships that
went out in ballast must also be remembered; the average
of British shipping in the foreign trade, without cargoes,
was 22 per cent. in 1820, and 51 per cent. in 1817. In
1814 the average foreign tonnage in our foreign trade
was 241 per cent. less than the British, bat in 1847 it was
21 per cent. more than the British. The average in-
crease of British tonnage from 1814 to 1847 was 134
cent., but, of foreign, 259 per cent. The House must
not forget the number of ertizans whom the repeal of
the navigation-laws would throw out of employ, for
one of the main objects was to destroy the monopoly
of the British shipbuilders; and some years hence the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) might come down to
the House, when about to ruin some other class, and
say, as he did the other night of the inhabitants of the
Western Islands of Scotland, that these artizsns had
been crushed by foreign competition, and had to betake
themselves to other pursuits, or to emigrate to a country
that knew how to protect its workmen.—(Hear.) What
was expected to be gained by this measure? The case
of Canada was the first put forward; and the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Wilson) asked what answer he was to give
to the petitions from Canada and the West Indies? But
why were the petitions of 20,000 persons in London, and
of the shipowners of Liverpool, to be disregarded, and
the petition of 12 men in Canada brought forward? Then,
as regarded the West Indies, the question had been en-
tirely overlooked on the other side till the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Wilson) attempted to take it up. Now
on this part of the subject he found the Chamber of
Commerce of Jamaica stating, that though the repeal
of the navigation laws was offered as one branch of
the scheme of relief which the West Indies was to re-
ceive, yet it would serve them less than their slave-
trading neighbours, inasmuch as it was impossible for
them to dispatch their cargoes with the same facility as
their Cuban neighbours, and they urged that the only
means of rendering the measure valuable was to give
them immediate protection to their produce in the home
market.—(Hear, hear.) He begged also to call the at-
tention of the House to a paragraph in the address of
the Canadian Assembly, from which it plainly appeared
that the object of those gentlemen of Montreal who were
in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws was that
they might be enabled by means of foreign vessels to
get slave- grown labour imported at a cheaper rate than
at present.—(hear, hear.) It had been shown that as
the rate of freight fell the selling price rose, and
as the rate of freight rose the selling price fell,
so that the almost imperceptible amount gained in
the way of reduction would be divided between the
seller and consumer. Then as to the long voyage, not-
withstanding what fell from the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Wilson), he was still convinced that it was beneficial
to the shipowner, and a real advantage to the manufac-
turer and the consumer. By the operation of the pre-
sent law the foreign manufacturer was obliged to come
to the British market to buy the raw materials of India,
and he paid 2/. a ton freight between this country and
the foreign ports to which be carried the goods ; so that
British importers paid 21. a ton less for every ton of such
goods they carried to foreign countries. Repeal these
laws, however, and the foreigner would import his own
goods in his own ships, and the shipowners of this ceuty
try would lose the carrying trade. They had been told
of some cotton lying at Havre which could not, on ec-
count of the navigation-laws, reach this country ; but
were they to repeal those laws on account of some va-
grant bale of cotton, or lost cargo, that had not found its
way to Liverpool ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Wilson), speaking of reciprocity, said we had al-
ready all the reciprocity with foreign nations that we ever
could have, for they could give us nothing in return. If
this was so, then why did he allow the Government to
write all those letters to foreign countries of which so
much had been heard ?—(Hear, hear.) Why ask for
reciprocity from them if it was all a delusion, and if they
had nothing to give us ?—(Hear, hear.) He regarded the
repeal of these laws as fraught with injustice to the Bri •
tish shipowner and to the British arnzen, but the ques-
tion astaffecting them sunk into. insignificance comparedt
with its bearing on our naval superiority. In his esti-
mation it would be in the highest degree dangerous to
our naval supremacy, and therefore he was opposed to
the measure of the Government. On the subject of the
apprenticeship he found the evidence of naval men strong
in support of the present system as one exceedingly
valuable to the navy, and deprecatory of any diminution
of the present proportion of apprentices as detrimental
to its interests. The merchants of London had at all
times evinced the greatest readiness to support the navy
of this country, and to allow sailors to be taken from
their ships in case of war, in order to man the navy.
During the late war they even offered a bounty of
40s, to able seamen and of 20s. to ordinary seamen who
would enter for the navy. He hoped, therefore, he
should hear no more reflections on British merchants
being unwilling to contribute towards the mainte-
nance of the glory of their country. He entreated the
House that, come to whatever conclusion they might,
they would found that conclusion upon the evidence of
practical men, and upon the evidence of naval officers of
this country, whose patriotism could not be doubted;
and :not upon the evidence of men who, shut in their
rooms in this great city, got up columns of erroneous
figures to suit their own particular purposes—men, one
of whom had the audacity to state before the Committee
of the House of Lords, that for his part he did not care
if the whole trade of the country were carried on in
foreign ships. He owned that he dreaded this introduc-
tion of foreign shipping into the colonies, harbours, and
ports of Great Britain. It put him too much in mind
of the introduction of the wooden horse of old—and he
would not wish to see his countrymen
46

captique dolis
Quos neque Tydides, nec Larisstens Achilles,
Non anni domuere decem, non mille carinaz."
Ohl said the Noble Lord, in conclusion, that I had the
power to dispel the delusions with which we are now
assailed! Oh that I had the power to stir up that pa-
triotism and that love of country which should animate
every breast! for if I had such power, I should have no
fear as to the result; for, despite of the confidence now
entertained by her Majesty's Government, and despite
those inconsiderate communications, and, I may say, the
unconstitutional communications made by them to
foreign Governments—(Cheers)—despite all those ad-
vantages, still I think I should see the gallant vessel that
is now struggling with the storm sail triumphantly above
the waves that threatened to overwhelm her.—(Cheers.)
If Englishmen be true to themselves and their country—
if we be so, and I think we shall be—then we shall keep
the vessel's head straight to the sea, and not follow the
advice of those in command, who would run her upon
shore; then we shall weather the storm with which we

are now assailed, and then we shall be able to retain the
command over that glorious element which is our na-
tural protector, and that is the connecting link between
this country and its dependencies abroad; and for years
yet to come, notwithstanding the prophecy of Mr.
Mackay, the flag of England shall float triumphantly over
the most distant quarters of the globe —(Cheers.)
Mr. CARDWELL observed that the Noble Lord who
hail just sat down, and the Right lion. Gentleman who
had moved the r.ijectien of this Bill, anticipated with
deep dismay the decay of our mercantile, marine, and the
declension of our maritime power. Though he could not
share in their gloomy apprehensions, yet the same natu-
ral anxiety weighed upon him in approaching a question
of this great importance. Ho also desired that they
should avoid every rash or precipitate measure, take
every precaution, and be guided by prudence in the
course on which they were about to enter. But sharing
to that extent with them in the spirit in which they ap-

proached the question, he could not reconcile it to his
conviction of what was due to the greatimercantile interest
of this country, and of tahat a sense of justice to our
colonies imperatively demanded, to avoid addressing
a few words to the House ; and he did not think it
would be difficult to show in same important respects
what a due regard to the real welfare of those groat
interests required of the Parliament of this empire. It
was difficult to understand, either from the speeches
of those who wished to reject this Bill, or from the
evidence taken before the Committee of the House of
Lords, exactly the position in which this question stood.
He would ask Hots. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition)
side of the House what was-the opinion they entertained
with respect to the clause which secured to England
what was called the long voyage. If he looked to the
evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords he
found witnesses of the first consideration stating that
they thought it an essential element in, and one of the
fundamental principles of the law; while, on the other
hand, he found many intelligent witnesses stating that,
as that clause stood, the law could not by possibility be
maintained. Now he would warn his friends of the
shipping interest to take timely caution as to the import
and effect of that clause. The purport of it was to pro-
hibit the importation of the produce of Asia, Africa, and
America into this country, except in ships belonging to
the country where the articles imported were produced,
or in British ships. They were told that reciprocity was
to be the order of the day. Let him, then, ask what
was their position in regard to one of the
most important interests of this country? He
knew of none more important than that which was
known by the name of the " warehouse system"--a sys-
tem which was the growth of recent years, and resulted
from a judicious relaxation in the navigation-laws, by
which this country was made the great entrepot, not
only of Europe but of the whole civilized world. Eng-
land imported cotton from America, sugar from the
tropics, and all kinds of produce from the different por-
tions of the globe. These she sent largely to the ports
in the Baltic Sea. Last year she sent 200,000 bags of
cotton to the northern ports. What was the share
which the British merchants enjoyed in bringing that
cotton from America to Liverpool and then carrying it to
Russia from the other ports of Europe? They had, in
fact, the whole carrying trade of Russia and the Baltic.
But now they were told that reprocity was the order of
the day. But when the treaty with Russia expired, as
it would do in a few years, and when Prussia should
have put in execution those threats which she had held
out, what would then become of your carrying trade,
and of those warehouses which made this country the
entrepot of the world? England would not allow the
products of Asia, Africa, and America to he
imported into this country except her own ships or
in :the ships of those respective countries where the
articles were produced; Russia would, therefore, say she
would not allow the importation of the products of Asia,
Africa, or America into Russian ports unless in ships
of the country where the goods were produced or in
Russian ships. At least, she would take care that if
England would not relax her law those productions
should not come in British ships. Thus Great Britain
would lose the carrying trade to Russia. With regard
to the United States of America, there was at this mo-
ment reciprocity existing between England and that
country in many important respects—reciprocity, but not
a friendly intercourse—because it was an intercourse
jealously guarded by restrictions. A great trade was
springing up in the world. He would not enter into any
disquisition as to the speculations that were at present
afloat, but it could not be denied that a Kew trade was
rising up in California. He was not alluding to the
money part of the question, but to the plain
and palpable fact that a large trade nets taking
its rise in that portion of the world. That could
not be gainsaid. He knew a gentleman who
was reaping a large reward in having sent out
tea from China and sugar from the Philippine Islands to
California. Was it not to be expected that the Ameri-
can Government would have an establishment them-
selves in California ? and then would come into opera.
don that clause of their navigation-laws which had
been made on the model of the English long-voyage
clause, and so made because there was such a clause in
the English navigation-law, and then no more tea, no
more produce of the Philippine Islands, could be car-
ried to the western coast of America by British com-
merce. It was important, therefore, for the sake of the
commercial interests of this country, that they should
come to a right understanding with regard to the long-
voyage clause. Mr. Huskisson warned them to be care-
ful not so to arrange their navigation laws as to call up
a great maritime power in opposition to them.
What country would carry cotton to Russia and
Prussia, and tea and sugar to California, if our jealous
restrictions were maintained ? That one country
of which you were afraid, and with which Son had made
it your particular consideration not conclusively to
decide—America. He had never listened with greater
astonishment to any statement than he had done to
the grave, deliberate, and measured statement of the
Right Hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), that
he thought the case of Canada good for nothing. A
gentleman wrote to him the other day stating that he
had received by an American vessel from New York a
quantity of flour; by the bran be perceived that the
corn was grown in Canada, and being an honest man, he
stated the truth to the Custom-house, when he was told
that it could not be admitted, and he prayed him (Mr.
Cardwell) to go to the Treasury.—(Laughter.) Would
the Hon. Gentleman who sneered tell him why they
should protect corn grown in the United States and
not protect corn grown by her Majesty's subjects in
Canada ? But it was said that a plan had been devised
to meet this difficulty. They were to nationalize Cana-
dian corn by causing it to pass through the United
States. But corn could be conveyed from the interior
of Canada by the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence
as cheaply as it could be conveyed by the
Erie Canal and by way of New York. The
Right Honourable Gentleman greatly lauded
the Americans for giving a drawback for the transit of
Canadian corn through their provinces. But, if it were
sagacity on the part of the American Government to
give a bounty on the transit of grain from Canada to
New York, what was the virtue of that policy which
gave a positive discouragement to the conveyance of
grain by means of the canals in Canada? Canada sought
only to be put in a position to compete on equal terms
with the United States; and was the British Legisla-
ture to refuse that reasonable demand? He coald not
come to any such conclusion. He asked the attention of
the House to a remonstrance which was made by a go-
vernor of a British colony in 1671. Sir W. Berkeley, Go •
vernor of Virginia, writing soon after the passing of the
Navigation Bill of Charles 11., said, " Mighty and de-
structive have been the obstructions to our trade and navi-
gation by that severe Act of Parliament. If it were for his
Majesty's service, or the good of the subject, we should not
repine, whatever were our sufferings ; but on my soul it
is the contrary for both."—(Hear. hear.) He (Mr.
Cardwell) held that the same remark was applicable still,
for what would the British shipowner gain if; by the
sagacity of the Americans, and the want of sagacity on
our part, all the produce of Canada went to New York,
and was carried to this country by them in competition
with American shipping ?—(Hear, hear.) There were
anomalies in the navigation laws which it was quite im-
possible to allow to remain as they at present stood. He
did not mean to occupy the House at any length, and
would not therefore go into many of them ; but he
would ask the House how they would deal with this par-
ticular case ? They had made from some motive of
good policy, some port in the Danube, which was not
locally situated in Austria, a port of Austria. They
had also made the port of Memel a pert of Olden-
burgh, it not being locally situated in that country.
Holland, under the most favoured nation clause, might
claim a similar convenience, and the United States might
presently ask a similar favour for a port in Mexieo.
Was it fit they should leave anomalies like that without
a remedy? The Noble Lord who had just sat down had
quoted the evidence in the Lords' report to show that
ships were more dearly built, wages higher, and the
expense of navigating vessels, altogether greater here
than in America. Now, he had taken great trouble to
make himself acquainted with the contents of that report
and be found in it very opposite statements. He found
that Mr. Dunbar, the chairman of the London Ship-
owners' Association, had stated, in reply to questions,
that it was their interest to build ships dear, because
they lasted longer and were cheaper in the end; while
opinions of a different kind were given by others; but
whatever the cost of ships in the first instance, it might
be taken as certain that the country where there was
the most energy and enterprise, and which had
the command of the markets of the world, was the
country which on equal terms was the most able to com-
pete with every other country in the world; and they
might be assured that the British shipowner was not
likely, in fair competition, to be defeated. But the
Noble Lord had said it was impossible we could com-
pete with America. Yet what was the case? From the,
year 1821 to 1844 the tonnage of British ships which
had entered American ports had increased from 52,000
to 776,000 tons. If we could not compete with the
United States, how were they to account for that in-
crease? He found also that Liverpool, where ships were
built dear, could compete with New Brunswick, where
the cost of building was cheap, and that New York,
where the cost was dear, could compete with the state of
Maine, where the cost was much less. How was that?
It was because experience showed that to build the
latter vessel at a greater first cost was cheaper in the
end. But the Noble Lord had laid stress upon the
question of our maritime supremacy. He certainly
concurred with Mr. Huskisson, that if the supremacy
of their maritime power came in contact with their
commercial interest the latter must give way. But the
legislation of Queen Elizabeth's reign was of a most
liberal character with regard to navigation; and yet
the glory of our maritime supremacy was not tarnished
in her reign. The patent of our precedence dated from
a day anterior to the ordinances of Cromwell. If it
rested upon the foundation of the Act of Charles H., his
anticipations would be of a still gloomier character than
those of the Noble Lord. Those were arguments which
did not bear on any particular Bill that might come be-
fore the House, but bore exclusively upon the necessity
of a settlement of those questions. He went further,
and said it was not only desirable for the mercantile in-
terest, but just towards our own colonies and the ship-
ping interest generally, that there should be a speedy
settlement of the question. If for even a short time they
delayed the settlement of the question, they would hold
suspended over those whose property was embarked in
this pursuit the threat of impending change; they would
prevent the application of British capital and the employ-
ment of British industry, and thus give an impetus to the
employment of foreign capital and labour, and on that
ground, if on no other, they ought to come to a speedy
settlement of the question. There were anomalies
in the present law which it was impossible to defend, and
which those even who objected to the proposed measure
did not defend, but, on the contrary, freely expressed
their mind as to the necessity of their removal ; and he
said, then, it was the paramount duty of Parliament to
deal with the question, and to come speedily, effectively,
rationally, and not precipitately, to a settlement of it.
He would not, at that hour, follow the Hon. Member for