The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2.
The House sat to-day at Five o'clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission
to the following seventy-three public and private Bills:—
Naval Mutiny Bill—Naval Prisons Bill—Royal
Marine Service Bill—Quakers and Jews Mar-
riages Bill Masters in Chancery Bill Baths
and Washhouses Bill Cornwall Railway Bill
London and South-Western Railway (purchase of Earl
Ellesmere's Interest) Bill Vale of Neath Railway
Bill—General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Rail-
way Branch Bill—Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway
(Construction of Duck) Bill—East Lincolnshire Railway
(Deviation at Boston, and Branch to Great Grimsby
and Sheffield Junction Railway at Grimsby)—Ambers-
gate, Nottingham, and Boston, and Dist, rn Junction
Railway (Al:erasion of Line and Branches into
Or near the Town of Nottingham) Lly nv i Val
ley Railway Extension—Shrewsbury and Birming-
ham Railway Act Amendment and Branches—
Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Aust
Ferry—Caledonian Railway, and Glasgow, Garnkirk,
and Coatbridge Railway (branch to Glasgow Station)—
Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway (De-
viation between Duntocher Line 'Works and Bowling)—
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland—Newry
and Enniskillen Railway Act Amendment—Newport,
Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway (Deviations)—
Herneßay and CanterberyJunction—London and South-
Western Railway (Widening, &c.)—Dundee and Perth
Railway (Alterations and Extension)—Glasgow, Barr.
head, and Neilston Direct Railway—Great Western
Railway (Branch to join the West London Railwa) )
Eastern Counties Railway (Maldon, Witham, and Brain-
tree Railway Purchase)—Great Southern and Western
Railway Extension (Portarlington and Tullamore)—
Norfolk Railway (Branch from Wymondham to the
Norwich Extension of the Ipswich and Bury St. Ed-
mund's Railway, and the proposed Thetford and Reed-
ham Railway, near Diss)—Glasgow, Barrhead, and
Neilston Direct, and Glasgow Southern Terminal
Railways Amalgamation—Southampton and D rchester
Railways, (New Forest Deviation and Branches)—
Lowestoft Railway and Harbour (Alteration
near Reedham) Norfolk Railway (Yarmouth
Extentions)—Dablin and Drogheda Railway Branch
from Cavan to Kells—Southampton and Dorchester
Railway (Weymouth Branch)—Swansea Valley Rail-
way—Manchestcr and Lincoln Union Railway De
viation—Manchester and Leeds Railway (Branch from
the Huddersfield Railway)—South Eastern Railway
(North Kent and Bricklayers' Arms Junction—
Liverpool, Crosby, and Stourport Railway and Branch—
Dundee and Newtyle Railway—London and North-
Western Railway (Newport Pagnell, Olney, and Welling-
borough Branch)—North Staffordshire Railway ( Altera-
tions and Branches)—South Wales Railway—Derbyshire,
Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Junction Railway—
Dublin and Belfast Junction and Navan Branch Railway
—Boston, Stamford and Birmingham Railway (Peter-
borough and Thorney Line)—East Lincolnshire Railway
(Louth Navigation Purchase)—London and North-
Western Railway (Coventry and Nuneaton Branch)—
London and South-Western Railway (Andover to the
Bishopstoke and Salisbury Branch)—Manchester, Shef-
field and Lincolnshire Railway (Branch to Bugsworth)
—York and Newcastle Railway, and Wearmouth
Dock Enlargement—Midland Railway (Leicester
and Swannington)—London and North-Western
Railway (Atherstone and Whitacre Branch)—
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Railway (Amend-
ment and Deviations and Branches)—Birmingham and
Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Railway (No. 1)—
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Lease to the
London and North Western Railway Company)—Swan-
sea Docks—Croydon Commercial Gas anti Coke Corn
pang—Dunfermline Waterworks—Falmouth Water-
works Macduff Harbour Improvement Wark•
worth Harbour—London, (City) Small Debts—
Westminster and part of Middlesex Sewers—Bristol
Building and Improvement Act Amendment—Bristol
Commercial Insurance Company—Wyndham's Estate
Bill—Long's Estate Bill—Peyi zfield's Estate Bill—
Horne's (Ferguson's) Estate Bill—Hodgson Blade's
Estate Bill—Leigh's Estate Bill.
The Lords Commissieners were the Lord Chancellor,
Earl Spencer, and Lord Denman.
PUNISHING A SOLDIEit IN THE SEVENTH
HUSSARS.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble Friend
a question with respect to the punishment of a soldier
of the 7th Hussars, named Radcliffe, who had
been charged with a very grave offence, namely
shooting at his sergeant with a pistol loaded
with ball. If the charge was true it was a very
grave one. He wished to ask his Noble Friend (the
Duke of Wellington) whether he had received any in-
formation that the colonel had ordered him to be
marched to his trial on the following Wed-
nesday "to receive the ereatest punishment
that could be inflicted upon him." This was an extra-
ordinary letter, but he (Lord Broughatu) supposed that
it referred to the punishment he should, receive if he was
found guilty.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had received
information of the transaction. The fact of the matter
was this. A soldier of the 7th Hussars, of the name of
Smith (not Radcliffe) shot a sergeant-major of the same
regiment by the aid of his fire-arms. This was an infa-
mous and atrocious Act, and was particularly deserving
of notice in Ireland, where it was too much the practice
of the country at large to connive at the escape of mur-
derers.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Brougham.) It was
an Act deserving of the notice of the commanding officer
of the regiment ; and it was incumbent on him to walk
his sense of its atrocity, not only on account of the regi-
ment, but of the country where it occurred. The sol-
dier committed one of two military offences, and the
commanding officer was right in ordering him to be con•
fined, and in the other step he took to mark his sense of
the atrocity of the crime which had been committed.
The fault, however, which he (the Puke of Wellington)
found with him was, that he did not say, when he ordered
the soldier's hair to he cue what was the reason for
which he had give n that order, fur this might lead to the
supposition that he was prejudging the case. He was
of opinion, however, that in the main the commanding
officer had acted rightly in the course he had taken. -
Lord BROUGHAM said that his Noble Friend was
quite right in describing the oflence as a grave one, but
his objection was against what had t tken place before
trial, and also to the terms of the order.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the man was
not tried far being concerned in the murder, but for im-
properly using his own ammunition, or for purloining
that of another.
The subject dropped.
QUALIFICATION OF PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, this Bill
was read a third time.
The NOBLE EARL then moved an amendment, giving
power to a foreign consul to administer the oath of alle-
giance in those cases that came under the provisions of
the Bill.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH opposed that clause, as
he thought no such power ought to be concerted.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; no division,
however, took place.
The amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into the Poor-law
Administration (Ireland) Bill,
Lord BROUGHAM said that he should not give his
support to this measure. for in his opinion it was nut im-
portant, in the administration of a law of this nature, to
have an officer connected with it in Parliament, to whom
any questions concerning it could be addressed. But
there was one very serious objection to the method in
which it was proposed to connect that officer with the
general administration of the country. In all ministerial
questions which were proposed, there must be one of two
terminations to the question—either the defeat of those
who opposed the Government, or of the Government
itself ; and as this poor-law officer would be connected
with the Ministry, every question which was proposed
by the Ministry and disputed in Parliament, must affect
him and his office, as one of that Ministry ; so that, in-
stead of having a calm and unbiassed administration of
these laws by that officer, the poor-law and its adminis-
tration would be shaken or affected by nearly every ques-
tion which was discussed in Parliament. Let them once
agree to any such connexion with the Ministry, and every
sort of cry that could be raised against the Ministry
would bo raised, and every act of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, though done with the very best intention, would
be urged against them in every possible way. Acts
which might be really humane in themselves, and have
for their ultimate object the alleviation of the sufferings
of the poor, would fur their apparent severity be cavilled
at in Parliament, and furnish a constant matter of com-
plaint against the Government of the day. The exist-
ence of such an officer in connexion with the Ministry
would furnish an additional and fruitful source of
political intrigue and combinations, and while the
question of the peer law was nominally raised it might
be in reality a question of a very different sort that
would be in agitation, but whatever the question might
be, the poor-laws must necessarily be affected by it. He
had known a Government to go ou fur one or two years
with a small majority, and such a Government he would
defy to pursue a steady course with respect to the poor-
law. It might be said that there could be no hindrance
to the commissioners doing their duty. The motto
might be " fiat justicia runt ceelum"—meaning by ccelum
the heaven of Downing-street, but it would be utterly
impossible to hinder the most serious obstacles from
• being thrown in the way of this officer. This would be
the consequence, and the inevitable consequence of the
introduction of this officer into Government. Supposing
that at the present time—when the country was upon the
- eve of a general election—that such an officer were in
existence, and had laid down with the consent of the
Government, a particular mode of administering the
poar-laws, could it be expected that if the existing
Government had a small majority, they would attempt
in conjunction with this commissioner to carry into effect
so obnoxious an order as the one upon which they were
beaten the other night—namely, the separation of the
sexes? The Government had been defeated the ether
evening in attempting to enforce this principle—a prin-
ciple which was a most proper one—and he for one
tendered them his hearty and sincere thanks for resist-
ing the opposition which was brought against it. He
thought that this Bill, if carried, would give a very
unfair means of annoying the existing Government,
without any corresponding benefit to the poor. He did
not indeed think that such an officer was necessary, and
it would be very difficult to get one with the knowledge
of the class over whose interests he would have to preside,
and with the firmness which would be required
to carry into effect that which it would be his
duty to do. Supposing that this officer were in office,
and just as he had acquired all these requisites suffi-
ciently for the discharge of his manifold duties, that he
should be compelled to go out of office by a change of
Ministry, would that not involve the necessity of placing
another officer in office, who, just as he had learned all
that his predecessor had acquired, might leave his office
it the same critical period: Theae were his reason§

for not giving his assent to this Bill, and upon these I
grounds he felt it his duty to give his vote against it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he felt ne-
cessary to trouble their Lordships for some few moments
in answer to the Noble Lord who had last spoken. He
was very happy to say that, although there were few of the
acts of the Poor-law Comrnis=ioners which were open to
objection, yet their justification was of necessity given
by a tedious and circui'ous route, and lost with the
public very much of the effect which the immediate and
prompt vindication of their conduct would have,and
whch
could be given, by one of their body publicly in Parlia-
ment. A great deal of the objection which had been raised
to the Poor-law Commissioners had been raised in con-
sequence of their proceeding, as it were, secretly and in
the dark; and this provision would at once remove that
unfailing cause of disturbance and clamour. His Noble
Friend had stated many difficulties as likely to arise
from the connexion of this officer with the Government.
There were other officers connected with zhe Govern-
ment whose situations were quite as open to the attacks
and strategems of the opposition for party purposes as
even this one could be, and he (the Marquis of Lane-
downe) saw no reason why the gentleman who
filled this office should be particularly selected as
the object of this sort of interference any
more than those gentlemen who now held official situa-
tions in connexion with the Government. He would
also say, to the honour of the country, that none of those
gentlemen hal, except in rare instances, been made the
object of any annoyance to the Government by unfounded
charges; but, on the contrary, any interference which
had taken place, was only with the view of obtaining
answers to lair and legitimate questions. The Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department was an officer
who was quite as likely to be mada the subject of these
unfounded charges, for in his hands was the power of
life and death; he had the power of deciding whether
the criminal should suffer the last extremity of the law,
and to him the relations and friends frequently came to
intercede, and he issued his fiat unchecked or uncon-
trolled, for execution or otherwise; arid yet he had never
heard any instance in which any attempt at getting up
charges for party purposes had been made. What had
fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend did not re-
quire any further answer from him, and he hoped that
their Lordships would go into Committee without feel-
ing that this Bill was likely to create those evils which
his Noble and Learned Friend had described.
After a few words in explanation from Lord
BROUGHAM.
Lord STANLEY said that he entirely concurred in
the statement which had been made by his Noble and
Learned Friend near him. That the appointment of
this officer in connexion with the Government should
create some risk of undue interference with these law-
for party purposes, but he did think that it would also be
a check upon any undue administration of the law by the
commissioners, by the appointment of on officer with a
Parliamentary responsibility. He thought that if that
officer had been appointed in connexion with the
try before the present time, many misrepresentations
which had gained credence and gone abroad, would have
been contradic.ed and satisfactorily denied. He thought,
however, that the Parliamentary responsibility men-
tioned by the Noble Marquis would rest as much upon
the Government generally as upon the officer appointed,
and thus a connexion would be formed which would
rend, r it the interest of that officer to countenance and
support the interference of the Government in these laws
whatever it might be. Upon the whole, however re-
luctantly and doubtfully, he leaned towards the opinion
that it was desirable to connect this officer with the Go-
vernment—for then much of that misrepresentation, and
unfounded persecution, lately sustained by the Poor-law
Commissioners would either be at once sustained and
proved, or publicly and promptly denied. He thought
that, under all the circumstances, the connexion of this
commissioner with the Government was advisable, and,
aeref ,re, wi,hout going into any other principle of the
Bill at that time, he should give it his support.
Lord COLCHESTER very much feared that this plan
would not secure to her Majesty's Ministers that secu-
rity from unfounded imputations which he (Lord Col-
chester) thow2ht was one of the objects of this Bill ; for,
inasmuch as this commissioner was to be connected with
the Government. any charge brought against him must
be brought against them all. Though he only would
attempt to refute or deny and of these accusations. He
did not dissent from the principle of the measure, but he
certainly thought it capable of very material improve-

meat.
Earl ST. GERMANS said that his Noble Friend
had taken off the half•and-half responsibility which was
at present incurred by her Majesty's Government, par
titularly the Secretary of State for the Home Depart.
ment —with respect to the administration of the poor•
laws—in common with the Poor law Commissioners.
That objection would still exist, even though one of
these commissioners were to have a seat in Parliament,
unless the whole of the Board of Commissioners was
re-constructed by the Government, before taking that

step.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then rose, and ad -
dressed the House briefly, but his observations were quite
inaudible in the watery.
The House then resolved itself into Committee upon
the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that the words—
First Lord of the Treasury—be inserted in the list of
commissioners to be appointed.
Earl GREY said that he did not think that the inser-
tion of these words would do ant harm, neither would
they be of the slightest use ; he did not think that any
sing'e beneficial object would be answered by the inser-
tion of these words.
Clauses 1 to 9 ware then agreed to.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Lord REI)ESDALE moved the omission of this
clause—it threw a large amount of patronage into the
han'is of the Government, at the most dangerous time
it could be done, namely, on the eve of a general
' election.
After some desultory conversation, the House divided,
when lb, re appeared—
F the amendment—Contents
N n contents
Majority for Non•contents
The Duke of RICHMOND then moved a clause to
the effect—that if the board of guardians, after a period
of three months, did not appoint a visiting committee,
and that visiting committee did not perform its duty by
)visiting the workhouses to take care that the poor were
not ill-treated by those placed over them. It should be
imperative on the Poor law Commissioners to appoint a
visitor, and that visitor to be paid out of the rates of
that union. This clause was, in his opinion, absolutely
necessary for the protection of the poor who were re-
ceiving relief in the workhouses, and for the purpose of
compelling the board of guardians to perform their duties.
After a brief discussion, the clause was withdrawn.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was reported to
the House, with amendments.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and their Lordships adjourned until Four o'clock to-
-1 morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 2.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH PRUSSIA.
On the motion that the order of the day be now read
for the second reading of the Navigation Bill,
Lord G. BENTINCK said he would take that oppor-
tunity of putting the question of which he had given
notice to the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, with regard to the commercial relations
between this country and Prussia. On the 4th of June
la,tthere appeared in the Globe newspaper a paragraph,
stating, on th authority of a foreign journal, that the
Prussian Government had received dispatches from the
s.ughsh Government, announcing that if the Prussian
Government and the Zollverein persisted in not
renewing the treaty of international commerce
between them and England, the English Government
would find itself compelled to use reprisals. The foreign
paper to which that referred being the official organ of
the Prussian Government, he (Lord G. Bentinck) felt it
incumbent upon him to ask the Noble Lord whether that
report was correct, and whetherhehad found it necessary
to have recourse to a threat of retaliatory measures upon
Prussia, if Prussia persisted in her course of protective
duties in order to take care of the industry of her own
countrymen?
Lord PALMERSTON said he did not remember
having seen the paragraph to which his Noble Friend
alluded, but he had no hesitation in saying that that pare-
gra-,,h was entirely incorrect. The state of affairs was
this :—There was concluded between Great Britain and
Prussia in 1841, a treaty by which certain ports between
the Elbe and the Meuse were to be regarded according
to the navigation laws of the ports of those states.
Tnat treaty might be put an end to at the end of the
present year by a notice on the part of the Prussian
Government. That notice had been given the English
Government ; intimating at the same time on the part of
Prussia and the Zollverein that Prussia and the Zoll-
verein were dissatisfied with that treaty, because
it originated upon a real principle of reciprocity, which
the navigation-laws of England did not accord to the
vesselsadvant
advantages
Prussiaswereon h
and t the Zollverein,side
England,
and
and to h
that all the
e
Bversistels
ain engaged
persisted b
iny her,
herer ,and
nav w
navigation
atai
os
n intimated
systems
raut
si
sf GaGreat
the states of the Zollverein would think it their interest
to establish differential duties of 20 per cent. upon the
manufactures and produce of Great Britain. Such was
the state of the case. He could assure his Noble Friend
there was So threat of retaliation on the part of Great
Britain to compel Prussia to do anything which
she thought contrary to her interests, but it
was, on the contrary, a statement from Prus-
sia and the Zollverein, that if Great Britain did
not relax her present system they would enforce diffe-
rential duties, and put an end to the treaty of 1841. To
that communication an answer was returned to the
effect, that the treaty was of little advantage to Great
Britain, and, therefore, it was to her a matter of
comparative indifference whether the treaty Was
allowed to exist or expire. That communication could
hardly be said to be exclusive; and that woe
.the only
reply that he could make to the question of his Noble
Friend. There could, however, be no possible objection
on the part of the Government to lay before the House
the Prussian intimation of the conclusion of the treaty,
and the reply of the British Government.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUT l' admitted that the reply of the Noble
Lord was most satisfactory, but at the sama time he felt
bound to put the questions to him of which he had given
notice. He wished to know, in the first place, whether
her Majesty's Government had received an intimation
from any of the states of the North of Germany that
they have in contemplation to impose differential duties
on British vessels importing into Germany the produc-
tion of countries other than the possessions of her Ma-
jesty, unless Great Britain would so far abolish her na-
vigation-laws as to allow German vessels to import pro-
ductions from all parts of the world into the United
; and, secondly, whether the Noble Lord was
aware of any negotiations going on for tho purpose of
inducing the Hans Towns to units with the States of

the Zollverein, in an arrangement to impose differential
duties on the ships of all nations, which do not accord to
German States the sumo privileges of navigation which
the German States extend to them.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he had already
answered the first question of the Hon. Member. With
regard to the second question, it was certainly true that
the Prussian Government had been in commuication with
the Hans Towns, with a view as he (Lord Palmerston)
understood —he spoke only from information,
having received no official communication on the subject
to induce them to unite with the Zollverein in an ar-
rangement to impose differential duties on the ships of
all nations that did not accord to German States the
same privileges of navigation which the German
States extended to them. As he (Lord Palmerston)
had been informed, a person had been sent
from Berlin to Hamburgh, Lubeck, and Bremen, to in-
duce the Hans Towns to become members cf the Zoll-
verein. He understood that Hamburgh and Lubeck
had no desire to adopt the course suggested, and
although Bremen appeared rather favourable to the
corporate system in Germany, yet he (Lord Palmerston)
was not aware that any opinion had been expressed by
Bremen to accede to the request to unite with the
Zollverein for the purposes before stated.
NAVIGATION-LAWS.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the Navi-
gation-laws Bill be read a second time.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose to oppose the
motion. He did so because he thought the present mea-
sure was a pretext to undermine the present navigation-
laws. Since the suspension of those laws, innumerable
vessels, in all parts of the world, had been waiting for
freight and could not get it. There had not been more
than one or two ships from the Mediterranean since the
suspension of the laws, and at present rates were every
day falling at Alexandria, Constantinople, and Odessa.
He therefore contended that the necessity for the further
suspension of the navigation-laws had entirely passed
away. With regard to the small vessels from the Elbe
and the Weser, which formed so large an item in the re-
turn of the number of foreign grain-laden vessels, which
had been laid on the table, the further suspension of the
laws from September to March would be wholly inope-
rative.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord had been so
desirous as it was stated to bring in a large supply of
foreign corn cheaply, he might have spared the five
steam-ships that were cruising off Portugal for that pur-
pase, and by this means he would have done far more
good than by suspending the navigation-laws.—(Hear,
hear.) This was the course pursued by France, and it
was productive of the greatest advantage to the trade
and commerce of that country. If this suspension of
the navigation laws was to be considered as preliminary
to the abrogation of these laws, he would ask the Noble
Lord how he proposed to man the navy ?—(Hear, hear.)
America had attained the great eminence which at pre-
sent characterised the navy, not, as it was falsely
stated, by relaxing the navigation-laws, but by giving
her shipping the greatest protection. In 1814 the
British navy was manned by 114,000 men, and now the
number was not more than 30,000. It might be said
that when the corn laws were repealed the navigation-
laws must share the same fate. He did not see the con-
nexion which existed between them, or that the one
followed as a necessary consequence of the other. It
gave him great pain to see some shipowners supporting
the abolition of the corn-laws at the time that measure
was brought forward, and he sincerely hoped that they
should not have occasion to regret the part which they
took against the agricultural interest.—(Hear, hear.)
He had a comparative statement of the number of grain-
laden ships that came to this country from the United
States of America, from the 10th of September last to
the Ist of May. There were 294 vessels belonging to
Great Britain, and 450 to the United States. Of these
there were only 3 of the former which had met with
any accident at sea, while there were 21 American; of
those that were obliged to put back and discontinue
their voyages, there were 3 British and 17 American;
of those which were obliged to have their cargoes
thrown overboard there were 6 British and 27 Ame-
rican; and of those that had been stranded there were
4 British, while there were 12 American.—(Hear, bear,
and cheers.) This, he thought, proved that the British
pilot had not lost his cunning, nor the British sailor his
skill or energy; and, believing that this measure would
have the eflct of destroying the shipping interests or
this country, and of undermining their naval superiority,
which, more than any other cause, had contributed to
their greatness and their power, he would move that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, I do not propose to con-
sider—and I hope that this House will not consider—
that this is a question with regard to the repeal of the
navigation-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever may be the
merits of these laws—whether it may be right to main-
tain them inviolate—whether it is right to make certain
changes in them, or right to repeal them altogether—
that is not the question brought before the House under
the present Bill. All that I will say, therefore, on that
part of the supposition of the Noble Lord—and which
occupied a considerable part of his address to the House
—is, that I beg to remind the House that, when the
Committee upon the navigation-laws was appointed to
sit, it was a question of the most serious importance to
the country, and in the consideration of the report of
that Committee, or the evidence which authorised any
alteration to be made in the navigation-laws, this House
is bound to consider the burdens upon British ship-
owners, and take into consideration any disadvantage
they may have to contend with, at the same time that it
considers any restrictions which are to be imposed upon
foreign shipping. That will be at last for our con-
sideration; but the question now before the House is,
whether the present navigation-laws shall be suspetvied
—and it must be obvious to the House that we may sus-
pend laws of this nature without at all affecting the
principle upon which they are founded. With respect
to the very questior. of the corn-laws, the corn-laws
have been, during the last fifty years, frequently sus-
pended; sometimes for six months, sometimes for a year,
and sometimes fur two years, the great majority of both
11,,U503 of Parliament at the same time maintaining the
policy of these laws, and firm on the principle that they
ought not to be altered. This may be urged in regara
to the navigation-laws, and I own that I am surprised
at the Noble Lord and his friends taking this course
with regard to the navigation-laws at the present mo-
ment, having consented to the suspension of the corn-
laws. It appears to me that if you consented in prin-
ciple to the suspension of the corn-laws you wilt be
perfectly justified in coming before the next Parliament
and saying, "We have not given up the principle of
protection— the Parliament which has been dissolved
was gi eatly in error in doing away with that principle,
and we require a sliding scale or a fixed duty on corn,
for that even is a system found upon a better policy
than the total repeal of these laws." You would
be perfectly justified in raising such an argu-
ment ; it is probably not a strong answer
to such a proposition to say that you are precluded fi om
making such a proposition, because you suspended the
corn-laws during the past year. If that is the case with
regard to the navigation-laws, it cannot be urged as
coming against the navigation-laws, that there has been
a certain period in which you proposed to suspend those
laws. The Noble Lord, having consented to the suspen-
sion of the corn-laws, declares that the navigation-laws
ought not to be suspended. Now, what is the ground
for suspending the corn-laws? It is expected that there
will be a great quantity of corn brought into this
country, and therefore it is the policy of this country to
use every means by which that admission may be free
and open to all, and if that principle is good with
regard to the corn which is to be admitted,
why should it not be held good with regard
to the vessels in which that corn is brought ? If you
admit corn free of duty, you must also take measures to
admit that corn as freely as possible, whatever may be
the vessel in which that corn may come—we should not
ask any questions with respect to the lading of these
vessels, or their country, or the parties who own them;
but because they bring provisions, on that ground we
admit them. It appears to me that the two questions
stand upon a perfectly similar footing, and it is quite
inconsistent for the Noble Lord, haviug agreed to sus-
peed the present corn duties, to raise a new objec ion
to the suspension of this other law, and thus impose a
restriction upon the admission of corn from which the
duty is removed. The Noble Lord says, and says truly,
that I stated the other day that I was prepared to argue
that if 500,000 quarters of corn came in under the re-
cent suspension of the navigation-laws, still I should be
prepared to contend that these laws ought to bo further
suspended. I did so declare myself; because I think that
the necessity of the country is such that we ought not
to impose any restrictions whatever, and that the best is
to make the admission of corn as free as possible—
whether the benefit arising from that admission may be
small or may be large. At least I have asserted that
principle, and I have taken away any restriction tinder
which corn is admitted. That as an argument is perfectly
good, whatever may be the amount of corn admitted.
The Noble Lord has agreed as to the quantity of corn
admitted—he has agreed to those returns, which I
believe, with regard to most of the ports in the United
Kingdom from which those returns have been received,
are correct. I find with regard to London and Liver-
pool the quantities are the same.
Lord G. BENTINCK—You have no return from
Liverpool.
Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to some of the
ports, I believe that the custom-house has made an error
with regard to the quantity which might have come in if
the navigation-laws had not been suspended, and there
may be some alteration necessary in the general return,
but as to the total amount which it represents it is pro-
bably correct as to what has been introduced. The
amount introduced has been brought in by 508 ships,
amounting in tonage to 63,555 tons. The Noble Lord
says that it would have been far better to have sent
line-of- battle ships, which could introduce corn
from foreign countries. I argued this question at
the commencement of the session, and satisfied one Hon.
Gentleman, who made a motion upon that subject, that
in the first place the amount of tonnage of the line-of-
battleships which we should have at our command
time tadv e
for fitted
th upe r
e c theseep reception
01 in n e o
of-
would have been small ; and, in the second place, it
corn ; and, in the next place, that it would have taken
them away from any military service in which they
might be required. Supposing that any question like
the question of Otaheite, which
arose a few years
since, were to arise with any foreign power, it
would have been a great disadvantage to the
public, to have found ourselves crippled by the employ-
ment of these ships, so necessary tor the service of the
country for some other purposes. The last argument
which_l used, and which was the strongest of all, was, that
when the State interfered in subjects of this nature, the
more it proclaimed that it was about to undertake to fur-
nish that which commerce usually furnishes, the more it
had disturbed and checked and discouraged the natural
enterprise and trade of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, what will the tonnage of the Queen, the Trafalgar,
the Albion, and the Rodney amount to if they are
estimated ? The Queen, 3,104 tons; the Albion
3,110 tons ; and supposing the other two ships
to be of vital =MA or nosey eo, we would