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

EVENING, JETTY 3l 1847.

bring it. My argument is that if you have a ship which
brings corn to you, you ought not to say " this is
American corn, it has -been taken from on board;
it has been landed at Havre, and brought again
here. I will not admit it—you must take it back
again." My argument is that if you admit corn
—if you have a necessity for the admission of corn, it
ought to be admitted in whatever ships it may come.
What are the prospects fir the next year? Who can
tell, however sanguine may be the expectation at
the present moment, the weather of the next six weeks
will give us a bountiful and abundant harvest ? Who
can tell whether the harvest of the continent of Europe
will be bountiful? Who can tell whether the great
abundance with which America has been blessed during
the past year will be continued in the present year,
and that we may not have at another time, not only the
difficulty of getting supplies of corn in England,
and Europe, but the difficulty of having the large sup-
plies we have had in the present year from America?
Let us not forget, with regard to this subject, that the
price of corn has lately been as high, taking into consi-
deration the depreciation of the currency, as it was at
any period of the past year ; and let us not forget what
is the most remarkable part of the present subject—that
there is an extraordinary consumption. But there have
been very large imports from the seats of foreign
trade, and there have been a very great num-
ber of railway works ' • and I believe that they
have in many respects diminished or alleviated the
calamities under which we are suffering by causing a
considerable demand for labour. But, at the same time,
when I look to the amount of calls upon railways from
January to this time, and I find that there has been em-
ployed twenty one millions, of which somewhat more
than eighteen millions are required for the United King-
dom, it is impossible not to see that the expenditure of a
very large portion of this sum must have led to a con•
siderable consumption which would not have taken
place if there had not been so extraordinary
an expenditure. That consumption again leads to
an increased price, and of course leaves less of the
whole amount of food to be divided amongst the
people of this country. But the construction of railways
has in one sense tended to the augmentation of the diffi-
culty, for I believe that they have mainly caused the
consumption which is so much greater than has ever
before taken place with so high a price of provisions—
for this extraordinary consumption must tend to make
the quantity of food in the country last for a shorter
period than it would otherwise do. Taking all these
circumstances into consideration, the general result is
that the policy of Parliament ought to be to throw open
the ports as widely as possible for the admission of
food, and to take away every restriction which
would prevent one single quarter of corn from
coming into this country, if you mean to keep up at all
the good condition of the labouring people, and, lastly,
if you look to the state of the revenue in connexion with
all these circumstances, you will find that you ought to
pursue the policy of free and indiscriminate admission
for corn. Having come to this general conclusion, I
again refer to the plan of the Noble Lord, and again re
peat that we will not on this question discuss the pro-
priety of the existence of the navigation-laws. That sub-
ject will most probably be brought under the con-
sideration of Parliament when the evidence which has
been taken by the Committee has been considered, and
for my part I promise to pay serious attention to that
evidence whenever it shall be produced. I think that
there is no question which has so many various sub-
jects—as relates to our commercial marine—as relates
to the state of our naval power, and as relates likewise
to the general principle of freedom of intercourse—there
is in fact no question which can be put on so many
various bases as the navigation-laws. I am most
unwilling to discuss such a subject towards the close
of the session with the Committee sitting—(Hear)—
and taking evidence upon it, and I should not be justified
in proinsing any determination to be taken upon such a
subject. I shall be ready to consider any determination
to be taken with reference to the general principle of
commercial policy—with reference to the effect of these
laws upon it—with reference to the altered state of the
world—and with reference, lastly and chiefly, to the
naval farce and naval supremacy of this country.
Mr. RICARDO said that he did not think the general
question of the navigation-laws at all involved in this dis-
cussion. He was surprised that the Noble Lord the Member
for Lynn had made a charge against the Government that
they were seeking to wish rmine the shipping interest of
the country, and he could not help thinking that in
opposing this measure the Noble Lord had some
electioneering manceavre in view. The measure in his
opinion would do no injury whatever to the shipping
interest, but if they adopted the suggestion of
the Noble Lord to bring line-of-battle ships into
competition with the merchantstraders, it would be in-
flicting an irreparable injury upon the free commerce of
the country.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the time was
coming when the wood old days would be revived, and
when they should see English and American ships
crossing the Atlantic with ballast and returning laden with
goods or corn. The period was fast approaching when,
in his opinion, these laws must be altogether abolished;
and he thought, when the House was put in possession
of the evidence taken before the Navigation Committee,
it would be inclined to agree with him.—(Hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL said the present was not a fitting op.
portunity to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the
navigation-laws, and he should, therefore, confine his
observations to the Bill before the House.
It did not follow that because his Noble Friend,
the Member for Lynn had consented to a
further suspension of the corn-laws, he ought to agree
to this measure. The navigation laws had already been
suspended for a sufficient length of time, and he could
not see what advantage was to be derived from con-
tinuing the suspension during a period when the
trade of many countries was shut up by national
causes. The Honourble Gentleman who last addressed
the House ridiculed the idea of bringing line-of-
battle ships into comnefitier -•;el• •--•
h. T _l3) .eoagnt tne non. Gentleman Dad mis
understood the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member
for Lynn. The Noble Lord did not make the sugges-
tion attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman. What he
said was, that at a time when several ships laden
with corn, and bound to this country, were unable to
obtain egress into the Atlantic by stress of weather,
there were several ships of war cruising off Portugal and
doing nothing, which might have been better employed
in assisting these ships out of their difficulties.—(Bear,)
He would not detain the House any further, and he
would sit down imploring the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government to give his most serious and at-
tentive consideration to the subject of the navigation-
laws, and not too hastily come to a conclusion upon it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to tell the
Hon. Gentleman that he had understood him (Lord John
Russell) quite correctly, and he questioned if the navi-
gation-laws ought to be left for future deliberation.
Mr. TRELAWNY supported the Bill.
Mr. S. HERBERT said, so far as this Bill was con-
cerned he had no sort of objection to its passing. He
was most anxious that there should continue to be an
ample 'supply of food in this country and in Ireland,
particularly during the fruit season, and without giving
any opinion upon the large and important question of
the navigation-laws, he was not disposed to resist the
progress of this temporary measure. He did most sin-
cerely regret that the Government had abandoned a Bill
which, if calculated to be useful at all, would be pre-
eminently useful in the present year.
Mr. MITCHELL would confine himself to the ques-
tion of the expediency of these laws, and the question
was, could ships be chartered at a lower rate of freight
than at present ? He affirmed that they could not, and
therefore that did away with the necessity of the Bill.
last year. It should
pTeark
cent.in g all
higher the
tfhr ea ing
thht
es y tog h ade t
beenh er, the freights were 30
be recollected that the greater part of the British ship-
ping was employed in the conveyance of corn, which
they took in preference to other freights. He did not
see, therefore, that any necessity now existed either for
sending ships of war to bring corn to this country, or
for the suspension of these laws,
Mr. AARON CHAPMAN fully agreed with the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, that it would
have been imprudent to have used ships of war in the
carrying of corn, and he as fully disagreed with the ar-
guments of the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Trelawny),
who appeared to found all his arguments on his knowledge
of the Royal Yacht Club.—(Laughter.) In his opinion
the safety of this country depended upon our navy, and
the efficiency of that navy depended upon the encourage-
ment of the shipping now employed in commerce. He
thought that the Bill was not required, and should not
be proceeded with.
Mr. TRELAWNY explained.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that after the declara-
tion of the Noble Lord that he would give this measure
his unbiassed consideration next year, he (Lord J. Man-
ners) was not disposed to oppose the further suspension
of the navigation-laws.
Mr. HUDSON said that he did not think it would be
wise at present to obstruct the Government, for he was
prepared to grant that some interests in the country
might be benefited by the suspension of the navigation-
laws for a time.
Mr. FORSTER hoped that the Protectionists would
not at the forthcoming election raise a cry in favour of
the shipowners similar to that which in 1841 they raised
for the agriculturists, because the former interests would
be very apt to imagine that their fate would be the
same.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCIi said, after what had been said
he should not put the House to the trouble of a division,
and should withdraw his amendment.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
CUSTODY OF OFFENDERS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill, and
the clauses, after sonic verbal amendments, were agreed
to.--Report on Monday.
PRISONS BILL.
Lord MAHON wished to know whether, after what
occurred, the Noble
Bill during the
and the absence
Lord intended to proceed with this
present session He thought, con-
sidering the period of the session,e
of many Honourable Members who took
much interest in the matter, it would be
advisable, and more conducive
it were withdrawn. Therepublic certainly was no haste for
e it; and he trusted, therefore that the Noble Lord would
not press it on a thin
House, but adopt his suggestion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would take the Noble Lord's
suggestion into consideration, and his Right Hon.
Friend (Sir George
second-iN -rT reading E
of EXEMPTIONthis 111 being
BILL.
Grey) would, on Monday, state
the course which the Government intended to adopt with
respect to the measure.
STOCK-IN-TRADE
the
Sir R. IL INGLIS deprecated the changing of the law
without discussing its principles and its influence on those
moved,
On
who would be affected by it. He considered that the Bill
proposed too sweeping a cha,,ze in the I,w, and that any
ch::nge thould be f.;raduaL......(llear.) Unless they were
prepared to bring
in a general Bill they would do great
large portion of the country. If they were
prepared to rate stock in trade, the owner of tithes had
no right to complain ; but if they did not do so they

would inflict a grievous injustice upon them. He did not
intend to divide the House ; but, unless the Right Hon.
Baronet gave a pledge that he would bring such a Bill
as the one he had recommended next session, he shoulc;
be compelled to do so.

Sir GREY admitted that the subject was fraugh'
with difficulties. The Bill had been brought in in ac
cordance with a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.
He was ready to admit that the subject required future
legislation, and, uo doubt, mature consideration might
lead him to bring forward a more general and unobjec-
tionable measure than the one before the House.—
(Hear.) He did not think any greater burden would
be placed upon the tithe owner than on the owners of
any other description of property.—(Hear.)
Sir JOHN TROLI OPE would rather that this Act
should be made a permanent one than that the question
should be mooted annually. He did not think that the
statements of the Right Hon. Baronet were so explicit
as the House had a right to expect.
Mr. HENLEY thought it would be impossible to make
the Act permanent. He admitted that the subject was
one that ought to be looked at with a very jealous eye.
If the law was not either put an end to or suspended, it
would lead to eternal litigation.
After some observations from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. HUDSON expressed a hope that the Government
would turn their attention to the rating of railways, as
at present he thought the mode of rating those under-
takings was most unjust. In some instances railways
paid two-thirds of the rate of the county through which
they passed. He trusted that Government would
either bring in a Bill on the subject, or grant a Select
Committee to take the matter into consideration.
After a few words from Colonel ROLLESTON,
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that he would not press
the House to a division, but he hoped the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Home Secretary would take the subject into
consideration during its recess, and bring forward a mea-
sure next session for the purpose of removing the evils
which at present existed on the subject of rating.
After a few words from Mr. B. ESTCOTT and Sir C.
BURRELL,

Lord G. BENTINCK thought the subject too im-
portant to be discussed in such a thin House, when there
was no Cabinet Minister present except the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment. This was one of the evils which resulted from
their working double time. He should, therefore, move
that the House be counted.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but there was a
sufficient number of Members present to form a House.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.

SUTTON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL,

Sir J. Y. BULLER moved that the report from the
Committee on the Sutton Harbour Improvement Bill be
considered forthwith, prints of the amended Bill having
been deposited on Wednesday, the 30th day of June last.
Mr. GREENE suggested that the better course would
be to recommit the Bill.

Sir JOHN Y. BULLER would consent to the re-
committal of the Bill, provided that the Committee were
allowed to sit on Monday next.
This course was agreerl to.
COMMIS-lON IN THE LORDS.

Sir Augustus Clifford, Usher of theßlack Rod,
appeared at the bar and summoned the House to the
bar of the House of Lords, to hear the Royal assent
given by commission to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Members, left
for the House of Lords.
On the return of the SPEAKER, he announced that
several Bills (tor which see Lords' report) had received
the Royal assent.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to :

Ashton Gas

Caledonian Railway (Branches to Canonbie, &c.)
Chard Canal and Railway (Extension and Amalgamaton)
Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Purchase of Navan

. _ •
Branch, &c.) _
East Lothian Central Railway
Eastern Union and the Ipswich and Bury Saint Ed-
mund's Railways Amalgamation
Eilinburgh Waterworks
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock. and Ayr Railway (No. 1).
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 2).
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and
Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway (No. 1).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
(No. 2).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
(No. 4).
London and North-Western Railway (Portobello and
Wolverhampton Branch, &c.)
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, and
Manchester and Lincoln Union Railway, and Ches-
terfield and Gainsborough Canal Amalgamation.
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension
from Athlone to Galway).
Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway (Exten-
sion to Taff Vale Railway).
Northampton and Banbury Railway.

Parkgateand Chester and Birkenhead Junction Railway.
South Staffordshire Railway (Cannock, Wyrley, and
Norton Branches, &c.)
Swansea and Amman Junction Railway.
York Improvement (Lendal Bridge and Approaches).
Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from a great
number of officers employed in the administration of the,
poor-law in England and Wales, praying that the Go-
vernment would grant 4suner.n.uation fund.
tto3l THE LOtins
Messengers from the Lords brought up the following
Bills, which their Lordships have agreed to :—Baths
and Washhouses Bill—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin-
colnshire Railway (Branch at Bugsworth to join the
Peak Forest Canal Tramway, and Amendment of Acts)
Bill—Midland Railway (Leicester and Swannington
Railway Widening, Deviations, and Branches, Enlarge-
ment of Leicester Station, and extending Powers as to
Branch) Bill—and to Amendments to Hodgson Hinde's
Estate Bill, without Amendment;—Juvenile Offenders
Bill—Midland Railway (Erewash Valley, &c.)
Kilmarnock Police and Improvement Bill—Boston,
Stamford, and Birmingham Railway (Wisbech to Sutton
Bridge, &c.) Bill—Edinburgh and Northern Railway
(Burntisland Pier, &c.) Bill, with Amendments.
RELIEF COMMITTEES.
Mr. B. OSBORNE presented a petition from Long.
ford, in Ireland, praying that the House would institute
an inquiry into the operation of the relief committees in
Ireland.

Hon. Members and the public with respect to the state-
ment which had appeared in the newspapers respecting
his matter. The House was, no doubt, aware, that
.vhen a perso❑ was convicted of a criminal offence,
-us property was forfeited to the Crown ; but
he practice had uniformly been to grant 'he property
to the relations who might petition the Cro.vn for it. In
his case Mrs. Tawell presented a memorial to the Trea
,-,ury, praying inquiry, and to have the property vested
the Crown for her use; and an inquiry had been made,
and it would be disposed of for her use.—(Hear, hear.)
He was rather surprised that a statement should have
~one forth in the newspapers imputing the grossest in-
humanity to the Crown, especially when it was borne in
mind that the inquiry was made at her own request.
MALTA.

Dr. BOWRING wished to ask the Under Secretary
of the Colonies whether the memorials and petitions'
from Malta on the subject of the grievances of that
island have received the attention of the Government,
and whether any measures are in progress for their
redress ?

Mr. HAWE'i said the memorials had been received,
and were now under the attention of the Noble Lord at
the head of the Colonial Department, and until he came
to a decision, he thought it would be imprudent to say
anything more on the subject.
SUPPLY.

Mr. lIUME inquired when the Noble Lord proposed
to go into Committee of Supply?

Lard JOIIN RUSSELL:--I intend to bring on the
supply on Monday.
SITTING OF THE HOUSE TO
(THIS DAY.)

In reply to fr. SPOONER,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he did not think
it would be necessary for thetHouse to sit to-morrow.

BORNEO.

Mr. EWART wished to inquire of the Under Secre-
tary for the Colonies, what measures have been adopted
for the establishment of a settlement in the island of
Labuan, on the coast of Borneo, ceded to the British
Crown in December last.
Mr. HAWES said her Majesty's Government were
fully aware of the importance of the island ; but there
was no desire on the part of the Government to mag-
nify the colonial establishments ; parties, however, had
been appointed, who were competent to give the fullest
information, whose reports would shortly be presented
to the Government.
IRISH LANDLORDS.
Sir D. NORREYS adverted to his motion on
this subject. He considered, that he had been badly
used by the Noble Lord in this matter, as he had refused
to reply to his question. He said if any parties had
been guilty of misconduct they should be held up to the
scorn which they deserved, and he called upon the
Noble Lord as an act of justice to say whether all were
to be implicated i❑ these disgraceful proceedings or not.
Surely the innocent ought to be discriminated from the
guilty.

lz;rd J. RUSSELL said the report of the commis-
sioners stated that there were 1,700 committees, and
that amongst them some abuses bad occurred; but the
Hon. Gentleman would have it that that inferred that
all were equally guilty.—(Hear, hear.) He did think
that it was impossible to state this more clearly than
the commissioners had stated it. He thought that the
publication of all the names, and the institution of an
inquiry, for both of which the Hon. Baronet asked,
would be productive of great evil.—(Hear, hear.) The
more prudent course to adopt would be to take the
statement as it was, and when the parties who had acted
improperly were appointed to the magistracy that an in-
quiry should be made into their conduct.
_ _

;fir. B. OSBORNE said if a Committee were ap-
pointed, that it could not accomplish the task which
would be assigned to them under a year, and that the re-
sult of their labours would fill one of the largest blue
books that has ever been printed.
Lord CLEMENTS supported the view of the Hon.
Baronet, and, considered that the motion ought to be
agreed to.

Lord J. RUSSELL explained that the cases referred
to were the exceptions.
Mr. WAKLEY considered that an inquiry was due to
those who had not been guilty of the abominable prac•
tice which had been imputed to many landlords—
namely, placing their servants for support upon the rates.
The matter then dropped.
COLONIAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

In reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he would make inqu.
ries respecting the returns for which the Hon. Gentle
man had moved.