The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 9.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
REGENT'S CANAL COMPANY (PADDINGTON
AND LIMEHOUSE RAILWAY AND BRANCH).
Sir WILLIAM CLAY moved the second reading of
this Bill.

Mr. WARBURTON said the present Bill was under the
consideration of the Woods and Forests, and he thought
the opponents of the Bill were entitled to ask, before it
was read a second time, what was the decision of the
Commissioners upon it,-was it to be sanctioned by the
Crown, or must the opponents come up and resist
the Bill at an enormous expense ? If the Crown
refused to sanction the measure there would
be no necessity to oppose the Bill ; and he should, there.-
fore, be glad to hear from the Noble Lord at the head
of the Woods and Forests what he intended to do in
the matter. The Crown had conceded certain rights to
Mr. Greenhaugh, who had built a villa in the Regent's-
park, at an expense of 20,0001., under the pro-
tection of the Government, who covenanted that
this property should not be interfered with, without his
consent, and therefore if the Crown sanctioned this
scheme it would commit a direct breach of good faith.—
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Greenhaugh's villa would he within
thirty feet of the railway, and es that gentleman had
invested his money, relying on the honour of the Crown,
he should propose that the second reading of the Bill
should be postponed until such time as the Woods and
Forests came to a ckcision upon the subject.
Lord MORPETH said a matter of good faith between
a subject and the Crown ought not to be trifled with.
He had received many deputations, both of the sup-
porters and the opponents of the Bill, and although he
might not have said anything upon the second reading,
he certainly should have asked for a postponement of
the committal of the Bill till the Government had had
an opportunity of col,sulting their engineers and law
advisers on the subject.
Sir B. HALL moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months.

Colonel SIBTHUILP supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for Marylebone. This was another at
tempted inroad upon private property by speculators,
and he would oppose it to the utmost. It was his duty,
and he hoped he should always fearlessly perform his
duty, to raise his humble voice against all aggression
upon private property. He would always oppose what
he considered an unjust interference with the rights of
British subjects. It was all very well to say that it was
for the public good—no such thing. It was nothing more
than aggrandisement that was sought by a gang of specu-
lators, to encourage the grossest kind of gambling. This
country was once called " the land of freedom," but if
the Government went on in this manner, encouraging
these speculators, the country would be nothing more
nor less than a land of oppression and tyranny.
Sir W. CLAY thought the better course would be to
allow the Bill to be read a second time, and reserve any
future proceedings upon the Bill until the Government
had had the opportunity of consulting with the authori-
ties and their legal advisers upon the subject of the rela-
tions existing between the Crown and the tenants.
Mr. HUME thought the House should be decided by
the speech of the Noble Lord connected with the Woods
and Forests. He apprehended the railroad could not be
legally made through the park, and he hoped that ample
time would be given for the further consideration of the
Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS said that the parties opposed to the
Bill were the ground tenants and the public at large.
These tenants apprehended that they were justly entitled
to► the quiet possession of the park, and that they were
entitled to the protection of the Crown ; for if this were
not afforded the greatest apprehension would be ex-
cited among all Crown tenants. The company was a
pure speculative affair, and the House should not coun-
tenance it in inflicting an injury on the tenant of the
Crown. The Regent's Park was one of the principal
lungs of the metropolis ; but if they made a railway on
the banks of the canal the most favourite parts would
be deserted. That part of the park was now frequented
by carriages, and ladies and gentlemen on hone-
back, but they could not then frequent it, owing to the
danger to which their lives would be exposed, in con-
sequence of the horses taking fright at the noise of the
engines.

Sir C. NAPIER said the Hon. Gentleman had stated
the objections to the Bill so fully and so ably, that it
would be unnecessary for him to say anything on that
subject. He had had the honour that day to be
a member of a deputation which had waited upon
the First Commissioner of the Woods and
Forests upon the subject. The Noble Lord showed them
a plan of the railway, which he (Sir C. Napier) admitted
was certainly very beautifully drawn, but it struck him
very forcibly that the canal was to be sunk considerably,
and the parts round it considerably raised, and that the
towing path was only to be raised one foot above the
canal,. whereas, in the original plan, the height of the
path was to be six feet abcive the canal. The gentleman
mentioned was not the only one who lied complained.
He wanted to know how long it would take to train
all the high-spirited horses to the noise of the
engines? But the greatet4 objection of all was
this. By a map w he held in his hand
it appeared that the railway would run between the
north and south banks, where there were no less than
forty houses, many of which were double, the gardens
attached to which sloped down to the banks of the canal,
and in fact looked out upon a very pretty , river.
The towing path , was not largo enough for
a. railway, so that additional grountl would have
to be taken by which the carriages would
be brought much nearer the windows of the houses. , It
the line was.made in the way proposed what a pleasant
accompaniment the carriages arid the engines, snorting
and whizzing along, would be to a lady playing en a piano-
forte in one of the houses.—(Laughter.) He thought
the parties ought to come towards Euston-square by
some other route. No doubt, if the Gcverriment would
state that they would compel the I.arties not to
injure those houses, that the amendment would be with-
drawn.—(Hear.)

Sir It, H. ING LIS commented upon the proceedings
which had taken place with respect to the Bill, and sug-
gested that the original motion and the amendment
should be withdrawn, and the Bill postponed until the
Government could make the necessary inouiries.
Lord MORPETH said that his Hon.Triend stated
that he gave his consent to the second reading of the
Bill. Now he did not wish that he should
be mistaken. What he said was this,
that until answers to certain inquiries were.'
made he did not feel himself authorised to prevent the
progress of the Bill. He would not vote himself for the
second reading, but until he received the answer to
which he alluded he would not oppose it.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. sTßurr said that he had no sufficient answer at
present to make to the observations of his Hon. Friend.
He considered that the question ought to be postponed
for a limited time.

Sir B. HALL then withdrew his amendment, that the
Bill be read that day six months.
Sir W. CLAY immediately withdrew the motion that
the Bill be real a second time that night, on the under-
standing that it was to stand over until some communi-
cation was received from the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests.
REGENT'S CANAL RAILWAY.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
certain traders in the borough of Finsbury in favour of
the Regent's Canal Railway.
DUTIES ON COPPER ORE.
Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he should
move for a copy of all memorials and petitions praying
for the repeal of the duty on copper ore.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. HUME also moved for a copy of the returns of
corporal and other punishments on board each of her
Majesty's ships in the royal navy, in each yearfrr,cimlBt4l6le,
Ist of January, 1844, to the 31st of December,
stating the name, rating, nature of the offence, date of
punishment,
the number of lashes, and remarks of Com-
mander in-Chief or senior officer as to any excess of
punishments or otherwise, according to the schedules
published and ordered in the- Admiralty instructions,
dated the Ist day of January, 1844, for the government
of her Majesty's naval serviee•' stating also the number
of seamen and marines employ d in each year, and
the average number fl, ggert ; distinguishing the num-
bere of commissioned and warrant and petty officers ;
also, specifying the names of her Majesty's ships and
vessels, and the nani, s of tiw commanders, in which no
corporal puni-,intients hare been inflicted in any of these
years. Address f4Jr abstract: of the total number of men,

S TT .14'

rank, and file, belonging to the Royal Marin
the Ist day of January,- 1844, to the 31si -y
'e.: _ ;,
"-,4.;://ty
imprisonment on shore, showing the natur '6 ,off e
cembEr, 1846, have suffered corporal p shON .
ea)
in classes, for which such punishment • ' Djj-
awarded, and the number in each class, an -
the greatest and the smallest number of lasher ic.eklLl s.AaAr
also, the longest and shortest period of confinement
awarded as punishment to each person, and the average
period of confinement for each class of offence, and the
average number flogged; stating the total number of
rank and file, and also the number of commissioned and
non-commissioned officers on shore in each year
Of the total number of soldiers belonging to the Royal
Artillery and Ordnance corps in Great Britain and
Ireland, who, between the Ist day of January, 1844.
and the 31st day of December, 1846, have suffered cor-
poral punishment or imprisonment, ; showing the nature
of the offences, in classes, for which such corporal punish-
ment or imprisonment had been awarded, and the num-
ber in each class ; and showing also the greatest end
the smallest number of lashes ; also, the longest and
shortest period of confinement awarded as punishment,
the average number flogged, and the average period of
confinement for each class of offences; distinguishing also
the total number of rank and file liable to be flogged,
and also the total number: of commissioned and non-
commissioned officers in the United Kingdom, in each of
ocfortphse sse anmi en g tenor,abroad;
thetlse
Rthooysael
years.A rti ryAalnsod Ordnance returns
total number of soldiers, belonging to regiments
and depots in Great Britain and Ireland, vino,
from the Ist day January, 1844, to the 31st day of
December, 1846, have suffered either corporal punish-
ment or imprisonment ; and whenever either corporal
punishment or imprisonment has been inflicted on the
same perms more than once, specifying how often it
has been so inflicted ; with abstract of the total
number of soldiers belonging to regiments in the
colonies and possessions of Great Britain, who
in each year, from the first day of January, 1844, to the
31st of December, 1846, have suffered corporal punish-
ments or imprisonments ; showing the nature of
the offences. in classes, for which such corporal punish.
ment or imprisonment has been awarded, and the num-
ber in each class ; stating also the greatest number and
the lowest number of lashes inflicted on any person in
each year ; also the longest and shortest period of con-
finement awarded as punishment, the average num-
ber flogged, and the average period of confinement for
each class in each year ; also distinguishing the total
number of rank and file, and also the number of com-
missioned and non-commissioned officers in each year.
Of the number of soldiers who, from the Ist day of Ja-
nuary, 1844, to the 31st of December, 1846, have suffered
corporal punishment or imprisonment, and whether either
corporal punishment or imprisonment has been inflicted
on the same person more than once, specifying how often
it has been, so inflicted; and distinguishing the num-
bers in regiments in the colonies in possession of
her Majesty from regiments in depots in Great Britain
and Ireland ; distinguishing also the total number of
rank and file, and also the number of commissioned and
non-commissioned officers in each year ; also stating
the number or name of the regiment or corps, with the
names of the commanding officers, in which no corporal
punishment has been inflicted in any of these years (in
continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 308, of ses-
sion 1845).—Agreed to.
RATE-PAYING CLAUSES OF THE REFORn
BILL.
Mr. DUNCOMBE gave notice, that on the 18th inst.
(that day fortnight), he should move for leave to bring
in a Bill for the repeal of the ratepaying clauses in the
Reform 13111.
R 1 SOLUTIONS OF THE RAILWAY BOARD.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE said that, as he understood
that the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the rail-
way board intended that night to state what were the
intentions of the Government with respect to railway
business, he (Mr. Ellice) should defer the question of •
which he had given notice until the Rouse should have
heard that exposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that the Hon. and Learned Member for Bolton would
defer the resolutions standing on the paper with respect
to the House of Keys, in order to give his Right
Hon. Friend an opportunity of hying his statement
before the House.
Dr. BOWRING would have great pleasure in con-
curring in the opinion of his Right Hon. Friend, and
would postpone his motion until the 18th inst.
IMPORTATION OF SALT INTO INDIA. •An I-lon. BARONET, who stood so closely under the
chair that he could not be seen, asked a question of the
Right Ron. Baronet at the head of the Board of Control,
the purport of which was to inquire whether a regula-
tion had been sent out respecting the importation of salt
into India.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said that the Home authori-
ties fotind on inquiry that the complaints of the im•
porters of salt were well founded, and they bad accord-
ingly sent out instructions to repeal the regulations of
the Indian Government, arid to give the importers of
salt the advantages of the bonding system of 1836.
RAILROADS IN INDIA.
Lord MAHON inquired whether the Right Hon.
Baronet the President of the Board of Control had re-
ceived any report on railways in India, and, if so, whether
he had any objection to lay it on the table of the Home?
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said that the report of the Com-
missioners sent out to India in June, 1845, had been
made, which was received on July 4th, 1846. That
report had never been me° public, and he did not know
whether the Noble Lord had seen it. He had not the
slightest objection to present the report if it was desired.
He bad also received a communication from the Go•
vernor-General respecting the lands to be taken for the
railroads, which might accompany the report.
Mr. HUME wished to ask, whether the Right Hon.
Baronet had any objections to lay any papers or dis-
patches also that accompanied the report on the table.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE had no objection to produce
the papers which were necessary to show the terms of
the engagements.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
Mr. W. COLLETT said that he did not think that
the Government were making that progress with the
Holyhead Harbour which they ought to have made, and
he would accordingly ask of the Secretary of the Admi•
ralty what steps her Majesty's Government have taken
respecting the construction of Holyhead Harbour, and
whether any additional powers are required for obtain-
ing possession of the lands adjoining the Refuge Har-
bour ; and if so, whether the Government are prepared
with a Bill for that purpose ?
Mr. WARD said that it was at first supposed that
the common consent of the parties interested would
have prevented the necessity of an application to Par-
liament, but as that supposition had proved fallacious, an
Act of Parliament was in preparation, and he
could assure the Hon. Member that not a day should be
lost. As to the harbour itself, the works were proceeding'
under private contract.
Lord CASTLEREAGH desired to know, whether, in
consequence of the statements which bad been made in
that House the Government intended to call upon
Captain Wynne for an explanatioriof his report.
Mr. WARD said that measures had, been taken to
put the matter fairly before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice, that on Thursday the
18th instant, he should move for a return of all the en-
franchisements effnted, or in progress of being effected,
under the Copyhold Commission Act. Also the esti-
mates made of all manors, and an explanation of what
was meant by fines arbitrary, and on what event these
fines became payable.

Mr. RICAltbO presented a petition from the ship-
owners of South Shields, -signed by 150 persons, nnd
representing above 400 proprieties, expresie.-b their e,m-
correnee in the present suspension of theNavigntioa
Laws, but praying that what little protection did rerLain
to them might be continued.
• - , NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from 200 ship-
owners ,of Sunderland against any alteration in the
Navigation Laws; also, a petition from the seamen of
Sunderland to the same effect.
Mr. iI.UME presented a similar petition from the
shipowners of Montrose, though he could not concur in
its prayer

•
Mr.'RICARDO then proceeded, in pursuance of the
notice he had given, to move for a Select Committee to
inquire into the Navigation Laws, He begged to assure
the Hon. Member for Sunderland, that he did not seek
to abrogate these laws at present, but simply wished to
have an inquiry. In 1651, the Act was first
passed, which passed under the name of the
navigation laws, and these laws had been from timo to
time altered up to 1822, when a considerable modifica-
tion took place. In that year Mr. Wallace introduced
five separate Acts, to alter, explain, and amend the
law as it then stood. Shortly after this, the Reci-
procity Act of Mr. Huskisson was passed, which
placed the shipping of foreign countries on a better
footirg than it had been before, and since therer hag,
been several amendments. As he had already observed,
as s
the present motion was not for a repeal of the
course which
now existed, but simply for an inquiry ;
doubts of the
The terms of that motion
. expressed
those ton the opposite benches had agreed
Now this Committee
efficiency of the aavigatto laws. s
ea to in 1844.
whichn he would just read to
furnished a report
pteoriothdeoirf
tchoenssiedsesrioantiotaat,
Committee proceeded to investi-
gate House:—
which they appointed, they found that
were
come to a satisfactory conclu-
sion. They would, therefore, lay before the
House the necessity of their being re-appointed
ngb
ttt ei
its the
esi consequence subject o
paetraiondeaorfl);hpeernieoxdt isnestshioen the Committee was re-ap-
pointed, and they reported again, " Your Com-
mittee have been prevented by unavoidable cir-
cumstances from
making that • iry which
the importance of the subject demands, inquiry
they beg to
recommend that they be re-appointed at an early period
next session.—(Laughter.) They were not appointed at
an early period of the next session, he could not tell why,
but as they acknowledged the importance of the inquiry,
and expressed a doubt of the efficiency of the navigation
laws, it was only fair that the inquiry should be taken
up where they had left it off ; but if he should be
denied the investigation which he required, he
thought he would be enabled to show so much
of the evil effects and mischief of the law
to the manufacturers and shipping of the coun-
try ; to much of injustice and oppression towards
their colonial fellow-subjects, that he would have a
right to demand that inquiry from the justice of
the House which was denied by their courtesy. The
Hon Member then read from the evidence of Mr.
Somes before the Committee, to show that, in the opi-
nion of that eminent shipowner, the laws. as then exist-
ing, were mischievous and absurd, whether as they re-
gard the interests of the ship.wencr: or the manufacturers.
Mr. Sonies, in his evidence, further stated that many
sacrifices were made by the home merchant and manu-
facturer for the purpose of encouraging maritime com-
merce ; and he consideAd that some sacrifice should be
made for the general security of the country ; but the
question had near been put in such a light as to raise

such an inquiry. It was obvious to every one that, for
every ton of shipping which they drove from their shores
they deprived the home merchant of the opportunity
the}
obstructed of an equal quantity of goods. The more .
obstructed the merchant from pursuing his evocators
either by fixing him to any particular place, orimposmogf
restrictions upon him, they circumscribe his means
profit. As an instance, he would g
American ship brought bides to Aie the
ivarsd fact that an
eatlles'wherand
not
the
French consignee sent them to
French merchant, , e,
meeting with a ready sale, the in
con-
sidering them sufficiently naturalised by the transaction,
sent them to Liverpool. They were their seized by the
Custom-house officers, and were relieved on petition,
and on condition that they should be sent back to New
York. They were accordingly sent, after being re-salted.
It was what was called the triangular trade that was
considered profitable, and why should they attempt to
interfere with it ? If the direct trade was more advan-
tageous, they would find all the capital of their mer-
chants embarked. They would never find that human
laws would work so well as the natural laws that regu-
lated commerce ; and any attempt to interfere with
these natural laws would be sure to be followed by waste
and extravagance. Why, corn was manufactured into
flour, and flax into linen, and both these were European
manufactures, and all the impositions upon British ma•
nufactures amounted to a protection of British ship-
owners. Now, look at the consequences if they only
put a protection of ten shillings a ton on British ship-
ping. In 1843 there were 7,181,796 tons of British
shipping entered inwards and outwards, and if they only
imposed a protection of ten shillings a ton, it would act
as a tax to that extent for the British shipowner, and
would be a tax of 3,590,000/. upon the people of this
country. In 1845, there were 8,526,090 tons of British
shipping entered inwards and outwards, and the raising
the freights to ten shillings a ton imposed a tsx of
4,273,045/. upon the manufacturers of Britain. lie did
not mean to say that the profits would be raised to that
extent ; but, if they raised freights at all, it acted as a
tax to that amount ; and, if they did not raise freights,
it acted as no protection ; and, at any rate, the people
of this country had been taxed to upsvards of four mil-
lions sterling. When the propositions of Mr.
Huskiason were made known to Mr. Marriott
that gentleman had given his opinion very strongly.
It was stated by Mr. Marriott, a staunch friend to pro-
tection, that if the navigation laws were repealed, the
monopoly with the West Indies would be at an end.
The system operated most injuriously for the colonies,
and they had good reason to complain. It was a bad
system to disintegrate the colonies from the rest of the
country for the advantage of the mother country, as
was done by the operation of the navigation laws. It
was through the operation of such laws as these that
Portugal lost Brazils, this country the United States,
Portugal Java, and Spain Cuba and her other extensive
colonies. Under the circumstances he might again ask,
whether there were any political or natural advantages
that justified their maintenance in future. He expected
that Adam Smith would be qu ded by the other side
against him, but on this question ho had departed
from his usual good course by failing to give
the arguments on which he based his opinion.
lie was quite willing to give Hon. Gentlemen the pro-
position, if they would give him the argument. All he
asked was, that if they quoted the opinion of Adam
Smith, they would read the seetence to an end, and not
keep back any portion of it. Now, it was stated that
the defensive navy was the safeguard of the British em-
pire. Perhaps he might then make some admissions
which would iimplify his arguments ; first of all he ad-
mitted that the defensive navy was of the first impor-
tance to the country; but tin-•y, on that shle, also ad
rdtted that the mercantile navy was the nucleus from
which the defensive navy n ae supplied, inasmuch as it fur-
nished the elements for its maintenance. He would ad
mit that at once; but he d, pied that they were encourag-
ing the commercial navyt by throning pretection around
them, or restricting them in their cen-onercial intere ,urse
with other nations. These wi::re the drags which
cramped ail their efforts. Ilestrictien and protection
rendered them infi.rier to the navies of other countries.
When an English merchant wrote to an American and
ordered goods from him, he gave particular itestruetions.
to ship them, if possible, by an American ship. Ia
feet they had only a home, trade. because no other nation
although obliged to use foreign vessels, would ship their
merchandise on boar! of British vessels. The American
navy was the second navy in the world, for their tonnene
amounted to two and a half millions. It was said thet
America had a great advantage over Etoelatal in ite
timber. For his pert he was not at al clear about it.
As far as regarded oik end terih, they were in as good
a condition as the American; were. Then, with respect
to wages, the wages of shipwiights in Sunderland, roni
the other out ports, averee eel frem 3s. 61 to 43. Well,
what are watees in the United States ? Sevi n shillings
day. One shilling higher than the wage; tif this country.
Then they came to iron; it could not be the :per than
this country. Carriage was certainly cheaper in England.
What then. was the meenieg of this cry—that they could
not protect themselves ? They weiuld find that the cost
of a vosel built in London was 5/ or 6/. over :hat of one
built id Siiinterland or Vristo% There was another
thing asserted; as entitling the British shipowner:, tea
some protection, namely, that they could not navigate
their ships. as cheaply from this country as from fore'gn
ones. It vase stated that the Swedes and Danes had less
wages, anet„that they lived on biscuits and oil, and that
it would beta great convenience te be enabled to take
them. If e/eiat was the ease. how was it that the Ameri
cans manneset their navy principally with British sea.
mee ? he-riot-att. it that they paid them higher wages ?
If this Coesemittee were granted, he would undertake to
show that alte British ehipownera needed in protection
In the S easlßl4, at the el se of the war, when the Eng-
lish ports iagre not very acceptable, and when they were
still under .e Navigetioe Laws ot. Charles 11., in that
year there were 8,975 British ships in port, repreeeoting
a tonnage A 1,248,000 tone, and 5,236 foreign ship=, re•
presentin“.g9,2B7 tons. In the year 1824 there were
ships representing 1,797,320 tons, and foreign ships re-
presentinet,;l!9,s4l ton;. In 1845. alien no less the
twenty- treaties had been carried into effect, there
were ship; representing 4,310.639 tons in port, and fo
reign ships representing 1,735,000 tons, showing a con-
siderably greater proportion of British and foreign ships.
lie had mge a calculation of the protected and unpro
tented tontlage of this country since 1826. The protected
tonnage
.were the ships belonging to Canada
and this country ; and those unprotected tonnage
belonging to foreign countries, who traded with Great
Britain. In 1826, the protected tonnage was 776,879 ;
in 1844, it was 3,012,133 ; showing an increase of
1,233,224 tons, or 69 per cent. In 1826,
the unprotected tonnage was 1,905,176 ; in 1824
it was 4,447,1.32. Showing an increase of
2,578,976, or 135 per cent. These facts he thought
proved satisfactorily, that protection had not operated
beneficially for the navy. They ought, therefore, to
look to some other means of encouraging that branch of
the service than the navigation laws. Hon. Members
may depend upon it that the extension of factories in
the towns would ensure the extension of the navy, and
if they looked to the effects of the relaxations which
had been made by the Right Hon. B:tronet opposite, it
was extraordinary to see how these relaxations
had worked for the better. In proof of this,
he would just refer to the article of timber.
In 1843, the year before the restriction of the duty on
timber, there were in that trade 1,841 ships, represent-
ing a tonnage of 689,731. In 1845, the year after the
reduction of the duty, there were employed in the tim •
ber trade 2,608 ships, representing 964,276 tons; thus
showing an increase in the course of' one year, of more
than two thirds. Let them now take the quantity of
ships employed in the Foreign anti British trade in the
Pine months ending the 10th Oct., 1844. and in the cor
responding ninemonths endingl Oth Oct., 1846. Now, they
all knew that there were great relaxations between these
periods. They found, then, that in the nine months ending
en 1844, there were employed 4,352,821; and in the nine
months ending in 1846, there were employed 5,153,631
tons; showing an increase in the last year of 2,111 ships,
and above 800,000 tons. Let them take the colonial trade
for the five years ending 1839 ; the increase in that time
represented 1,503,673 tons, and the increase for the five
years ending 1845 was 2,055,600 tons. These were
facts and figures which spoke volumes. If he had in
the slightest degree made out to the mind of any Hon.
Gentleman that this law was mischievous in its operation
—if he had made out the slightest case to show that
relaxed duties as a principle was more efficacious than
protection or restriction, then were they bound to grant
the inquiry which he asked. They were bound to refute
his facts and figures or allow him to substantiate them
before a Committee of the House of Commons. In
conclusion the Hon. Member thanked the House for the
Attention with which they had listened to him throughout
his address.—(Cheers.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said that his Hon. Friend had submitted
to the House a motion of much interest, and in doing so he
had called the attention of the House to the origin and history
of those laws, into the operation of which, he proposed that
an inquiry should take place. The lion. Member had prefaced
his motion by questioning the policy of these laws, and pointed
out many apparent anomalies in the working of these laws.
The present motion would not commit any Hon. Member to any
coarse of conduct proposed by the Hon. Member, for the
settlement of the question. If the Government gave their
consent to the appointment of the Committee, they would be
acting in strict accordance with the principles which allowed
the Comraittee to be appointed in the year 1845,
the object of whose inquiry was the same as that sought by the
present motion. The report of that committee was, that they
were unable to conclude their inquiry, and they recommended
there-appointment of the committee, with a view of continuing
the inquiry which they had commenced.. It must have occurred_
to the mind, of
the great commetTlreciV, Hon. Members that in consequence of
changes which had taken place in this
country within these f
for an inquiry into ew
years, that a necessity would arise
thenavigation laws, and that the same
the
reasons existing for
continuance of the navigation
modifications laws, considerable would be required.
He was quite sure that the opinion ex pressed Ly the Hon.
Member, that the Committee should he impartial,
would be
assented to by every Hon. MemberSe
Pe the appointment present. On the part of
of the Government, be wished to of an
impartial Committee, selected of such position
and talent would entitle the report of Ttrierl7m whose
mi Committee to the
attention of the House. He would not no,i
merits of the case, he would reserve that xiint'
kietlrw into the
the report of
,Wleie with
the Committee had been received, and the House
the Committee would recommen.l legislative interference
those laws. The Committee which his Hon. Friend had mov'ethd
for should be acceded to by the Government.
Sir. LIDDELL regretted that he could not agree with the
of his Hon. Friend, and he holed the House would
hear witi
th
with him for a short time, while he stated the grounds of
his oppoeitioe to the• motion to he
li-—(He.ir, hear.)
He looked with suspicion to the quarter frousem
whence the mo.
tion originated, notwithstanding the disclaimer of
Mover that he did not intend! to abalieli the navigation laws.
was nut so much to show the
The whale object of his speed,
subject' but rather to point
ziece'stY
of
a"
inquiry
into
the
-jowners of this country.
out the hardships endured by the 5
Adam Smith had said that the nay
essential bulwarks to the extended
.comin.i
'l4Pfati°nerlac;'ofwtehrec country,
The object of the Committee, appointed t4si n
hwi ss
ptroetsaelnlyt
different from that sought by the Hen. Memberr a
Committee
=otiose Twenty years since he had moved fo
of inquiry into the subject, but that motion had been refused.
A Committee was obtained in the year 1814, which sat during
the whole of that session. The inquiry was not completed,
*ad in the session of 1845 it was re-aopointed. It might be

said that there were some hardships under the operation of the
navigation laws, still these laws were known to all the world,
and the shipowners of the world had only to act in conformity
with those laws in order to prevent the recurrence of those
Lordships. The Hon. Member had said that the navigation
laws did not foster the commerce and shipping of the country,
and quoted as a proof the different prices paid for labour con-
nected with the shipping trade in various parts of the world.
Mr. Huskisson had said that the navigation law- were twofold,
first, to maintain a great commercial marine for the purpose
of national defence, and, secondly, to prevent ..ny other nation
from engrossing too much of the navigation oft e world. The
coasting and fishing trade were also materially affected by the
operation of those laws. Mr. Huskisson also said that the
altered condition of the world, referring to the period at the
' close of the long war, when the British navy had swept all hos-
tile fleets from the face of the earth, demanded the existence of
these navigation laws, and that, so far as exclusion of other
nations was concerned, it was right to grant a perfect mono-
poly of the carrying trade to the shipping of England, not for
the purpose of affording advantages to the shipowners, but be-
cause the merchant service was always to be looked
upon as the nursery for the British navy. He
(Mr. Liddell) little thought that when the shipowners were
willing to give their sanction to a temporary suspension of the
navigation laws a short time since, that that would be made use
of as a peg upon which to hang the present Committee. The
present Parliament must be dissolved in a few months, and he
thought it was not wise on the part of the Government to
commence an inquiry of so complicated a nature as the present
would be. He was sure the Noble Lord had plenty of other
work to attend to than commence so protracted and lengthened
an inquiry, as an inquiry into the navigation laws would prove.
The wages of a shipwright in London was 6s. per day, while
at Toulon it was only one franc and a half per day. There was '
no more certain indication of a prosperous country than that
of high wages and the high prices of food.-(Cheers and
counter cheers.) He should be glad to heaat fact con-
tradicted by Hon. Members, if they were able to do so. The
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read returns of British
and foreign ships that had passed the Sound in 1835, 1836,
1837, 1842, 1843, and in 1844, which showed the proportion
of British vessels to be comparatively on the decrease. In the
enormously increased trade which had sprung up he must say
that there would hove been ample means to give
e nployment to British shipping, had it not been
for the very great and the unequal competition
to which they were exposed. He would now take those
countries,:in both of which the shipping interest had to contend
to show the effect in 1844 of that competition. He would take
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Prussia, to show the propor-
tion of ships belonging to those countries that entered the port
of Hull, as compared with British shipping. He would first of
all compare with Sweden. There were of British ships 30,
with a tonnage of 5,387 tons, and of Swedish ships 120, with
a tonnage of 1,400 tons. Of Norwegian vessels there were 29,
with a tonnage of 3,043 tons ; while of British vessels there
were only 2, with a tonnage of 160 tons. With Denmark tke
proportion was still more unfavourable. The British ships
were 37, while of Danish ships there were 492, with a
tonnage of 34,445 tons. The proportion with Prussia
was SO British ships, with a tonnage of 10,812 tons,
and 222 Prussian vessels, with a tonnage of 22,688 tons. lie
would now ask why they were told of the benefits and advan-
tages of free and unrestricted competition with the world. It
could surely not be evidenced by those returns. He hoped the
House would not be misled by clamour on this subject, and
would not tike any steps that would be injurious to British
commerce, to the wealth of England, and the varied interests
supported by this protection. The Hon. Member then referred
to Mr. Hutchinson's returns of the shipping of the United
Kingdom during 1816 and 1826, which showed that there had
been an increase in the number of vessels. An argument
might be drawn from this, that if they could maintain so large
an amount of shipping, that they had not suffered much from
the competition to which they were subjected ; but it must be
remembered that there had been an immense increase in
the exports and imports. In the article of cotton there had
been, in 1816, sixty millions of pounds imported, while in
1826 there had been one hundred and fifty millions, and in
1843, six hundred and seventy three millions. In wood, wine,
t3bacco, tea, wool, coffee, dry stuffs, a!kali, and manures of all
kinds, who could fail to perceive that there had been the most
incredible traffic, which must mice,sarily have given great
employment to the skipping interest of thi: country, had it not
been for the competition in the earning trade, which they had
experienced ?—that competition, which was now sought to be
made more severe by the removal of the protection which it
possessed. He purp rely abs'ained from going into further
details. It was stated that if the Committee sat upon these
Laws, certain evidence might be given which would show that
the shipping i terest were fettered with restrictions which
would Lot be known without that illy< stigation. But if that
went the object of the Hon. Gentleman, why did he not state
that as a reason for his motion? Why did he confine himself
to the alleged injury which he said these laws did to the corn-
inerce of the c mntry, and make statements of the most un-
founded nature with reference to this subj-tet—assuming that
they i:nposed an addition on freight of 10s. per ton, and were
a taxation on the commerce of the country to the amount of four
and a half millions.

Mr. RICARDO begged to correct the lion. Gentleman.
tic only pat an h)pothetical case.
Mr. LIDDELL said that that was the reason why he
ibjected to the statemen's of the Hon. Member.—( Hear,
hear.) Passing ~ver that, however, he would say, if the
Government would filly take the qie.ation wit, and appoint a
cemniiitee, he wou:tl have no objection to their doing so, pro-
vided they gave hire an aisurance that before they removed
wotection they woti'd remove restriction.—( Hear, hear.)
That, however, was so much better stated by the Siipovvners
Society that he would take the liberty of reading their senti-
ments on the subject. Tice lion. Member here read extracts
from a report of that society to the effect " that the shipowners
advanced no claim to exclusive protection, but if for the
purposes of the State, and fur questions of public
pi udenco burdens had been imposed upon them, they
did not think they should he placed on the sem,
footing with these who were free from them. "
Upon his honour and conscience, he considered, if they re-
moved that protection which the British shipping enjoyed at
present, that these important interests would decline, and they
should appear in the eyes of foreign nations in a ridiculous
ight, if they carried oet the principles of free trade with re-
spect to slapping to the extent proposed. Where was this
to end? If we made this country elle universal workshep,
where were we to reinforce our army or our navy ? Waa it
among, the e'uWerl inhabitants of our cities, or the wNtebeil
labourers of the factorie€,?
Non hie juventui o; to pirentibui
wquor sarguine Purieo ;
Pyrrhurnque, et ineeEtem cecidit
AnCoehutn, ilannibaleinque diruin
Sed rusticururn maieuia

Proles—.
lle trusted, then, that regard would be had to the great in-
terests of the country, and that the House would not, in a
moment of delusion, grant the Committee now sought for.
Mr. HUME was not surprised that the Hon. Gentleman
objected to an inquiry, seeing that it could not fail to afford
the House an cpportunity of ascertaining how injurious the
,avigation laws had proved. Undoub'edly the Hon Gentle-
,nan, as a protsctionist, was bound to maintain the principle of
protection to the last ; but he could not blame the Govern-
ment for having carried out the principles of free trade, b.,cause
they had simply yielded to the wishes of the people. The
.h. ippinginterest was the only one that now looked for protec-
tion ; this was the more remarkable since treaties of recipro-
city had been entered into with other countries which offered
them advantages ; and by not availing themselves of
them they had committed a great mistake ; but now
that the House and the Government had admitted that
protection was unjust to the community, and advantageous
only to the few, he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman
could call upon the House to support him in maintaining the
last remnant of protection that remained.—( Hear, hear.)
He had referred so far back as 1816 to show that protection
ought not to be removed; bat, after a great change had taken
i place n the opinions of the people and of that House, and no
Government could now long continue which did not carry out
the principles of free trade to the utmost, for himself he
would say, "Do not stop with shipping ; do not stop any-
where."--( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The lion. Gentleman
had talked of the disadvantages under which Englishmen would
labour if this protection was removed ; but he (Mr. Hume)
could not understand why they could not compete with the
people of other countries if they gave them the means of d..ing
so by freeing their labour from injurious restrictions. lie had
never concealed his opinion that the shipowners carried on
their business under great disadvantages, but the fault rested
with those who favoured protection, as food had been kept at a
high price, and their expenses had been proportionably high.
They had a fleet of six hundred South Sea whalers, but pro-
tection had allowed the United States to construct seven
hundred ships for a similar purpose. (An Hon. Member
opposite called the lion. Gentleman's attention to a Com-
mittee which had sat on the subject of the navigation laws. )
The object of that Committee was to obtain a greater degree
of protection than heretofore, but the evidence in favour of
it broke down, still he admitted that whenever taxes had been
them impose.
Ttileatdtuhteiesahoinpowtinmerbser hwaderemoorxeoteheadni
ngthlyeirhosahvayre,
oonf
foreign fir it was as much as 250/. per cent., but
if these restrictions had been removed, no doubt
the shipping would have increased. ( Hear, hear.)
But who was to blame? In 1833, when the Governmist
wished to remove the taxes upon timber, the protectionists
joined the corn protectors, if he might so speak, and threw out
improved,
they measure ; so that if the shipping interests had
they had improved under great disadvantage; but he appre-
hended that the time was not far distant when those who now
supported this protection would be anxious to have it removed,
because he was of opinion that the interests of the British
shipowner, depended upon perfect freedom, but so long as the
Navigation Laws remained, his exertions would be crippled;
and no doubt it would be incontestably proved, if the Committee
were appointed, that those laws were not only injurious to the
shipping interests at home, but in the colonies. With respect to
reciprocity, he might tell the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Lidd6ll)
that Mr. Huskisson found it necessary either to adopt that
principle or to have our ships shut out entirely from the nations
on the Continent, and he adopted the principle wisely. His
(Mr. Humes) opinion was, that every man who was in favour
of protection carried in his mind a principle of injustice.—
( Ironical cheers.) That was his interpretation of the meaning
of protection.—( Hear.) But one material thing to be ascer-
tained by such a Committee was, how far the navigation laws
had been modified; fur he was correct in stating that modifi-
cations had taken place which might, on investigation, be
found to have destroyed those advantages which the Hon.
Gentleman was so desirous to have maintained. The colonies
had a right to he placed on an equal footing with this country
in respect to those laws, as he was at a loos to understand why
they should not participate in those reductions which had been
made in favour of similar interests at home. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then read a paper to show that the navigation laws
operated injuriously in this respect, particularly in reference to
the conveyance of grain between Montreal, Ncw York, and
this country. The time was come when they could no
longer delay such an inquiry as was demanded. If, in that
inquiry,could not be proved that the removal of these l't
re-
strictions would tend to the advantage of the country, if it
could not be proved that they would promate an increase of
their seamen, he should not be the person to urge their
abandonment. He was glad that his lion. Friend had brought
firward the motion. He would say more, that the Hon.
Gentleman was not more anxious to forward the shipping
interest of tine country, than he was. If they would slow
the importation of timber and materials into the country,
i•liout duty, their ports would not be overburdened with
c lonial shipping. They would establish England as the work-
shop of ships ; and he knew no reason why they should not
manufacture ships much better and much cheaper than in any
other country—fit was the natural manufacture of tke country
the Englishmen
the Irishmen objected to the sea, the Scotehman and
hlieshotmoefnthheaidr
iannolinaaffteicotriiosnbyfotrhieti,r:tchoenyrsheaodf stoppedt i theo n .
at-
tention to the speech Sir WALTER
of theh. Hon. Gentleman, the Member for
and which was ' well S said he had paid the strictest at-
dich he could not speak too highly,
Stoke- upon-Trent of
He must say, that it "ervlng
of the name he bore.
appeared to him, no fair ground has
been made to resist inquiry, and that when such an inquiry had
itrwnmaseant,.and had been demanded
been conceded by the
by the parties themselves--it
on the part of some gentlemen to
of gratuitous assump-
no reason why they shouldl dotoBroesist.it. He could see
1 high-flying patriotism on the part
of those
hwas a sort of
to come forward, and upon their t oosen gentlemenenn
sibility to say, "this shall not
.be—we will n7t permr.ts. •t--'"
Why, what was asked? Nothing but inquiry and inivpi„-•
I it looked as if they had something to conceal, gallon.

that they were conscious of the debility of their case. The
motion appeared to him to bear a most remarkable analogy
to one made by Mr. Cobden, for an inquiry into the
effects of the Corn-law upon the agricultural classes.
That inquiry was denied, and at a late period it was
found that the agricultural interest suffered materially
from its refusal. The Noble Member for Newark went
out into the same lobby with Mr. Cobden ; he hoped that he
would, upon that occasion, follow his own example. Since the
alteration in the navigation laws by Mr. Huskisson, the Baltic
trade had greatly increased. Where formerly there were
thirty Swedish ships, there were now one hundred and twenty ;
and where there had been eighty Prussian ships, there
were now two hundred, and twenty-two. There was one ad-
ditional advantage in free trade, and that is, one nation does
not exclusively advance its own interest by it, but has the satis-
faction of seeing the whole European community prosper.
That portion of the British shipping from which restriction had
been removed had flourished in a much greater proportion than
the other.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that the gentlemen who
sought the inquiry bad already made up their minds to an al-
teration, or, at least, a modification of the navigation laws.
The Hon. Member for Montrose expressed his opinion man-
fully, as he always did. He had told them that he wanted no
inquiry whatever; that his mind was made up as to their in-
expediency. H ,lamented friend, Mr. Somes, in his evi-
dence, stated that in the last twenty years British tonnage in-
creased 42} per cent., while foreign tonnage increased
272 per cent (Hear, hear.) Now that was a fact
which proved the absolute necessity of protection.
The Hon. Member had said that the average amount of British
tonnage entered during the course of last year amounted to
eight millions of tons ; that of course including steam ships
engaged in the coasting trade. He had raised an hypothesis
to form an argument upon, that there must be a loss to the
merchants and commerce of this country of 10s. per ton.
What was the fact? If they took the average rate of the
freight of all the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, it did
not amount to 10s. per ton. The country could not, therefore,
sacrifice four millions per annum in its shipping. The Hon.
Member for Durham knew very well that on bringing coals
from Newcastle to London the freight was only 7s. 6d. per
ton, and that was an advance upon the old rate of freight.
The Hon. Member for Montrose said that the system of the
navigation laws was injurious to the whole shipping interest,
and he in vain attempted to prove that assertion. His Hon.
Friend was quite aware that in Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and Prince Edward Island a vast amount of tonnage
was built every year, and every one of the ships so built was en-
titled to the benefit of these laws, and ho conceived that a great
injustice would be done to the already much injured colonies
in North America, if they attempted to destroy the effect of
the laws. The same argument applied to the East Indies ;
and the only colony which he was aware of that had a right to
complain of these laws were the West India islands, but they
carried on a beneficial trade with America, and took all their
timber in exchange for their sugar. With regard to the Com-
mittee of 1844, a gentleman, whose name had been men-
tioned by the Hon. Member ior:Stoke (Mr. G. F. Young), who
when he was asked as to the state of navigation in this coun-
try, said that since the year 1310, British shipping had fallen
25 per cent. ; and that was in consequence of an efficient sys-
tem not having been carried out. If the Government was of
opinion that any alteration in the navigation laws was neces-
sary, why did they not come forward boldly at once, and not
keep this vast interest in a state of suspense.
Mr. BRIGHT said that great difference of opinion seemed
to exist on this subject, many Gentlemen confidently holdime
the most opposite beliefs. The Hon. Member for Stoke said
that the navigation laws were only fair-weather laws, and
would not suit the country in times of difficulty and danger.
The Hon. Member for Westmoreland said that the Committee
appointed in 11344. was not a Committee to inquire into the
navigation laws. He (Mr. Bright) thought that it was not,
upon the reference ; but he appealed to any Member, on that
Committee, whether the principal bearing of the evidence,
brought forward on behalf of the shipowners, was not to show
that the depress:on existing in the shipping trade, was
to be attributed to the navigation laws, under the
Reciprocity Act ; and if the Honourable Member
sad read further into the examination of Mr. G. F.

Young, he would have found that that gentleman stated that
a relaxation of the navigation laws caused the misfortune of
the fall in the shipping interest. As an instance, he would
state that a gentleman some time since purchased cotton in
Havre when the prices were rising in England, with a view of
bringing it into market, but the navigation laws prevented any
American cotton whatever being brought to this country, and
the parties were obliged to send it back to the United States,
and then bring it over into this country, thus leaving the
market unsupplied, and inflicting a serious evil on
the merchants. Another instance was in the know-
:edge of the Hon. Member for South Lancashire.
A ship arrived in Liverpool from the United States to tali
in a cargo of British manufactures for Hong Kong. Au
objection was raised by the collector, and after come discussioh„
was decided that the vessel could not go to Hong Kong, and
t cargo worth 20,0001. or 30,0001. was obliged to be sent on
to Canton ; and, in these circumstances, he for one should vote,
for the inquiry proposed.
Lord SANDON said, that if a question of such moment
was to be brought forward at all, it ought to he brought for-
ward by the Government, instead of by a single Member of
;he House. Ho thought that an inquiry was necessary to be
made from time to time, to see how the laws were operating„
and to see if it was necessary to change their principle. He
:lid think it was not right of the Government to leave a queK-
tion of this mhgnitude without guidance or responsibility in
;he hands of a private Member of the House. He thought
!hat some inquiry was absolutely necessary, for the purpose of
protecting the shipowners in tileir present helpless state, and he
should therefore support the motion.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE thought it very unjust to say that
his question ought to be in the hands of a private Member of
that House. He differed very much from his Noble Friend,

:or he thought tlis a very fit question for the House to deter-
mine. 'Fbe-e laws should be the subject of cautious, deliberate,
ind careful consideratiou. to see how far any modification of
them should extend. His Hon. Friend showed it was alto-

:tether wrong to leave the question to be brought on in the
!louse of Cemmona. When he remembered what subject had
l
been brought on in that House, he hoped he never should see
;he time when any Government of this country should assume
such a control in the House of Commons, as to reply to any
Meinb-er bringing forward a motion, that it was not
a fit subject fur a Committee of the Muse to consider.
lie could appeal to the recollection of that House, whether the
gravest and most important questions had not been dealt with
under all Governments in this manner ; questions affecting the
;hipping interest, the timber duties, am other matters involv-
mg the greatest co si;lerations had been brought forward on
the motto ; of the independent members, and referred to Com-
mittees There had bean questions involving colonial interests
recently investigated by Select Committees. Undoubtedly it
eas impossible, to deny, that inquiries of this sort, might in a
certain degree, be thrown in doubt in the minds of persons
connected pith the interests to which they referred.
tie confessed he saw no objection whatever to the motion, nor
,-mold he agree with the Noble Lord as to the course the Go-
vernment ought to have pursued. He did not think the Go-
vernment or the House ought to interfere with independent
Members bringing forward motions of this kind, nor did he con-
sider the Government would be committing themselves to any
opinion on the navigation laws, by assenting to the appointment
ef the Committee. There was no difficulty whatever in the
eourse. The G ivernment and the House, he was persuaded, ,
in the altered circumstances of the country, the change which
had taken place in commercial policy, and in consideration of
the respecte.which was due to their great colonial interests,
whose prosperity was so materially affected, should consent to the
question being scrutinised. A Select Committee was the best
place for that inquiry to take place, as he believed the repre-
sentatives of the colonial interests would be then duly consi-
dered and reported. The colonial interests in the recent
changes which had taken place had complained that they had
been badly used, and if such a Committee were appointed
they would have an opportunity of fairly stating their case.
In the petitions which the representatives of those interests
had preferred to this House they asked an opportunity of
doing sit; if an, there could be no better or fairer means than
a Committee fairly selected by the House.—( Ilear,
hear.) He must pro'e,t against the doctrine laid
down by the Noble Lord, that it was the duty
of the Government to preclude independent Members
iron bringing forward such motions as this. As a member of
the Government, be would never shrink from a fair degree of
responsibility for the measures submitted by them to the House,
il but on the other hand, he would never question the right of
independent Members to bring before the House any question
which they considered to require investigation. He did not
think the House should refuse to accede to the present motion,
because it was not brought forward by a Minister of the Crown.
If the Committee were appeinted and submitted their re-
port, then it would be for the Government to con-
shier whether they should take its recommendations
in whole or in part, and act upon them. He did not
think, therefore, he would be acting right in opposing the
appointment of the present Select Committee.—( Hear. )
Lord G. BENTINCK differed altogether from the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and concurred with the Noble Lord the
Member for Liverpool. He did no, because he thought on
the present question, affecting so greatly their national policy,
her Majesty's Government should not permit it to be sent up
staira to a Select Committee, especially when the proposer and
seconder of the motion had compared the large and important
commercial interests of the country to pedlars with packhorses,
and that trade in shipping should be as free as trade in shoes.
—( Hear, hear. ) If that was the spirit in which a great in-
quiry was to be conducted, it must be clear to the Govern-
ment, to the House, and the shipping interest of the country,
that the animus of this inquiry would be different to thst
which actuated the Committee of 1844. That Committee
did not inquire into the operation or policy of the navigation
laws, but merely the state of the coenntereial marine of the
country, with the view as to the best measures to
encourage the shipping interests. The object of the Hon.
Member for the Potteries, on the other hand, was to weaken
the shipping interests of the country—to grind down the ship-
wrights of London from 6s. a-day to 3s. 64. And in doing so
he would lead them to believe that the effect of repealing the
cern-laws would be something in effect to the resolution of the
Irish soldier, who spent 2s. 6d. out of 61 a-day. They were
told that the effect would be to diminish the rate of freights
joe, a ton ; whereas they were only 7s. 6d. at the
time.—(Hear,
Ahieeamrb.)er
foTrhesthee
Potteries rought
ehad also been told that through the
presentli,d
navigation laws this country had lost the
he ( Lord Geo. Bentinck) would
ot to
trhaet i
oi inquiry. uoifr To t tiTi .
eaoy
mistaken if that event had not arisen
answer, that history was , .
British tchoelonffie°s.n
tax on tea by the I al 'lament of this
had been informed
country.—(l tear, hear.) They
Brazils through the operation of the
that Portugal had lost the
from the impyot.shietionof a
likewise .
that .
navigation laws.
Mr. RICARDO—No, no, I did not say so.
she had not been allowed to
to the colonial system, by which
waaeseeadepositFiromr
Lord GEO. BENTINCK—There was no dofubutiethuartazthde
Hon. Member at all events attributed the loss o,
t tradeo which with h
e other(L (Lord
rd countries
George
H thanen
tPi
rul
crkt u) gcalo
u.
inquiry.
these reasons, he would take the same course as the Noble
Lord the Member fur Liverpool, and resist the
Lord SANDON said he did not intend to oppose the
ldThnaott
motion.
mistaken the intention of the N; ble Lord, for he believed The
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said, then he must halviee
had intimated that he would resist the motion altogether.
the members on this (the Pretectionists) side of the
that that
Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt) had endeavouredto House
against opposing the motion. There was no doubt .
Hon Gentlemon had at one time or another turned his back on
' every boat he had sailed in, but he (Lord George Beannd tinhclea.d)
could trust those friends by whom he was surrounded,
no doubt, that acting on the principles of consistency they had
hitherto pursued, they would resist the present inquiry.
had just sat down, and his friends supported the
_rom
Mr. MITCHELL said, it appeared the Noble Lord
Committeewlo
of 1844, because they had agreed to it, and it proceeded. t
themsetlhvees,
proposerwhile nowad tsheezc:d
could be
reason. Now, the gestion was one which only
cip'e of the navigation laws. This seemed to be the only
settled by an inquiry, and the present time was or e when they
Pei); usedvs er e t hoep pee d present to 1 a tltiemp r be-
causein -could do so with perfect safety. A great deal had been said ,
about freights, but his opinion was that they would not be
materially affected by a repeal of the navigation laws. The
principal benefit would be to check high freights when there
was a great demand for shipping as at present.—( Hear,
hear.) While on this subject he must remark,
e iceonmeypeotfe
thwei tell. p
ttahi
no
ss e.
that the reason why our ships could not success-
fullyra
oHf e
hfoarde i gr
enp
ecaotmedn tprri es, was
of
thtihse.