The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1848.

4,weraMent which existed were in favour of recipro-
i_and both ignorant of the difficulties they ha,i t
Wc7,14.11(1 With in that respect, did they not think that it
her be more prudent to keep the present system ti'l
bette4Lajesty's Government had made themselves a little
acquainted with the facts and matured their
'on a little more?.--(Loud cheers and laughter.)
erttede Whole thing proved that the measure was
fliA 111 conception, and that it was tampering and tri-
th,s with the national interests; because there was no-
:11110re fatal than the recklessness of ignorance.—
eyent'i °beers.) Everything else might be endured—
The the tyranny of men who had a system.—(Laughter.)
hitt Y Might establish despotism and yet preserve order;
40,,aP2rinet who called on them to legislate without a
ii'evne of the circumstances could only produce le-
teejee anarchy which must eventually plunge the com-
tri4fand political interests of the country into incx-
eteleo• confusion,—(Loud cheers.) He could easily
ere the state of blank surprise in which the new
tii4il'resident of the Board of Trade found himself with
bowl smiles of Mr. Bancroft on one side, and the
44 :a:dagger of the Chevalier Bunsen on the other.—
reittnr'er.) They were not opposed to going into Com
Qua Committee; but when they were. told by the
p-Zer that they were going into Committee for the
tape of abrogating the navigation-laws, it was a
iiderisqJ to tell them that it was for the purpose of con-
tee to them. They did not object to go into Commit-
toMinprove the navigation-laws, but they objected to
aith„ Committee to abrogate them. Now, one word
eitti:lgard to the question of the national defences ; be-
iato; he did not mean to enter at that time of the night
atir4e evidence of that very ingenious person Sir J.
man 'who had a plan for manning the fleet without
l'hurbatuch laughter.) Nor was he going to sing
.utitannia," for fear of distressing the Honourable
ettlber
Would for the West Riding..—(Loud cheers.) He
merely read a communication from Jamaica,
of ii ,appeared in the New Yorh Sun, dated the 12th
diseet It stated that even in Jamaica symptoms of
tail!), ;_l•
.`"eat showed themselves; that while " Rule Bri-
tsatn was received with solemn silence in the
(141, `", "Yankee Doodle " was loudly called for.—
Doc To-night they had again heard " Yankee
exiled loudly called for, but he hoped, though loudly
.--(l7kfor, that it would never be encored in that House.
°Tem-Atilt°, r.) The late Vice-President of the Board
4ilit„—et in a glowing peroration, dwelt with his usual
.
Pre,,fh,.°o the blessings of peace, and of internal un-
Id% Asa It was surprising how men differed, but his
bel,• that these were not the characteristics of the
ete3,— which they lived.—(Laughter.) If instead of
Isiaerkroe he said it was the age of no trade, if instead of
title he said it was the age of intended war, and if
toe.:7" Of internal peace he said it was the age of coin-
trtTe t bands pulling up railways, he would be near the
keet'-;(11ear, hear.) Notwithstanding the announce-
*biota' the millennium and the reign of universal peace
%tad they had been promised a short time ago, he
Lliewesatt help thinking, after all that had occurred, with
reem`",, a state of Beige, Paris in insurrection, Vienna
ties few„"land Berlin barricaded, with four pitched bat-
‘liite fight in eight weeks, and the Baltic and Adriatic
forblockaded—that the Hon. Gentleman the Member
!litheth° west Riding was not now so devoted a believer
41 ?lag* gentium sine armis. He did not pretend to
the 11 blame to the present power which distinguished
teeth: Gentleman and his school, yet, sometimes, in
for the the past, one may find some instructive monitor
tlitle,„•' conduct of the present and the future ; and
foetliug so--in reading the history of this country—he
tililitat°ll3ason to withdraw his allegiance from that
oteatJ Power in England which had at the same time
asseE" empire and cherished liberty.—(Cheers.) And
Itee-Zt the fall of thrones and the crush of empires, he
Ittaa °I. 40 circumstance more remarkable than the
*hie anarchy and demoralisation of those vast armies
reehist °bee were considered the best security, and the
treat LIY„ of those institutions—when they saw the
their mat'itary powe of Fance and Austria deserting
tam masters in their need,r what Englishman could re-
km with other feelings than pride and satisfaction
14 °Lir legions reposed upon the deep?—(Loud cheers.)
bit
g least would not incur the responsibility, even by
L_ ullible vote, of endangering that empire which had
"yea •
saeohgenied by so much valour, and guarded with so
both ~Yigilance—that empire which was broader than
tr Americas, and extended farther than the far-
s_thein,-:l3d--that em ire which had been foreshadowed by
let-the
of a Blake, and consecrated by the blood of a
le-the empire of the seas.—(Cheers.)
ottani.' WILSON explained that the return he had quoted
toa,nge in 1824 and in 1846, were, in both cases, the
"age inwards and outwards.
Sir p
NPEEL, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
la that if he could acquiesce in the opinion of the
ea°,,,ble Lord and those who agreed with him, that the
tief-nence of the last two years had been sufficient to
htrastrate the impolicy of those principles on which,
sane years 1842 and 1846, the commercial tariff of this
41trY was revised and regulated, he should not be
need at their conclusion, not to apply those prin..
lIV to our commercial marine; but, notwithstanding
al,;.7perience of the lasttewro years, his opinion re-
d A
from the Protectionist
and cheers froLumaht
the Ministerial benches)—as to
Principles by which our commercial intercourse with
derth nations should be regulated.—(Hear,. hear.) If
heloWould reject from consideration the peculiar e. ombi-
! n of. circumstancest which had prevented a fair trial
Atha
thqinwceipulledseenstiarbellyshed in the years he referred to
I omit from their consideration
lilt, in addition to any other causes of commercial de.
Bement, all operating simultaneously not only in our
1;9111. Country but in every other country in Europe with
eiteli we had commercial dealings, they had been
4,l„te,d by famine—if they would omit from their consi-
pltion that that surplus capital which was heretofore
I,4'loable to the procuring of luxuries or conveniences
1.1, I,l_ow necessarily applied in averting the sufferings
eaa'iet, famine engendered—if they would reject all these
(k,7"erations, it was easy to draw that conclusion.—
the'n,l49 But it was incumbent on them in that case to
eeet" 1° what respect there was a connexion in the pre-
ilsal °offerings of this country, which he admitted and
leia°4d, and the principles on which, in the tariffs of
Asa And 1846, they had proceeded.—(Hear, hear.) It
Otte litlt because we had admitted the raw material
. .for
f:lanufactures without duty.—(Oh, oh.) His opinion
t be
„, erroneous, but surely those who thought. _
be 1;4,._00 confidence in the strength of theirs if they had
(Che:ber answer to give than boisterous clamour.-
--28 lead cries of " Oh.") The principles on which they
teatrZted in. 1642 and 1846, in the first place, removed
414ts:!°°,3 from commerce, and, by diminishing the
*441,7 'tithe raw material, enabled our to
tmanufacturers.
410 competition with their foreign rivals with
41erehterttParative advantage ; they simplified the
f food and
e4de 115 to the entry of all articles of oo 1
414 laiketure. No one could say that the tariffs of 4842
tkets 46,Lnitiriously affected the country in these
they wi.."-kttear.) It might be answered so far
.
t„latirans,e, but they were wrong in admitting foreign
-"urell in competition with our own in this coun-
petto4Cheers from the Protectionists.) That was the
tetat, .0f objection. Every article of foreign menu-
tthrehtlitroduced under those tariffs, it was said, had
ttialea wt of employment thousands of our own coun-
te seo:.who would else he engaged in manufactures of
• tetlrtotlie:fit_lbd•—• (Hear, hear.)
.Why, what a doctrine
ttialehee4h_reei;il:lB great manufacturing ation ?—(Minis-
ue.t.
ownxptig 58,1./00,0001. a year
the 2p0
rt 4f, of its manufacture.s, and which, by
441 0 those manufactures, was interfering with
everC °Ylnent of every country in the world. If
itla tier'? ritrY were to adopt that view, they would look
We instead of as the benefactors of mankind, as
Itelltest impediment to human happiness.—(Hear.)
of .17Perted
Allot gi Perhaps to the extent of a million a year
ere v_ eves woollen, and cotton manufactures ; and
doh Lie '
Nigotmea°ol[ltries which sent those articles here to be
because they threw out of employment a
41,°YecipliuMber of artisans here, who might else be era-
-mitet,„ But in estimating the quantity of foreign goods
bet f under
ill (*get r the tariffs of 1842- and 1846, they must
e,66itita,„t°o quantities which previously came in in an
ft)se 4,7 anner. The increase in the imports o
0000 idles
et earth Was only apparent. We exported
h. of brass and copper manufactures, 1,000,0001
t/reote..t—tlleare
ate of cotton goods, 6,000,000/.
of I and besides large quantities of woollen, linen,
1, other "uer manufacture, interfering with the industry
Lottto
._eountries in every direction ; and yet we were
de all74:loemn other countries because they asked to
llee 10 s L° supply us in some subordinate and inferior
Ptlttee °me of those few articles which they. coulaotgla to cheaper
than ourselves. It was impos.
assign the distress under which some
r
MeeseOperatives were undoubtedly labouring
..
etta • i33lPorts
44Pe,, 14 everts.
Let them look to the progressive in-
ofne-ee w, -ports under free-trade, and let them not
'ate " Were ruined because, from a combination
Nllat 44dinstr
ahr tatty, 7 circumstances, distress,
existed in this
lite ate e"Kmg the first five years from 1827 our
yjeare tisPorta were 37,000.000/4 during the next..re
th`,44 the, "e3' were 43,000,0001.; in the following five
th teed Were 49,000.000/., and in the last five years
Ive heat hereased to 55,000,000/.—(Cheers.) And in
re Sit,Y9,,eyar, 1847, a year of severe depressionstoheg.
1„.11 of fr_. l'°°ol. And yet it was said that thepri
non end trade had failed—that we did nothing
tswb.tnt
Zelit,;(64rethat we had to purchase our imports
ex with
t11:41 ofth! Fat and cries- of "Question.") h
re 4 it ". last two years had served to convinceT him
lite as 10 a •
°at II for • diminished price of food, and the pa-
h, 110,,5., Its continuance, that we must rest
4,„ Go pea of increasing prosperity.—(Cheers.)
I,snid mein now proposed that the House
teeLtatia,3:r° to a proposal for considering the
". Net i a." with a view to extensive and
perioduiprovement. He thought they had arrived
eir"s(lesly. when it was desirable to consider this motion
fro , la the When he looked to the position of our colo-
h,ek the,_ abrogation of the principles of free-trade
„hi': pried
h bee, the state of many European coun-
t,4 tion claimed from us the same advantages in na-
elitle -e insisted on with them—to our reciprocity
s Mid the multitude of conflicting claims arising
sat,'Lo uoi "lad to the mutilated and shattered state
Or
the titeition-law as it existed, he found many ma-
% 400.1,„ng that law into consideration. The speech
ettaa. lilleember for Bucks had scarcely touched the
the nEtyi he could have shown that the relaxation
• eh° otott def Ration-la ws would diminish our means of
' , dipce, and endanger the national security, he
:11,13e, r far teirling in this respect from the Honourable
414.41 objee,. e West Riding, that a powerful, perhaps
• t :ow
see taon
might be urged against sacrificing the
4189
wihd n, might to
: any interest. But it was necessary for
them echr.Maintained that view to show that these laws
nab to ue:: that end. The amendment called upon
earlgatian.laltltain the fundamental principles of the
thalgatiose..ii"vs' Now what were those principles? The
Cy') Power 8 were established to destroy the meri-
t,: the bo°c_tbe Dutch; but what was their effect? To
the °e withtea a direct advantage over us in the inter •
et y Rave the -United States.—(Hear.) Therefore
afttle troiut 8e formidable competitors the whole trade
ed Statea.—(Hear.) Now, the prinles
Ration
''ziws, as laid down by Adam Smith,

iapplied to the coasting trade, the fisheries, the carryine
trade, and colonial Intercourse. The coasting trade and
fisheries were to be preserved by Government. At pre-
sent the carrying trele was reserved for British vessels,
Or for foreign vessels carryin,:- the produce of their re-
spective countries. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that he had conferred with Mr. Huskisson; and that he
was ready to carry reciprocity further than it was car-
ried now. Why, there was no greater breach of the
fundamental principles of the avigation laws than that
very system of reciprocity; and how could the Right
Hon. Gentleman ask them to preserve the fundamental
principles of the navigation-laws, when he himself ad-
mitted that he had laboured day and night with Mr. Hus-
kisson, and was even now prepared still further, to un-
dermine the very principles he was so anxious to up-
hold?—(Cheers.) He observed the Right Hon. Gentle-
man shake his head; but ho would convince him at once
by the arguments of those on whom he himself relied,
that reciprocity treaties were breaches of the fundamen-
tal principles of the navigation-laws. Mr. Young was
asked before the Committee if he thought the British
shipowners sufficiently protected? He replied " No;
his protection was invaded by the reciprocity treaties."
Mr. Richmond, another very able witness, said that
" He could not consider the navigation laws afford' d
the shipowners much protection. They were com-
pletely mutilated by the reciprocity treaties. Every
treaty took something away. He could not have con-
ceived that those treaties left so little of the navigation-
laws as he found remaining. In fact those laws were
virtually repealed." And yet in the face of this the
Right Honourable Gentleman came down there and
exhibited his " fundamental principles"—(Loud laugh-
, ter)—and asked them to pass an instruction to the
1 Committee that those principles should be observed.
—(Cheers.) Well, then, as to the colonial inter-
course. When Adam Smith wrote on that point, about
1775, he did not foresee the separation of America and
the circumstances which had since occurred. From that
period scarcely a year had passed without an infringe-
ment of their " fundamental principles." And he must
here observe, that on the occasion of every such in-
fringement there was precisely the same sort of outcry
of " ruin to the shipowner."—(Hear, hear.) In 1782,
when they wished to admit Ireland to participation in
the colonial trade, the shipowners loudly complained ;
and those of Liverpool, in a petition which they ad-
dressed to that House, declared that " if any such thing
were permitted, Liverpool must inevitably be reduced
to its original insignificance."—(Hear, and laughter.)
So it was in 1825, when the House, not acting on
theories, but driven by the necessity of the case—
for the question was reciprocity or retaliation—
adopted the principle of reciprocity treaties. So it
was on every other occasion when relaxations were
adopted. In 1833 the Shipowners' Society absolutely
declared that " declining quality and extent of Bri-
tish tonnage, the embarrassment, decay, and ruin
of the British shipowner was now an incontrovertible
position."—(Hear, and laughter.) Be it so; that was
proof that they ran no risk in modifying these laws.
But the fact was, the Shipowners' Society was wrong.
In 1833, when " the decay and ruin of the British ship-
owner was an incontrovertible position," the British ton-
nage on the register was 2,634,000 tons, whilst in 1846,
under the application of the free-trade principles, it was
3,817,000 tons.—(Hear, hear.) What, too, did Mr.
Richmond say? " I am sure," he said, " that I do not
exaggerate when I declare that half the capital embarked
in shipping during the last twenty-five 'years has been
lost, and that the other half is to a very great extent
totally unproductive of profit." He was certain Mr.
Richmond would not say a word he did not believe. He
took his statement as a great authority; and if that was
the account of what protection had done for the ship-
owner, surely there was nothing in the statement to show
that it would not be for his benefit that there should be a
change. Could that change be made for the benefit of the
merchant, the capitalist, and the manufacturer, without
injury to the shipowner, or to the naval superiority of
the country? If it could not, he dropped the whole ques-
tion; but he thought it capable of proof that it could. In
1836, the tonnage of this country was 2,792,000; in 1842,
3,619,000; in 1847, when free trade ought to have been
fatal, 3,952,000. Our seamen numbered in 1841, 117,000;
in 1827, 151,000; in 1842, 214,000; in 1847, 232,000.
It was in the extent of our commercial marine and the
number of our seamen that our main reliance was placed
in war. As to impressment that system applied equally,
whether the navigation-laws were maintained or not. But
had not the time arrived when it was incumbent on them
to consider whether it would be possible ever again to
put that system into operation.—(Hear, hear.) Let them
consider the changes which had taken place in our naval
as well as our commercial marine. After a long peace
it might be expected that the men serving in our
commercial marine would be much less qualified to
perform the duties of a man-of-war than the men who
served in merchant vessels only during the short
intervals of peace. Then consider the progress steam
navigation bad made—how little reliance could be placed
on their being able to work steam-vessels by men taken
by chance from our merchant-ships. The value of im-
pressment, therefore, was much reduced; but in either
case, as he said before, the value of that system would
depend upon the strength of our commercial marine.
Now what would be the effect of a change upon that
branch? What did we fear? The Member for Buck-
inghamshire, said of the Baltic ports, that they were
closed by the ice during four months of every year.
Compare our highly-favoured position with that of those
countries?—(Hear, hear.) Take France. France had
a strict navigation-law. Had it improved her commer-
cial marine?—(Hear, hear.) Did it not, on the con-
trary, suggest a doubt whether naval superiority did
lot depend on the habits, pursuits, inclinations, and
associations of a people rather than on any code of
laws whatever?—(Much cheering.) Then, as to the
United States : now there was examined before the
Committee upon this subject a Captain Briggs,
" hailing," as they call it, from Baltimore, but who
was employed as the master of a liner between the
United States and this country. Captain Briggs was as
good a witness as he ever saw. He was examined as to
any circumstances which could entitle our shipowners to
any protection as against the shipowners of the United
States. He was asked what were the wages of ship-
wrights in the United States. He answered 10s. a day.
Our wages were only 6s. a day. It they talked, there-
fore, on the argument that the Norwegian vessels could
be built at a much less price than our own on account of
the lower wages of the shipwrights, they had at least no
cause to fear the United States. Captain Briggs was
then examined as to wages. He was asked how much he
paid American seamen? He replied 645. a month. He
was asked if he always employed American seamen?
He replied, no; that he came to Liverpool and engaged
British seamen, to whom he paid 50s. a month. Well,
then, there was at once a difference between English and
American vessels to the extent of 14s. in favour of our
own country. Then, as to ship-building: let them see
whether there was a chance of our being able to com-
pete with the United States. The evidence of Captain
Briggs was to the effect that, for ship-building purposes,
the Americans obtained canvass and copper from Eng-
land and cordage from Russia, but paid 10 per cent. more
for it than the English. Shipwrights' wages and those
of seamen were higher, and timber was nearly on an
equality. Under all these circumstances, what fear was
there of competition with America?—(Hear, hear.)
Captain Briggs also stated as his opinion that we could
build a twelve years ship as cheaply in England as they
could a ten years' ship in America. But the Americans
had some advantages. They had advantages in the
greater intelligence and activity of the masters, and in
the temperance and morality of their seamen, but in
none of these points had we any right to claim pro-
tective laws.—(Hear.) Take, then, the case of our
colonies. If freight could be had cheaper at New
York than at Montreal how much longer could we re-
sist the claim of Canada for the removal of the present
restrictions.—(Hear, hear.) On the grounds he had
stated he had come to the conclusion that the time
had come for the consideration of the navigation-laws
with a view to their extensive alteration. With respect
to the policy of excepting our coasting trade, and also
that of obliging our shipowners to have their vessels
three-fourths manned with British subjects, he should
reserve himself for a future occasion. On the question
of reciprocity treaties, he thought it was deserving of
consideration, whether they were not in themselves often
causes of great embarrassment. They appeared per-
fectly fair and easily managed in theory, but when they
came to be reduced to practice, they often gave rise to
questions of very great difficulty. In his opinion, the
great advantage lay in independent legislation on these
matters. lie feared that the power proposed to be given
to the Crown of re-establishing restrictions after a trade
had once been opened would be most difficult in opera-
don. It looked very like inverting the usual order of
the constitution. The House of Commons would relax
while the Crown would restrain, and he reared that that
was a position which the Crown would find difficult and
unpleasant.—(Hear, hear.) He
.thought it would be
much better to give a temporary force to the Act.
Suppose it were sent back to the House of Commons
at the end of five years, would not that be better
than a continual multiplication of treaties ? He should
advise those gentlemen who were anxious to exclude all
improvement to consider the great truth, that the pros-
perity of a commercial marine depended, not on a navi-
gation-law, but on the prosperity of our manufactures.
Whatever tended to promote the prosperity of your
commerce and manufactures could not fail to be bene-
ficial to your shipping interest. Great reliance had been
placed on the authority of Mr. Huskisson, but instead of
relying on any particular dictum of Mr. Huskisson they
should look to the great principles he had laid down,
and which were of universal application. Having quoted
at some length Mr. Huskisson a, opinion as to the advan-
tages of gradually removing all restrictions from our
colonies, and citing the advantage which relaxation bad
proved to India, the Right Hon. Baronet concluded by
saying that our duty to our colonies was, to bring them
ch as possible into contact with the nations of E
principleu-
counw
hiieeshwhiatrespect
had
heretofore
to
regulated
toth
the
abandon
conduct that a
of
al l
tr
theire colonies—that of making their interests subser-
vient to those of the mother country.—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I have been saved, Sir, by
jt
uh
set sspaetedc
oh
wonf the
mR
any
gnhyt
nlieocensosuirtyabe Gentleman
olf
detaining
the w hasho
House
whyhigeohinthgeipnrtoopaosdalesfeonfctehoefGtohyee r
iemt detail s o t
should
t h
e be means b
carriedy
out. I find myself relieved by the consideration, also,
that, after the very fullest attention to a very long de-
bate—after hearing in the course of this night various
speeches of two hours' duration against the measures of i
the Government, that those speeches contain more n re-
lation to other subjects than that upon the particular
proposition before the House, and especially with regard
to the defence of the navigation-laws very little argu-
ment indeed was used.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
The Noble Lord who began the debate to-night
went rather into his own peculiar vein of argament
with respect to those measures of free trade to
which he was opposed—questions which do not all
affect this question of the navigation-laws ; and as

cordine: to promise, he told us that the whole advantage
of such a measur would go to the foreigner, and that
none would go to the people of this country. But, Si,.
the Noble Lord's view of foreign commerce is so narrow
and confined, that he argued thus :—Speaking of our
trade in America, he said, we took ice from the Amer--
c ins as some sort of return for our trade. As if our
taking ice was a great favour to the Americans, and not
a thing done for our own benefit. Why, sir, ice is an
article of luxury with us.
Lord G. BENTINCK—Rice—I said rice, not ice.—
(Great laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—WeII, whether rice or
any other article, it is the same. The Noble Lord ar-
gued as if it were a favour we were doing the
Americans in taking it. Now, Sir, we take these
goods for our own advantage—(Hear, hear)—and if we
take their goods for our advantage, they in like man-
ner take our goods for their advantage ; and it seems
to me that the advantage of doing away with the
difficulties is so apparent, that we need not de-
tain the House upon that part of the question. The
whole question really turns on whether these laws are
necessary for our naval supremacy or not.—(Hear, hear.)
I really think that a weight which hardly belongs to it
has been attached to the long existence which,these laws
enjoyed. I have no doubt myself but that these laws
were adopted by Protector Cromwell as a protection
against rival nations. The object in their adoption was
to injure ourselves in order to effect a greater injury
upon our rivals, and no doubt that object was effected
by them. But I very much doubt whether, if Protector
Cromwell heard what the effect of these laws at this late
period were, then he would think it desirable to keep up
that protection in order to prevent the descendants of
the Puritans, who were driven to the North American
colonies in his time, from enjoying an unrestricted trade
with the people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) But in
treating this question as a matter of naval defence, we
must consider it in the light in which it has been
viewed by the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last;
namely, as to whether it would enable foreign Powers to
supplant our commercial marine by engrossing the trade
of this country. Now, in considering that question, there
are evident indications why we should not fear such
competition. In the first place, with regard to the
building of ships, we know that with regard to iron,
canvass, copper, and other articles, we seem to have the
advantage over every other country. In the next place,
as regards labour, it is most true, as has been frequently
asserted, that English labour is not dear, because the
work which is done is superior to that done by the
people of other nations receiving a smaller amount of
wages. For instance, a comparison has been drawn with
regard to work done at Bombay; but if a certain quan-
tity of work be done for 65., it is the same thing whether
that work be done, as it will be, by one man in this
country, who gets 6s. for it, or by six men at Bombay
who are paid only ls. a day.—(Hear.) If one man
earns 6s. and another earn only ls., it is a com-
parison between the quantity and fitness of the work
which each man performs ; and if the one man who
gets 6s. performs as much work as the six men in
Bombay who earn only one shilling each, it cannot be
said that labour in this country is dearer than it is at
Bomhay.—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, with regard to
the United States of America, it is proved that their
ship-building must be as dear as ours, and it is proved
also that the wages of their seamen are higher than the
wages paid to seamen in this country. Then there are
other indications also on this subject. There is this
indication, which is a great test—that with regard to a
great part of the trade with foreign nations, with re-
gard to the trade carried on between one foreign
nation and another, British ships do compete suc-
cessfully with the ships of foreign countries ; that
they carry, for instance, to; St. Petersburgh and to
Ilamburgh, goods from various parts of the world
in which they have no navigation-laws, or no
protection in their favour; and that, in doing so, they
',compete with the ships of other countries with complete
success. The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire stated
that at Rio there was a greater number of British ships
than of the ships of any other country; and at Ham-
burgh, it appeared from the returns for 1846, that there
were 995 British ships there, and only twelve American
ships, and so with regard to other years. That would
not be a fair comparison between England and America,
but as regarded the trade of Rio and Hamburgh, it cer-
tainly is a satisfactory proof of the ability of this coun-
try to compete with America.—(Hear, hear.) There
are, therefore, these two indications, first with regard
to the building and navigation of ships, and next
with regard to the state of the actual commerce of
the world. But I take it that there is another and
a stronger reason for believing that our naval
strength will not be diminished by the repeal
of these laws, and that is the main consideration of the
character of the people of this country, and of the ex-
tent of capital which we command.—(Hear, hear.) I
can imagine a country having a great deal of capital
and commerce, but not being trained to marine pursuits,
allowing its commerce to go into the hands of another
nation, and I can also understand why a country having
no capital, but with a turn for naval affairs, should also
allow its commerce to get into the hands of another
country ; but when I find a nation at once possessing
great capital and great powers, and proverbial
for its habits in naval pursuits, I cannot doubt
but that such a nation must maintain a large commer
cial navy.—(Hear, hear.) But what are the :conse-
quences experienced from these laws ? It has been
said, and I think fairly, that the reciprocity lAct of
Mr. Huskisson abrogated a very great part of
the navigation-laws with regard to those countries with
which we have formed reciprocity treaties ; and, as
far as I have been able to farm a judgment of the
results of these reciprocity treaties, I am led to
think that the benefits of the navigation-laws were, in
point of fact, illusory, and that we were left nothing but
the bark of the oak—the trunk being entirely destroyed.
—( Hear.) Looking back 24 years hence I find that in
the 21 years between 1803 and 1823 the increase of our
commercial marine was from 339,000 in tons, and 12,000
in men, up to 1,446,000 in tons, and 67,890 in men,
showing a vast increase in the four years under the re-
ciprocity treaties, compared with the twenty years before
the reciprocity Act was passed. Such being the case
then, I can have no doubt—not the smallest—that if we
abrogate the principal part of the navigation-laws that
are remaining, our commercial marine will increase
further than it has already done. I cannot doubt but
that these restrictions being removed, we shall continue
that which I believe to be the foundation of a great and
powerful navy, namely, a strong commercial marine.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I quite admit, with my
Right Honourable Friend, that if there were the least
reason to suppose that our maritime strength would
be, not destroyed, but even diminished by a measure of
this nature, it would be unadvisable for this House to
adopt it; but my belief is the other way. Seeing that
every measure tending to relax and not to increase re-
strictions, has had a tendency to increase our commer-
cial marine instead of to injure it, I cannot but believe
that similar relaxations in the same direction must be
attended with a like tendency.—(Hear, hear.) An
Hon. Member who spoke during this debate mentioned
one of the securities for having our navy well manned,
as being destroyed by the proposal of my Right Hon.
Friend, because it was intended to do away with the ap-
prenticeship system in the mercantile marine. But I
believe that there never was anything more injurious or
unjust than putting a tax on the commercial marine, by
compelling the shipowner to have a certain number
of boys in his ship whether he wanted them or not,
in order to furnish the navy with men, and I cannot
understand how those who profess to be the advo-
cates of the shipowners and of the shipping interests
of this country, should come forward in support of a
restriction naturally so glaring as that of obliging the
shipowners to have a number of apprentices and boys in
their service that did not suit their convenience or their
necessities.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire, who spoke in this debate, made what
I consider was a statement unworthy of his position in
this House, when he laid such blame on certain officers
of the Board of Trade who had laid returns before this
House and the other House of Parliament, and who had
this
evidence before the Committees of both Houses on
this subject.—(Hear, hear.) I think that when these
gentlemenin
the
se
vhe have furnished
me
nrtest, renrs ahs
yk e d for
jstiem Members
sMinistersn f
this
oaeYta r
they h House, exactly in the form required, and that they gave
in everyuae—
.most intelligent
nolige means
ntevid
of defence in this
evidence ;andwhenwe
consider
(twuha
hear)—l think that under such circum-
stances, to turn the indignation of the House upon them,
and to represent them as making interested statements,
is a course unworthy the position of the Hon. Gentleman.
—(Hear.) And then the excuse for them is, I think, a
very weak excuse, that these gentlemen of the Board
of Trade are biassed in favour of free-trade principles.
—(Hear.) With regard to this subject, upon which the
Hon. Gentleman makes an accusation against us, I think
he might as well say that the University of Cambridge
was to blame because they had a bias towards the
Newtonian theory, as that the officers of the Board of
Trade, because they prepared certain tables, had a bias
towards the principles of free trade.—(Hear, hear.)
I reckon those principles to be the principles of science,
established now upon sixty or seventy years' discussion
in the opinion of all enlightened men who have re-
flected upon the subject. The Hon. Gentleman, how-
ever, has accused us.of acting with recklessness and ig-
norance, because we have proposed to go into Committee
upon the navigation-laws, in order to see if they cannot
be amended. Our proposition is (I will not now enter
upon a consideration;of the question whether it is the best)
. to ackas if the navigation-laws had not existed, as if the
ships of all nations should be received in our ports in the
same' matmer as British ships, with the exception of,
the eoasting trade; and to reserve power to the Sove-
reign by order in Council to impose conditions and re-
strictions upon 'those who impose conditions and restric-
tions upon us. I think the principle is a right one. I
am quite sure that so far from being a sign of that igno-
rance which the Honourable Gentleman laments in us,
it is, upon the other hand, a sign of ignorance in him,
and in those who act:with him, that they still persist in
maintaining a theory which is contrary to all acknow-
ledged principles, contrary to all the science of the age,
contrary to all who have studied the subject in the
closet, and contrary to all the dicta laid down by Pitt
and Huskisson, and other enlightened statesmen.—
(Loud cheers.) I am convinced it is the duty of
this House to act according to the knowledge of
the times—(Hear, hear)—and I am convinced that
if they were to refuse to go into Committee,
if they were to keep up these restrictions be-
cause they existed in former times, this House would
properly deserve the phrase of recklessness and ignorance.
—(Hear, hear,) But I am, on the other hand, convinced
that by removing these restrictions you will draw closer
those bonds of amity with foreign nations which are
ready to act in friendship and amity with you, and give
a proof of the great destinies that await you.—(Cheers.`
The House divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Herries's amendment 177
Against it 294
_ _

Majority in favour of th• Govornmeat —ll7

The House then went into Committee, and the ream
lotion was ,greed to and repot-V(1, and the Bill was than
brought in, tompled ran t!•.e r,solution.
ADJOURNMVNT OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL tnojedltlattiiellouse at its rising
should adjourn to Thursday, the 15th instunt.
Agreed to.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Three o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Conon""4.)
FRIDAY, JUNE 2.
NAVIGATION AND REGULATION OF SHIPS AND

SEAMEN. -
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment
proposed to be made to Question (May
29) "That AI r.
Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment
was to leave out from the word " That" to the end of the
Question, in order to add the words " it is essential to the
national interests of this Country to maintain the funds-
mental principles of the existing Navigation-laws; subject
to such modifications as may be best calculated to obviate
any proved inconvenience to the Commerce of the United
Kingdom and its dependencies, without danger to our
maritime strength," instead thereof:—Question again pro-
posed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of
the Question." Debate resumed:—Question put. The
House divided

MAJORITY—AYES, 294.
Alxiy, T. N. Freestun, Colonel O'Brien, Jobs
Acland, Sir T. D. Gibson, T. M. O'Connell, M. J.
Adair, Hugh E. Gladstone, W. E. OTlalierty, Anthony
Adair, R. Shafto Glyn, George Carr Ogle, S. C.
Adare, Viscount Grace, 0. D. J. Ord, W.
Adderley, C. 11. Graham, Sir J.
Grenfell,Gre CC
h. Pascoe Palmerston, Oswald, Alexander
Aglionby, H. A. Granger, T. C. Paget, Lord A.
Alcock, Thomas Greene. John Paget, Lord Clarence
Anson, Colonel Greene, Thomas Paget, Lord G.
Anson, Viscount
Anetey, T. C.
Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir George Pearson, Charles
Armstrong, It. B. Grey, Ralph W. Peel,:Sir Robert
Arundel, Earl of Grosvenor. Lord R. Perfect, Robert
Barkly, Henry Guest, Sir J. Philips, Sir G. R.
Baring, 11. B. Ilaggitt, r. R. Pilkington, James
Baring, Sir F. T. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pugh. David
Hall
Barron, Sir H. . Praaltmteenr,sr.nl W.
Viscount
.
yburton, Lord Pusey, P.
Bellew, RAM. Hamilton, Lord C. Raphael, Alexander
Berkeley, Captain Hamner, Sir J. Rawdon, Colonel
Berkeley, 11. Mastic, Aleiander Reynolds, Jonh
Bernal, Ralph nestle, Archibald Ricardo, J. L.
Birch, Sir Thomas Hawes, B. Ricardo, Osman
Blackall, S. W. Hay, Lord John Rich, Henry
Blake, M. J. Hayter, W. G. Robartes, T.:J.
Bulling, William Headlam, T. E. Roche, E. B.
Bouverie, E. P. Heald, James Homily, Sir John
llowring, Dr. Heneage, G. 11. Russell, Lord John
Boyd, John Heneage, E. Russell, Edward S.
Boyle, Colonel Herbert, Henry A. Russell, F. C.
I Brand, Thomas Herbert, Sidney Rutherford, A.
Bright, John Hervey, Lord A. Salway, Colonel
Brotherton, Joseph Heywood, James Sanders, George
Brown, W. Hindley, Charles Sctiolefield,4William
Bruce, Lord E. Hobhouse, Sir John Scrope, G. P.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. Hobhouse, T. B. Seymour, Lord
Buller, Charles Hodges, T. L. Shell, R. L.
Banbury, E. H. Hodges, T. Twisden Shelburne, Earl of
Burke, Sir T. J. Hogg, Sir J. W. Sheridan, R. B.
Buxton, Sir E. Holland, Robert Simeon, John
Callaghan, D. Hope, Sir J. Smith, R. V.
Campbell, W. F. Hope, H. T. Smith, John A.
Cardwell, Edward Hope, Alexander Smith, M. Tucker
Carew,sW. P. llorsman, Edward Smythe, G.
Carter, J. B. Howard, C. W. Somerville, Sir W.
Caulfield, Colonel Howard, E. G. Spearman, ii. J.
Cavendish, C. C. Howard, Sir R. Stansfleld, W. R.
Cavendish, G. H. Hume, Joseph Stanton, W.:H.
Chaplin, W. J. Jervis, Sir John Staunton, Sir G.
Charteris, Francis Keating, Robert Stuart, Lord D.
Childers, J. W . Keogh, William Stuart, Lord J.
Clay, Jarnesj Keppel, George T. Sullivan, Michael
Clerk Sir George Ker, Richard Sutton; H. M,
Clifford, Henry M. Kershaw, James Talbot, J. H.
Cobden, R.
Cochrane, A.
Cocks, T. S. Labouchere, Henry Tenison, H. K.
King,Kild Kildare,
John Tancred, 11. W.
aemarquis Talfourd, Sergeant
Coke, E. K. Langston, J. H. Tennent, .J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Lascelles, W. S. Thesiger, Sir F.
Conyngham, Lord A. I.emon, Sir C. Thicknesse, Ralph
Corbally, M. E. Lewis, Sir T. Thompson, Colonel
Courtenay, Lord Lewis, George C. Thompson, George
Cowan, Charles Lincoln, Earl of Thornely, Thomas
Cowper, W. F. Lindsay, Colonel Towneley, John
Craig, W. G. Littleton, E. R. Towneley, Charles
Crawford, W. S. Loch, James Townley, R. G.
Currie, Henry Locke, Joseph Trail, George
Currie, Raikes Lockhart, A. E. Tufnell, H.
Dalrymple, Captain Lushington, C. Turner, Edmund
Davie, Sir Henry M'Cullagh, W. T. Turner, G. J.
Denison, J. _E. M'Gregor, John _ Tynte, Colonel
D'Eyncourt, T. Maher, N. 'Vane, Lord H.
Divett, E. Mahon, O'Gorman Verney, Sir H.
Douglas, Sir C. Maitland, Thomas Villiers, Viscount
Drummond, Home Mangles, R. D. Villiers, Charles
Duncan, Viscount Marshall, William Vivian, J. H.
Duncan, George Martin, J. - Wakley, T.
Dundas, Admiral Martin, C. W. Wall, C. B.
East, Sir J. B. Martin, S. Walter, John
Ebrington, Lord Matheson, A. Ward, H. G.
Ellice, Edward Matheson, James Watkins, Colonel
Ellice, E., jun. Matheson, Colonel Wellesley, Lord C. .
Elliot, J. E. Maule, Fox Westenra, John C.
Enfield, Lord Melgund, Viscount Westhead, J. P.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Milner, W. M. Whitmore, T. C.
Evans, John Milnes, R. Moncktou Willcox, Brodie
Evans, William Milton, Viscount Williams, John
Erred, William Mitchell, A. T. Wilson, James
Fagan, William Moffatt, George Wilson, Matthew
Fergus, John Molesworth, Sir W. Wood, Sir Charles
Fitzpatrick, J W. Monsell, William Wood, W. P.
Fitzroy, Henry Morgan, H. K. G. Wortley, J. S.
Fitawilliam, G. W Morpeth, Viscount Wrightson, W. B.
Foley, John H. Morison, Sir W. Wyld, James
Fordyce, A. 1). Morris, David Wyvill, Marmadake
Forster, Matthew Mostyn, E. M. L. Young, Sir John
Fortescue, Chichester Mowatt, Francis TELLERS.
Fortescue, J. W. gorreys, Lord Hill, Lord Marcus
Fox, W. J. Nugent, Sir Percy Parker, John

MINORITY-NOES, 177.
Alford, Viscount Fellowes, E. Neeld, Joseph
Archdall, Captain Floyer, John Newport, Viscount
Arkwright, G. Forbes, Wm. Noel, G. J.
Bagot, Hon. W. Forester, G. C. Ossulton, Lord:
Bailey, Joseph Fox, S. L. Packe, C. W.
Bailey, J., jun. Fuller, A. E. Palmer, Roundell
Bathe, 11. J. Galway, Viscount Pattison, J.
Baines, M. T. Goddard, A. L. Pigot, Sir Robert
Baldock, E. 11. Gordon, Admiral Plowden, W. H.
Bankes, G. Gore, W. 0. Powell, Colonel
Baring, Thomas Goring, Charles Powlett, Lord W.
Barrington, Viscount Granby, Marquis of Prime, Richard
Bateson, T. Grogan, E. Reid, Colonel
Benbow, John Gwyn, Bowel Renton, John C.
Benett, J. Male, It. B. Repton, G. W.
Bennet, Philip Halford, Sir Henry Richards, Richard
Bentinck, Lord G. Hall, Colonel Robinson. George
Bsntinck, Lord H. Ilalsey, T..r. Rollesion, Colonel
Bernard, Viscount Hamilton, J. If. Raiford, Francis
Blackstone,lW. S. Harris, Hon. Capt. Rushout, Captain
Boldero, Henry Heathcote, G. J. Sadler, John
Bourke, Richard S. Henley, jr. W. Scott, F.
Bowles, Admiral Berries, J. C. Seaham, Viscount
Brackley, Viscount Hildyard, It. C. Seymer, H. K.
Bramston, T. W. Hildyard, T..8.T, Shirley, E. J.
Bremridge, Richard Hill, Lord E. Sibthorp, Colonel
Brisco, M. Hood, Sir A. Smyth, J. G.
Broadley, Henry Hotham, Lord Smollett, A.
Brooke, Lord Hudson, George Somerset, Captain
Bruce, C. L. Ilumphery, Ald. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Buck, L. W. Ingestre, Visct. Spooner, Richard
Buller, Sir J. T. Inglis, Sir R. H. Stafford, Augustus
Bunbury, William Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, E.
Burghley, Lord Jolliffe, Sir W G. Stephenson, Robert
Burrell, Sir C. Jones, Captain Stuart, Heir,'
Burroughes, H. Kerrison, Sir E. Stuart, J.
Cabbell, B. B. Knightley, Sir C. Talbot, C. It.
Cayley, Edward S. Knox, Colonel Taylor, Thomas E.
Chichester, Lord J. Lacy, IL C. Thompson, Alderman
Christopher, R. Lascelles, E. Thornhill, G.
Clive, Henry B. Law, Hon. E. C. Tollemache, John
Cole, H. A. Lennox, Lord G. H. Trollope, Sir J.
Coles, Henry B. Leslie, C. P. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Cubittt, William Lockhart, W. Verner, Sir W.
Curteis, H. M. Lygon, General Vesey, Hon. T.
Davies, D. A. S. Mackenzie, W. F. Villiers, F. W.
Deedes, W. Mandeville, Viscount Vivian, J. E.
Dick, Quintin Manners, Lord G. Vyse, R. H.
Disraeli, B. Masterman, John Waddington, David
Drax, J. S. W. Maunsell, T. P. Waddington, H. S.
Duke, Sir J. Maxwell, J. P. Walpole, Spencer
Duncombe, A. Meux, Sir Henry Walsh, Sir J.
Duncombe, 0. Miles, P. W. s. Williams, T. P.
Dundas, G. Miles, W. Williamson, Sir H.
Donne, F. P. Moore, George H. Wodehouse,E.
Du Pre, C. G. Morgan, O. Worcester, Marquis
Edwards, Henry Mulgrave, Earl Wynn, Sir W.
Emlyn, Viscount Mullings, J. R. TELLES/J.
Farnham, E. B. Mure, Colonel Beresford, William
Farrer, James Neeld, John Newdegate, N.

The matter had been submitted to a barrister, and he was
no f e
p Is:
ipoi
171
ththatthea b
anade k s
cchoeuml de. notl eb e
understood
established t
hi c
t on
the
-
directors were liable to re election. Did not think that
the company could have been managed more econo-
mically than it had been. As to both the undertakings
being under the same roof, the witness, in answer to a
question of Mr. O'Connor, said ha was aware that the
Houses of Lords and Commons were under one roof,
and believed there was very little communication be-
tween them. Had heard that Mr. O'Connor had offered
to put all the funds of the company into the hands of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and allow him to nomi-
nate trustees.
By the CHAIRMAN—AIthough Mr. O'Connor said he
wished to divest himself of the property. he was not
aware that he had taken any steps for the purpose of
doing so.
Sir BENJAMIN Hann said, in reference to an observa-
tion made by Mr. O'Connor in the course of the exami-
nation, that Lord Ashley had told him that he would
not consent to he connected with the Lend Company,
either directly or indirectly.
Mr. Philip M'Grath financial secretary of the Na-
tional Land Company, was then called and examined—
He said the London and Joint Stock Bank were the
bankers of the company. The balance-sheets of the
company were produced at the meetings of the share-
holders. He was also a director of the company,
and had been so since April. Witness handed in a
balance-sheet, sh ming that up to the 25th March last
the total receipts were 94,1841. 6s. 11d., and the expendi-
ture 4,378/. 14s. 9d., leaving a balance of 89,805/. lOs. 2d.,
which eonsisted of cash in hand, houses, and land. He
had himself no part of that balance in hand, as he paid
over every week to Mr. M'Gowan, printer and publisher
of Great Windmillestreet, all the balance he had in his
possession as financial secretary. Mr. M‘Gowan was
an agent of Mr. O'Connor, and officially he did not know
r
y.orotMbh eeryGne:Sw. taanrT. is
hp au publish
hands.oni
sao
t3et
beenri TTo Efthe the printer and
what became of the money after he paid it into his
The auditors were Mr.
Witness—The rules of the National Land Company
Cuffay and Mr. James Knight.
Sir B. HALL—I see an item in one of the books of
75/. 12s. Bd. set forth as being paid to the Convention
on the 27th of April. Am I to understand that this
Convention is one of the objects of the association?—No.
Then was that sum paid to the Convention? Wit-
ness—lt was paid to the order of Mr. O'Connor, and
will be refunded by him; but, as far as my information
as financial secretary goes, that sum has not been re-
paid. Some of the delegates at that Convention were
deficient in funds to carry them to their homes, and Mr.
O'Connor agreed to supply them with money. There were
three lecturers employed for some time at the rate of 2/.
a week, for the purpose of making known the objects of
the company. There was no rule of the society which
gave power to the directors to expend money either in
assisting the Convention or in keeping lecturers.
The witness was next examined by Mr. O'Connor and
other members of the Committee.
At four o'clock the Committee adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.

THE VICTIMS OF A CHARTIST MOB.—T. and F.
Woodward, the young men who were so brutally mal-
treated by a portion of the Chartist mob on Sunday
last, under the false assumption that they were special
constables, and the facts of whose case appeared in our
Wednesday's impression, applied to Mr. Arnold for
some pecuniary assistance from the poor-box.
It appeared from their statement that, in consequence
of the serious injuries they had sustained on the occa-
sion referred to, and from the effects of which both of
them were still suffering, they were incapacitated from
pursuing their ordinary avocations, and having been
robbed by the rabble of every farthing they possessed,
were reduced in consequence to a state of destitution.
One of the brothers, a printer, whose eyes were fright-
fully swollen and discoloured, and his person covered
with bruises, intimated that he had made a painful
effort two days previously to resume his employ-
ment at the office of IlMr. Nicholls, in Hoxton-square,
where he had been some time engaged, but
was almost immediately seized with such acute
pains and throbbings in the head, accompanied
by giddiness and dimness of sight, that he was
compelled to relinquish the attempt. The other appli-
cant, a working silversmith, stated that his position was
even more hopeless than that of his brother as he was
so terribly disfigured that he could not offer himself for
employment, if he were even in a condition to accept it,
which was so far from being the case, that on calling
that• morning upon a dentist, who had humanely offered
to supply him with artificial teeth in the place of those
which had been knocked out by the mob, he was in-
formed by that gentleman, after an examination of his
mouth, that he had sustained a fracture of the jaw,
which would necessarily preclude the operation for some
weeks, and how to subsist in the meantime he was at a
loss to conceive, as he was wholly without means or a
friend to assist him.

Mr. Henley, the chief usher, who had rescued one of
the young men, at great personal risk, after ho had been
besieged by the mob for nearly two hours in a house
where he had fled for refuge, said he had been at some
pains to ascertain the correctness of their representa-
tions, and was enabled thereby fully to substantiate
them.

Mr. ARNOLD said that it certainly appeared a case de-
serving commiseration, but regretted that the funds at
his disposal would not enable him to afford more than
lUs. for their immediate wants, which the applicants re-
ceived with a grateful acknowledgment.

1 here interposed, and said he felt highly honoured
; that he had a Government spy present.
..'(el".e.3. of" Oh!" and " No, no.") Any fellow spoke.
' to the party in question, and inquired his name; :,14(1
upon being told, was answered that it way a lie, he knew
better, he knew perfectly well who he was, he was the
' scoundrel who had given evidence against soma of their
brave patriots at Bow-street.—(Cries of "Then break
his neck, turn him down stairs,' kill the --:,) The
chairman having obtained silence, the speaker was again
addressing the meeting, when another howl was set up,
"Turn the Government spies out, throw them down
stairs." The party not altogether liking the company
he had got into, was in the of departing, when some
i fellows cried out at the top of their voices, " He is going."
They had no sooner done so, than a number of other
persons cried out, "Don't let him, pin him, stab him,
or break his neck." In the midst of the confusion the
party made off, accompanied by a friend. Mr. Inspector
li.!igers, of the L division, on being made acquainted
with the violent character of the parties composing the
meeting, had the whole of the reserve men belonging to
that division pluc,d on duty in case their services should
be required.
The only meeting announced to take place on Mon-
day by the Chartists is in Bonner's Fields; but, from
private information, the Government is in possession of
the fact that monster meetings are to take place at
Croydon and other parts. Every provision has been
made by the authorities to meet any emergency, either
in the metropolis or suburbs; and we can confidently
assert that it any procession is attempted in the metro-
litan district, the most stringent measures will be adopted
to break it up.
Information has been sent, to the effect that it is the
intention of the mob to liberate all the prisoners taken
in connexion with the Chartist disturbances. If such
was attempted, it must have as great a failure as any
of their previous attempts. Last night 800 soldiers
were marched into the Penitentiary, and are there to
remain until after Monday, in case any attack should be
made on that prison. The whole of the turnkeys and
wardens were at the same time placed under arms,
and similar precautions have been adopted at all the
other prisons.
Mr. Feargus O'Connor, M.P., last night announced
that after the busy day of Monday next, he should leave
London by mail train for Birmingham, in order to be in
good time for Sheffield on Tuesday, where a grand pro-
cession is to take place. He also stated that he had
given directions for employing the best counsel for Ernest
Jones, &c., and he requested that every man would send
a post-office order directed to him, which will be placed
to the defence fund.
The several districts where riotous meeting have been
held (except Lambeth) were perfectly quiet last night at
half-past ten o'clock.

MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR AND
THE CHARTIST LEADERS.
Yesterday, Mr. F. O'Connor, M.P., waited on Mr.
Jardine, the sitting magistrate at Bow-street Police-
court, to ascertain if he could not be admitted as one of
the sureties for Mr. Ernest Jones, the Chartist leader,
who has been committed for trial, without being obliged
to remain in town twenty-four hours, the time specified
to give the Government authorities the required notices
for that purpose. He considered that such a time was
named by the Court to ascertain the respectability of
the party offering himself, and such being the case, he
presumed there could be no objection to accept of his
recognizances without further delay, as he was obliged
to leave town on important business ; still, if such an
order was imperative, he would remain, however incon-
venient it might be, that he might be accepted as one of
th• sureties.
Mr. Jardine ssid he was not the magistrate who
heard the charges against anv of the persons alluded to,
and consequently could not be aware of any order that
had been made upon the subject ; but he concluded that
the notice should be given to the Solicitor of the Trea-
sury, by whom the prosecution was conducted, and who
would sanction the bail to be accepted.
Mr. O'Connor said that he had sent in his name at the
solicitor's office on Thursday evening, but the office hap-
pened to be closed, and he could obtain no information to
his inquiries, and he would repeat his visit if' there was a
prospect of success.

Mr. Jardine thought there was every probability.
Mr. O'Brien, the second clerk, said that four names
had been sent into the solicitor's office for selection.
Mr. O'Connor said he would at once proceed there;
and, having left in a cab for that purpose, on his return
the magistrate had gone, it being then after five o'clock;
but it was understood that he had been accepted as one
of the sureties.

THE SPECIALS.—On entering the court the Hon.
Member was asked if he wished to be sworn in as a
special constable—there being a vast quantity sworn in
during the day—and he replied, "God forbid!"