The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-30 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1848,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 29.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock,
NEW MEMBERS.
Mr. VERNON HARCOURT and Mr. MULLINS took the
oaths and their seats, the former for Oxfordshire and the
latter for Cirencester.
REPORTS.

The following reports were considered and agreed to.
Dublin and Mullingar Turnpike Road.
Clarence Railway and Leeds and Thirsk Railway
Amalgamation.
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time :
Oxford Paving.
Nantwich and Wheelock Turnpike Road.
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway
Amendment (Extension to Penistone and Alteration of
Dodworth Branch).
Dundalk, Castle Blaney, and Carickmacross Roads.
Kendal and Windermere Railway Act Amendment.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST
RAILWAY (LONDON-BRIDGE AND NEW-
CROSS STATIONS, &c.) BILL.
The third reading of this Bill haying been proposed,
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved the omission of the
clauses which relate to the employment of the money of
the company, for the purpose of steam-packet
navigation—which, oa an intimation from the Speaker
he amended by proposing that the Bill be postponed
until Monday next.

Captain PECHELL supported the motion, and com-
plained that the company did not afford the accommo-
dation it should to the public, and called upon the House
to compel it to do so.
Sir H. PEEL said he was chairman of the Committee
to which the question of allowing railway companies to
devote a portion of their capital to steam-boat
navigation was referred. He knew nothing of the
management of the company, or whether they afforded
sufficient third-class accommodation to the public or not.
The question before the House was a simple one, and
the Committee entered into it without prejudice either
one way or the other. If there was any prejudice at all,
it was against the principle of allowing railway companies
so to devote their capital. It appeared that railway
communication would shortly be opened between Dieppe
and Paris, and that with the) view to facilitate communi-
cation between the two countries it was essential that a
new and improved class of boats should run between
Newhaven, Shoreham, and Dieppe, and that
the communication should be kept up both
during winter and summer. The company showed
before the Committee, that unless they afforded this
communication the public would not obtain it all ; and
further, that it could not be afforded by an independent
company with any profit. It could not be expected that
an independent company would run beats be-
tween Newhaven and Havre. It further appeared
that the General Steam Navigation Company had not
supplied the requisite communication, notwithstanding
complaints and remonstrances had been repeatedly
addressed to them. The boats run by that company
were only of 150 tons, and occupied nearly eight hours
in crossing the Channel. Now the railway company
proposed running four boats of 400 tons burthen. These
boats had ,been proved before the Committee to be as
complete and perfect as possible, and also that they had
performed the voyage in four hours and a half. Now,
in the face of all this, and no counter evidence having
been adduced, the Committee affirmed the preamble of
the Bill, believing that allowing the company to expend
money for this purpose would be to the public ad-
vantage.
Mr. FULLER supported the opinion of the Right
Hen. Baronet.

Sir DE LACY EVANS said with respect to the
statement of the Hon. Baronet, that there was no
counter evidence, he had received a letter from one
of the shareholders in the company, to the effect
that the proprietors had no knowledge that this Bill
would come before the House of Commons.

Mr. P. GRENFELL defended the course pursued by
the directors of the London, Brighton, and South Coast
Railway. They had undertaken the responsibility by the
direction of the body of the shareholders, and after
mature deliberation all that they had done was in
their opinion for the interests of the public, and that of
their propietors.
Mr. FREWEN supported the third reading of the
Bill upon public grounds, although, in a private point
of view, he was rather more against than for the com-
pany.

. After a few words from Mr. BAILLIE,
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the amendment;
But after a few words from Sir DE LACY EVANS,
in reply, it was withdrawn.
Captain PECHELL wished to ask the Hon. Gentle-
man who had the charge of the Bill whether the boats
would run this summer?

Mr. P. GRENFELL was understood to reply in the
affirmative.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
REPORTS.

The reports to the following Bills were considered,
and agreed to:—
.._ ... _ _ _ ... _

Dublin and Mullingar Turnpike Road Bill.
Clarence Railway and Leeda and Thirak Railway
Amalgamation Bill.
CHELTENHAM ELECTION.
„ _

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL reported that the Chelten-
ham Election Committee had come to the resolution that
Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., had not been duly elected
a burgess to serve in the present Parliament at the last
election. He further informed the House that Sir Wil-
loughby Jones had been guilty of bribery, through his
agents, at the last election, but it had not been proved
to the Committee that it had been done with his know-
ledge and consent.
CLYDE TRUSTEES.

Mr. HUME moved fOr a copy of the correspondence
which had passed between the Admiralty and the
Clyde Trustees.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. V. SMITH said the House was aware that during
the whole of last session a Committee was sitting upon
the subject of the law of settlement and rating, which
came to certain resolutions, but decided not to re-
port those resolutions to the House. His Honourable
Friend, now the President of the Poor-law Commission
(Mr. Charles Buller), was chairman of that Committee;
and he wished to ask hina whether it was his intention to
bring in any measure in the course of the present ses-
sion founded upon that important subject?
Mr. C. BULLER said he had not yet obtained
sufficient information to justify him in bringing
forward any measure at present upon a subject
of such extent and importance as the law
of settlement. Through the agency of gentlemen who
had been appointed for the purpose he was instituting
inquiries with the view to an alteration in the law, par-
ticularly with regard to the working of certain portions
of it, but he had not so far proceeded in them as to
enable him to lay any information before the House on
the subject, but he hoped to be able shortly to lay before
his Noble Friend at the head of the Government (Lord
J. Russell) two measures with regard, to the subject of
rating.

COLONIES.
In reply to an How. MEMBER,
Mr. HAWES said, the Hon. Gentleman would find,
by reference to the estimates, that the sum of 10,0001.
was intended to be devoted to the purpose of emigration.

Lord J. RUSSEL: WRaSs
Hutu:9e -rs to od to say that he
In reply to the Earl of MAR •
should proceed with the Bill as soon
as
THE WEST INDIES.
oss
Mr. BARCLAY inquired if the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Hume) intended to bring on his motion to ow with
respect to the West Indies. The subject was one
of
fwtbthe
most vital importance, and it was essential that those
interested in our West Indian possessions should have the
earliest and fullest information on the subject.
Mr. HUME said the Committee on the West Indies
had sat seventy weeks, and he believed their report had
been presented to-day. He was perfectly ready to
bring forward his resolutions to-morrow, but the sub-
ject was so momentous that he considered it should be
taken up by the Government—(Hear, hear)—and not
left to one individual. But if the Government would not
take it up he should be prepared to proceed to-
morrow.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL saw no objection to the
Hon. Gentleman bringing forward his resolutions to
morrow. He understood that the Committee re-
ported that a certain amount of differential
duties should be agreed to, with the view of
improving upon the Act of 1846. With reference to
this he might state at once that the Government did not
purpose making any alteration of the Act of 1846,
either by increasing those duties or by continuing them
for a longer time. Having stated this much, he thought he
might fairly ask the Hon. Gentleman whether he
adopted the sentiments of the report of the Committee?
Mr. HUME had not yet seen the report. —(Hear.)
His intention was to submit that the Act
of 1846 should be continued, commencing say with
this year, and containing merely the differential
duties for a period of six years, as was originally in-
tended. He did so because the facilities promised at
the time of the passing of the Act had not come into
operation, and he merely asked the House to give effect
to the facilities promised by that Act.
Mr. BERNAL considered that his Hon. Friend would
not do the great interests involved justice if he brought
on the subject tomorrow. The period between to-
morrow and the Ist of June was too short a time to
devote to it. Surely he could agree with the Noble
Lord for a day, for the subject was entitled to have a day
devoted to it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said he was entirely in the hands of the
House. There was not a vacant day for the next two
months.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the navigation-laws
were to come on to-night. The subject would
not unlikely be adjourned. That would be
either on Fri:lay, or, if the debate was not
over, Monday next, and such being the case, he (lid
not see how he could fix on the course of next
week a day for the Honourable Gentleman to
bring on his motion. He certainly was ready to
admit that it ought to be brought on as early as possible.
—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon. Friend the
Member for Rochester that the probability was it would
net be able to come on to-morrow. He must, however,
say this, with respect to the motion of the Hon. Member
for Montrose, that it was rather different to that which
he formerly proposed. He should, however, be prepared
to give as early a day as possible if the House agreed
with him, and was not prepared to proceed with it to-
morrow.
Mr. HUME wished to know if the Noble Lord would
have any objection to Thursday week, as that would give
time to look to the evidence? Perhaps the Noble Lord
would fix the day to-morrow.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would.
SUGAR DUTY.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know from the Noble Lord
the Member for King's Lym whether the Ws. duty was

existing navigation-laws ; subject to such modifica-
tions 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." He wished it had fill nto the lot of some
other person than himself to address the House on the
momentous question which had been brought before it
and the country, by her Majesty's Government. He
thought the Government would have adopted a wiser
course if, instead of moving resolutions in Committee,
they had brought before the House separately and dis-
tinctly the propositions on which they intended to found
enactments, in order that the Members of the House
might be able to espouse such of them as they agreed to,
and oppose such as appeared to them not to be fit subjects
for legislation. The Right Hon. Gentleman had, how-
ever, proposed a sweeping and comprehensive resolution
accorr panied by some modifications, not many but im-
portant, and which they were left to gather from the
speech of the Minister who introduced the subject to the
House. It was for this reason particularly that
he adopted the course he had taken, with a view
of inducing the House to express an opinion in opposi-
tion to the sweeping proposition of the Government, and
at the same time to give the country an assurance that
the great and main principle of the navigation-laws
would not be altered. The Right Hon. Gentleman hav-
ing referred to the appointment of the Committee of that
House on the navigation-laws, said that as that Com-
mittee had made no report to the House the Govern-
ment ought to have proceeded to make farther investi-
gation on the subject before they proposed a measure in-
volving such portentous results, especially as there was
not the shadow of a shade of any necessity pressing upon
them to bring it forward at the present moment.—
(Hear, hear.) Another reason which induced him to
bring the subject forward was this, that the other
House of Parliament had adopted the wiser, the safer,
and the more constitutional course, of investigating
the subject. A portion of the evidence taken before
that Committee was before them, and it was of such
a nature as to afford grounds to those who opposed
the measure to resist its further progress, or, at least,
to delay it.—(Hear, hear.) It was possible—nay, it
was very probable—that their inquiry would lad to
a result diametrically opposite to that which had been
come to by her Majesty 'a Government.—(Hear, hear.)
What was the plan of the Government ? It professed
to destroy the protection which had heretofore been
given to the British seamen and to British shipping, and
even the trade with their own colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
The coasting trade was alone excepted. The Right Hon.
Gentleman alluded to their fisheries. He understood
the Right Hon. Gentleman to say that only certain fish-
ing grounds now established by law would be protected,
but that the produce of the deep-sea fisheries would be
admitted into this country in British or foreign ships.
If that were so, he had nothing to do with the navigation-
laws. All protection was to be removed, while
the British seamen and British ships were still
to be exposed to all the onerous parts of
the navigation-laws. They were left to bear the
heavy burdens imposed on them, not for any benefit of
their own but for national purposes, whilst that
protection without which they could not bear those
burdens was to be removed.—(tlear, hear.) He should
be much astonished if any Parliament should be suffi-
ciently unwise to pass such a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that this was a most
import measure, and far more extensive than any pre-
vious proposition which had been made at any time to
Parliament. That was perfectly true. It was a most
important change, and no legislator, however free his
opinions on the subject of trade generally, had ever yet
proposed the repeal of the navigation-laws. Mr. Hus-
kisson had never made any such proposition. But
he thought that some strong arid urgent case of neces-
sity would have been made out for having recourse to
a measure involving such vital consequences—the weal
or woe of England. The Right Hon. Gentleman, how-
ever, had stated nothing to justity a measure of this
kind. The Right Honourable Gentleman said that
there was a pressure on the part of some foreign coun-
tries. From England there was none.—(Cheers.) It
did not exist.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentlinan
said that there were emphatic applications from three
quarters—from Prussia, America, and Jamaica. Now,
with what right or propriety could Prussia come to this
country to ask, in a kind of menace, for a repeal of the
navigation-laws?—(Hear, hear.) Prussia came before
them, after having shown for twenty years or more every
disposition on our part to meet fairly and freely the
commercial interests of Prussia. They had entered
into treaties with Prussia, by which she derived great
benefit to that naval interest which she was, above all
things, desirous to foster. The tonnage of Prussia, as
against England, was enormously increased. It had in-
creased two or threefold, whilst the amount of British
ships in the same trade had diminished.—(Hear, hear.)
He was a party with Mr. Huskisson to the treaties by
which Prussia gained those advantages, and he never
repented of the course he had taken, because, where
they could promote trade and commerce by mutual con-
cessions, there the more stringent provisions of the
navigation-laws might be relaxed in favour of higher
considerations.—(Hear, hear.) But what right had
Prussia to come to them at the close of this long reci-
procal compact, and to ask for more? What was there
in the character of Prussia to frighten them from their
propriety, or what right had she to insist on such an
enormous concessions as the abolition of their navigation-
laws? What could Prussia give them in exchange ?
(Hear, hear.) By the last return which he could pro-
cure he found that Prussia took only 500,0001. worth of
their manufactures, whilst they took produce to a much
larger amount from Prussia. Of all the powers of the
continent it least became Prussia, which had, as the
principal state of the Zollverein, been carrying on an
aggressive policy against them by her high tariffs, to
make such a demand. He hoped that some better grounds
would be alleged to induce them to alter their navigation-
laws, by means of which the country had heretofore
maintained her naval power, but which, he believed, if
abolished, would sink and decay.—(Rear.) But it was
said that America invited them. Now, with all possible
respect for America, he would say that it must be ad-
mitted that America never made any proposition to
another state with regard to which America did not
believe that she would be greatly benefited.—(Hear,
hear.) Their brethren on the other side of the Atlantic
did not want smartness when such propositions were to
be made. America said that she would abolish her
navigation-laws if we abolished ours. But America
could give us no equivalent advantage for the benefit
which she would obtain by the abolition of our naviga-
tion-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Where were her colonies?
She had none. If America was so desirous of getting
rid of the navigation- aws, why did she not begin by
abolishing her own, which were quite as stringent as
those of this country.—(Hear, hear.) The bargain was
not equal—the terms were not just. Mr. Bancroft said
that America was disposed to meet this country. He
believed it was the opinion that assurance was not
a quality wanting to American statesmen, but the pre-
sent proposition went even beyond that.—(Hear, hear.)
Then it was said that their colonies asked for the alte-
ration of the navigation-laws. He believed that enough
had passed since some of the colonies petitioned that
House to make them alter their opinion. Enough bad
transpired he should hope to satisfy the Right Hon.
Gentleman and the House that in truth it was not the
interest of the colonies, and particularly of their West
Indian colonies, that the navigation-laws, with all their
concomitant conditions, should be repealed.—(Hear,
hear.) The evidence of thirty merchants, of character
and respectability, who were examined before the Lords'
Committee, greatly preponderated in favour of the
opinion that the colonies did not wish for their abolition.
The evidence of these gentlemen would, he hoped, put
an end to all doubts on this subject. The Right
Honourable Gentleman read a document, which had been
presented to that House from the House of Assembly of
Jamaica. That petition was of very doubtful character.
One of the members of that assembly, in his evidence,
stated that there was no such document at all, and that
there could be none such. In that he was mistaken.
But he then said that it must have passed at the close of
the session ; that no attention was drawn to the subject;
and that in that evening it might have escaped his no-
tice as well as that of others. If, instead of giving up
our colonial trading to free competition, we had given
up, as much as he could get, of our coasting trade, to
the foreigner, it,would have been far better than the plan
proposed by the Government. He had no objection to
go into Committee, with a view to the removal of those
anomalies, which it was confessed by Mr. Huskisson
among others most distinctly, existed in our relations
with the Dutch trade, for example, but he implored the
House not to assent to any fundamental changes in
our navigation-laws. There could be no doubt
that our navigation system, so intimately con-
nected with the preservation of our naval supremacy,
must be maintained in all its essential features, if we
desired to maintain our naval supremacy. All our
greatest statesmen had held by these laws, as being es-
sential to our maritime well-being. Mr. Huskisson had
emphatically proclaimed that should our commercial in-
terests come into collision with our navigation system,
our commercial interests must give way. There was no
commercial advantage which he would not strive to se-
cure for this country, if it could be shown that the ad-
vantage was not purchased by a sacrifice of a portion of
our naval supremacy, for he felt that if this supremacy
were weakened, our foreign possessions would slip
through our fingers, and we should speedily subside into
the position of a second or third-rate power. Let it never
be forgotten how great was the interest here at stake.
The tonnage of the vessels engaged in our merchant
traffic was not less than four millions of hundred-
weight; the sailors who worked these vessels num-
bered no fewer than 230,000; the capital embarked
in the trade was not less than forty millions sterling,
while the trade immediately connected with the
interest represented a capital of between sixteen
and
employed
connexion
millions. The number
of
artisans
000
with this interest was 80 ,
whose wages amounted to no lesships o
thanee)u:,.o4olg a sum of
0,000. ster-
ling, the victeallieg of the ships
9,000,0001. sterling, and the annual freight carried being
not under 30,000,0001. sterling. He begged, therefore,
to move the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that having already fully
explained the intentions of the Government, he should
confine himself to a very few observations on the present
occasion. The question was, whether the House would
affirm the ancient policy of England, or deviate from it
to a very great extent. The amendment of the Right
Hon. Gentleman had very fairly put the question at
issue before them. He had considered it to be
his duty to propose the measure now under
consideration, and he was prepared to stand by
it. He had listened with great attention to the
Right Honourable Gentleman, but had failed to make
out clearly what he meant to propose. He had in one
part of his speech seemed disposed to alter the naviga-
tion-laws—if foreign nations would meet England half-
way. In another part he declared it to be his opinion
that the navigation-laws, as far as the colonies were
concerned, ought not to be relaxed, and he quoted Mr.
Huskisson's opinion in support of his views. But he
(Mr. Labouchere) doubted whether, under the present