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

THE RIVER PLATE.

Mr. URQUHART wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Department whether it
was the intention of her Majesty's Government to en-
force mediation between the contending parties in the
River Plate ? _ _

Lord PALMERSTON said that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had no such intention.
WEST INDIES. _ _

Sir B. PEEL was desirous of knowing from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government whether he in-
tended to take any vote on Friday, the 16th, with respect
to the distress in the West Indies, or merely state the
course the Government intended to pursue ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was his intention on
that day to state the course the Government intended to
pursue, but not to take any vote upon the subject.
NAVIGATION-LAWS. _

Lord H. VANE presented a petition from Stockton-
upon-Tees against any alteration of the navigation.-laws.
Lord G. BENTINCK also presented similar petitions
from Stromness and Liverpool.

NAVIGATION-LAWS—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Lord G. BENTINCK then rose to resume the ad-
journed debate on the navigation-laws. Before he en-
tered fully into the subject of the navigation-laws
he would endeavour to remove the aspersions that had
been made on the body of the shipowners and captains
of the British mercantile navy by the Hon. Member for
Westbury. The Hon. Member had stated that the cap-
tains had been considered careless in their manner of
packing and taking care of cargoes. Now, he was in a
position to contradict the statement, without any impu-
tation on the veracity of the Hon. Member, in whom he
found every disposition to fairness while sitting with
him for three months on the Navigation Committee.
He had an extract from a letter from the agents of one
of those many A 1 ships which the Hon. Member repre-
sented to be unable to obtain freights at Rio. That ship
arrived there on the 10th or 11th of March ; and so far
from being unable to obtain a cargo from the carelessness
of the captain, Captain Young, three freights at 755.,
775., and 80s., had been refused ; and finally the vessel
left on the 4th of April, because foreign vessels were
taking 575. 6d. and 60s. She went to Bahia, and there
obtained a good freight. There were twelve or fourteen
British ships at Rio in March, all of which obtained
freights but four ; while there were eight foreign
ships which did not get freights, two of them Ameri-
cans, although the American captains resorted to means
for obtaining freights which were not held consistent
with honour" and honesty by Englishmen.—(Hear, hear.)
The explanation of the whole thing appeared to be
that somebody wished to practise a joke on the Hon.
Member for Westbury; for the letter on which he relied
was dated the Ist of April.—(Laughter.) He held in
his hand a letter from Messrs. Le Breton and Co., the
well-known agents, who stated that there was a great
want of ships at Bahia, where 22,000 packages of sugar
were waiting for shipment, and freights ranged from
80s. to 90s. and even 955. Our English captains would
certainly have been great fools to take freights at Rio
for 575. 6d. at the same rate as the foreign vessels, when
they could run to Bahia, and get there 80a. or 90s.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the President of the
Board of Trade had declared his belief that no risk
would arise to British maritime interests or to the Bri-
tish navy from the repeal of the navigation-laws; other-
wise he said, he would sooner cut off his right arm than
lay those resolutions on the table. He lied gone into a
statement to show, comparing 1827 with 1846, that the
British mercantile marine had increased 44 per cent.
beyond that of the United States. In the facts he
had adduced he was utterly mistaken; he had also
left entirely out of view that in measuring the increase
of British tonnage ho estimated it by the new measure
introduced by the late Lord Sydenharii, which added 15
to 25 per cent. to the tonnage, making the ship which
measured 400 tons, under the old law, to measure nearly
500 under the new.—(Hear, hear.) But the tonnage of
the United States ships had remained the same, and
this accounted for much of the apparent increase.—
(Hear, hear.) He had stated that the tonnage of
British ships had increased from 2,460,500 tons in
1826 to 3,817,112 tons in 1847. Making allowance for
the new measure, this last amount would have to be
reduced by 20 per cent., reducing the actual increase to
3,053,690 tons, or an increase of only 24, not of 44 per
cent.—(Hear.) He would not quarrel with the Right
Hon. Gentleman that he selected a different period of
the year for the shipping of the United States from
that which he took for British ships, that he took
the year ending the 30th of June, 1846, for Ameri-
can ships, and the end of the year for British ships,
when there was a great increase of ships.—(Hear, hear.)
Had the Right Hon. Gentleman taken a year later it
would have made a difference of eleven per cent.; for
in the year ending June, 1847, the tonnage of American
ships amounted to 2,760,961 tons.—(Hear, hear.) But
taking his own figures, the United States ships increased
between 1827 and the present time from 1,620,607
tons to 2,562,084, being an increase of 941,477 tons;
being an increase of fifty-eight per cent.—(Hear, hear.)
How, therefore, the Right Hon. Gentleman could make
out that the increase of the shipping of the United States
was only 44 per cent. he was not able to understand.
The truth was that he measured tho American shipping
by a short measure, and British shipping by a long mea-
sure. American shipping had increased 58 per cent.,
whilst English shipping had increased only 24 per cent.
Therefore, he maintained that British merchants and
British seamen, without any pusillanimity or any want of
energy and enterprise, had reason to fear the rivalry
of the United States if they were to be admitted to a par-
ticipation in their colonial trade.—(Hear, hear.) And
that he might not be supposed to have stated on light
grounds the difference between the old and new mea-
surement, he would read to the House the result of a
measurement of five ships belonging to Mr. Chapman of
Liverpool. Under the old scale those ships measured
3,928 tons, under the new, 4,768; being a difference of
840 tons in five ships, created by Act of Parliament.
Some ships belonging to Mr. Bold, of Liverpool mea-
sured under the old scale 2,974 tons ; under the new,
3,508 ; making together an increase of over 20 per cent.
by Act of Parliament.—(Hoar.) He would now read to
the House, from the American Almanack, a return of
the ships of the United States which traded with the
British empire. Their tonnage in 1846, was 1,360,374,
whilst that of Great Britain and her colonies in the same
period amounted to only 801,321 tons. He would,
therefore, leave those who were engaged in trade
with the British West Indies to ask what benefit
they were likely to derive from a repeal of the navi-
gation-laws ? The inter-colonial trade had grown
to its present extent only within the last 24
years, and whilst there were ships belonging to the
United States with a tonnage of 124,133 tons engaged
in that trade, the tonnage of British ships was only
23,324. Let them see how the matter stood with respect
to Cuba and the Spanish West Indies. In 1846, the
United States had ships with a tonnage of 208.189
tons engaged in the trade with the Spanish colonies,
whilst the tonnage of foreign ships was only 3,891, and
the value of the merchandise carried in American ships
was 2,500,000, whilst that carried in foreign ships was
only 27,000. Therefore, wheu the United States made
a proposition to divide the colonial trade with England,
they could judge pretty well from those facts that she
expected to get the largest share of the spoil.—(Hear.)
He was at a loss to learn any just grounds for making a
change in the navigation-laws. He was aware that in
the absence of any other petitions a great deal had been
made of petitions from Canada and the British West
Indies for an alteration of the navigation-laws. He
was aware that in a moment of excitement,
when the colonists were suffering from the
effects of their free-trade measures, they, like drown-
ing men catching atstraws, did ask fora repeal of
those laws. But within one or two days he had received
an extract of a letter, dated the 16th March, signed by
the President of the Chamber of Commerce ot King-
ston, one of those persons who six or twelve months
ago signed the petition, in which the writer stated that
he was inclined to agree with Lord G. Bentinck, that a
repeal of the navigation-laws was calculated to confer
as much benefit on their opponents as on the colonists,
with this difference in favour of Cuba, that she being
possessed of slave labour could_
ensure regularity in the
crop, 2 and consequently, would not have any delay in
e
whereas in Jamaica the vessels might
would be ready.
The Noble Lord then read a letter addressed to Mr. J.
Cooke, a broker in
b freightingdetaine
detained
vessels;
for
mouths
the City, in which it was stated that
inwathse2sß.
piveerrcwwitt.hchle6a,9p2e7r
tboxeshere wereof
Cubasugar, American a
nd vesselst
in consequence of being brought in foreign vessels ; but
in consequence of the navigation-lawn it was tid-1
ha t it

missible into this country. Let those colonists who
were foolish enough to petition for the repeal of the na-
vigation-laws be aware then that they would have 16,900
more boxes of Cuba sugar in the market, and 2s. lower
in price than they could afford to sell at.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord then referred to the evidence of Mr. J.
Wilson, of Sunderland, before the Lords' Committee,
who was in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws,
but admitted that the West Indian colonists would not
get freight cheaper, whilst Cuba sugar could be sold from
ss. to 63. cheaper in the market; and observed that if,
under these circumstances, the colonists wore in favour
of the repeal of the navigation-laws, they deserved their
fate. The Right Hon. Gentleman made a great deal of
the petition from the City of London, but, with the ex-
ception of the names of the Governor and Deputy-Go-
vernor of the Bank of England, there were no names of
any great importance attached to it. One of the Mem-
bers for East Somersetshire was so struck with the lan-
guage of the petition, that it induced him to give his vote
with the Government—and no wonder, if he believed
what it contained.—(Hear, hear.) If the repeal of the
navigation-laws had the effect of pumping the ocean dry
—of saving the nation, in some 200 years 800,000,000/.
in the employment of the poor, besides 100,000,000/.
now spent in the prevention of crime—all of which
was promised by the petition from the City of London—
those who opposed the repeal had a great deal to answer
for indeed. He did not see the Noble Lord the Member
for Windsor (Lord J. Hay) in his place. That Noble
Lord joined in the clamour raised against the captains,
mates, and seamen of the British merchant service, and
bore testimony to the frequency of the disputes between
the captains and the men. The Noble Lord was ready
to swear to every statement contained in the reports of
the consuls, forgetting how contradictory those state
ments were in themselves. Whilst some of the consuls
spoke of British seamen as most brutal, Mr. Brooker, of
Cronstadt, and Mr. M'Gregor, of Elsineur, bore testi-
mony to their good conduct.—(Hear.) The charges
that were made against them were owing to the letter
of Mr. Murray, which applied to only one side of the
question.—(Hear.) A letter more calculated to libel
and slander the British marine never issued from the
Foreign-office. The deportment and manners of the
British seamen were not what they might be; but were
they to condemn the British seamen because they had
not French manners, or did not possess the grace of
the Italians, Sicilians, and Sardinians?—(Hear, hear.)
Consul Baker of New York attributed the better disci-
pline on board the American vessels to the fact that they
still retained the power of corporal punishment in the
American marine. Was the Noble Lord prepared to
advocate that system in the British merchant service?
If he was, he might perhaps have better discipline, but
he doubted if such a system would be tolerated.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the member for the
University at Oxford made an ingenious speech on the
present question, and not having heard the rest of it, he
confessed that he could hardly believe that he was not
speaking on his (Lord G. Bentinck's) side.—Hear, hear,
and laughter. He was surprised to hear the Right Hon.
Gentleman say that reciprocity was the rule of action in
this country. Why, were they not of late going hand
over head without bargaining for reciprocity? What
was the Act of 1846, but free-trade without reciprocity?
—(Loud cheers.) The rule! It was, indeed, the good
old rule in other days, but it was abandoned in 1846,
and they were now reaping the dire consequences in a
ruined trade and a starving people.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman said that with regard to steam
the position of the British marine was unapproachable.
He would show the Right Hon. Gentleman that he la-
boured under a mistake in this respect, as he did with
regard to the price of silk and timber. The number of
registered steam-vessels built in the United Kingdom in
the year 1846 was 77 of 15,000 tons; the registered
number built in 1847 was 103 of 16,000 tons. He had
a return of the United States steam-ships, by which he
found that 103 steamers were built in 1844; 163 in
1845; 235 in 1836; 198 in 1847. He was not able to
state their tonnage, because they were mixed up with
other vessels; but in four years they built 699 steamers,
and 3,118 sailing vessels, which measured 613,929
tons. In 1847 twelve sea• going steam-vessels, measur-
ing 16,288 tons, were built in New York, a number of
tons exceeding the united tonnage of all the steam-
ships of the United Kingdom. During the present year
there were 18 such boats, measuring 23,000 tons and
upwards in the course of building. What then did the
Member for the University mean when he talked of this
country being unapproachable in respect of her sea-
going vessels?—(Hear, hear.) The Member for Man-
chester alleged that he (Lord G. Bentinck) had charged
him personaly with a fraud in the preparation of certain
returns laid on the table by command of her Majesty.
It must have been some other monitor—perhaps that
" conscience which made cowards of us all"—which
made the Right Hon. Gentleman imagine he had said
anything of the kind. Having instructed 'Mr. Porter to
put the Queen's name to a return which was since ad-
mitted to be false, the Right Hon. Gentleman no doubt
felt some qualms upon the subject. The Right Hon,
Gentleman had since, indeed, endeavoured to bolster up
the return; but Mr. Porter, on his oath before the House
of Lords. declared that he made the return by order of
the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and that
he knew the terms " protected" and " unprotected"
were wrong. Of course every one who knew anything
of the subject knew it to be wrong; but the free-trade
party and the free-trade newspapers for weeks and weeks
made use of a return which its very authors now ac-
knowledged to be deceitful.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. M. GIBSON—Read the evidence. Mr. Porter
never acknowledged the return to be wrong.
Lord G. BENTINCK contended that he did. Ile
admitted that China ought not to be in the return, and
that other countries ought not to be included in it, and
if so, was not the return deceitful and fallacious ?
(Cheers.) Then look at the description of the trade with
France. One steamboat, the Prince Ernest, of no more
than 95 tons, was calculated at many thousand tons, be-
cause she had made 145 trips. Why. at this rate, the
halfpenny steam-boats on the river would represent more
ships
eehgaged in our commerce with
held in his hand a statement
countries, fairly compiled, and
ot of
American
onuarg tr taphdaaetn
with
atoll
het ihoeet
other r
.
showing only those countries the trade with which was
really protected or unprotected. The result was this,
that the really bend fide protected trade had ad-
vanced 145 per cent., whilst the unprotected trade
had only advanced 93 per cent. Did not that prove
that a fraud, by means of Mr. Porter's return, had been
committed on the country? These were the tricks the
Board of Trade continually had recourse to, to try and
sway the,Legislature of the country. The Member for
Manchester said the clamour for the suspension of the
navigation-laws came from that (the Opposition) side of
the House. What would not the free-trade party say
next? The Right Hon. Gentleman talked of " clamour."
Why, he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had been
wafted into office by clamour--(Hear, hear)—that, after
running away from Suffolk, free-trade clamour found
him a seat for the place he now represented.—
(Cheers.) Surely the Right Hon. Gentleman was un-
grateful. Then the Learned Doctor the Member for
Bolton (Dr. Bowring) talked of the " iron hand of
competition," which was :to do so much good to the
shipowners. He used to talk about the free and "in-
vigorating air of free-trade," but now he talked of
the " iron band of competition." Yes, it was, indeed,
a right description—the " iron hand of competition." It
was the " iron hand of competition" that had doubled
the pauperism of this country, and that had ruined her
colonial dependencies. It was the " iron hand of com-
etition" that had reduced the price of bread at Stock-
Port from nine farthings to seven farthings a pound, and
had increased the paupers in that town from 5,500 to
25,000.—(L0ad Protectionist cheers.) There had been
a Committee up stairs which had brought the truth out
at last. That Committee, on weighing the evidence ad-
duced before them, had declared that the opera-
tion of free-trade principles had materially diminished
the e wag sof labour. The next time the Right
- Honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester
that town let the operatives of that
went down to
him by the button and beg him to
town take
there was between protection
explain what difference
for sugar and protection for any other articles ? The
Member for South Lancashire said no one would be
bold enough to say that anc
cheap corn meant cheap wages.
He (Lord G. Bentinck) remembered when the Member
for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) declared that such was its
meaning in a celebrated pamphlet, and certainly expe-
rience proved that he
was right. In Manchester pau-
perism had increased fearfully. Would any one desire
to adopt the principle of free trade any further in the
face of such experience ? Surely, if ever there was a
time to stop it, it was now.—(Hear, hear.) Would they
venture to put another great interest of forty millions or
more into the free-trado crucible to see what would come
up ? The Learned Member for ladlton talked of the
masters and mates of our merchant service, and said we
ought to examine somewhat more closely before we ap-
pointed them. 110 (Lord G. Bentinck) thought the
masters and mates, recollecting the cost to the nation
of Dr. Bowring'e pleasure trip. (might sug throughgest that the continent
we,
and mi
might fairly retort,
ought to examine our diplomatists somewhat more
t
d th m
oin e e • The Learned
carefully before we appointed
gentleman's reports bad turned out anything butcorrect.e
th
t reduction indutiesof the
He had predicted a great
Zollverein if we adopted a
moderate tariff. The Learned
df f d A
ask
e or ree tra e.
Gentleman in those days nevert
rest philosopher desired
small fixed duty was all
tha
gnment of Sir Robert Peel
at that time. Well, the Gorr
Did the Zollverein re-
adopted free-trade princiP es.
the contrary, the Minister was
duce their duties? Onthat he threatened
so incensed at the demands of Prussia
that power with retaliatory
measures. The Learned
Member for Bolton, therefore,alld misled his countrymen.
the paid commissioner of
free-trade, had misinformed _
ervalue the ower of that
As to America, he did not un d
we shoupld truckle to
country, but he saw no reason
A
ho
a portion of our
her, or give her so large and P
1 'ession
carrying trade, trade, exacting no equivalent
tconcrade, of which
ever. Of the Cuba carrying
-eighth s•
Arne-
s
Great Britain now possessed even
d would very speedily
rice, if this measure passed,
would of that of
enjoy the entire monopoly, as she
shipping could '
Porto Rico. He did not say that .
e lanc
nuhester people
flourish without ships; but when
th A n
mafactu res, he
talked of the dependence of ships upo
begged to ask them how manufacturers could proceed
.
without ships—how they could, without ships, export
their raw material, or how, without
ships, export th • eir
completed fabrics? The manufacturing reformers over
the way talked of cutting down some seventeen millions
of the expenditure upon our army and upon our navy.
Did they reflect that if they destroyed our mercantile
;
marine, they must, if they desired to keep the country
properly protected against the chance of invasion, make
a large addition to our navy and consequently to our
expenditure.
Mr. HUME denied that the object of those who ad-
vocated the present measure was in any way to injure
the commercial marine of this country. On the contrary,
it was their earnest desire rather to improve the con-
dition of that service than to deteriorate it. The Hon.
ber for Dolton from
Member vindicated the icon. Mem

the depreciating estimate 'which the Noble Member for
Lynn sought to impress 'upon the House with reference
to the lion. Member's public services. He considered
that no reports in the' library of the House contained
more valuable matter than those of the Hon. and Learned
Member were replete with. As to the sneer of the
Noble Lord about the lion. and Learned Member's pre -
dictions,the NobleLor,d, had he well considered the sub-
ject, would have found reason, in all probability, to be-
lieve that if the landed interest had assented in time to a
moderate fixed duty or i corn, as an equivalent for con-
cessions on the part. of foreign powers, that interest
might have secured th: it moderate duty, instead of hav-
ing been compelled to submit to no duty at all.—(Hear,
hear.) As to the distress of the country, great as it un-
happily was, it would I lave been fearfully aggravated but
for the relaxations wbi eh the advocates of free-trade had
effected. —(Hear, hear.) The charges made by the
Noble Lord against b fr. Porter's statistics were alto-
gether unfounded; he, (Mr. Hume) had given the subject
of those statistics his i nost careful attention, and he was
perfectly convinced of the accuracy of Mr. Porter's re-
turns. The Noble L ord asked, for what purpose was
this change propose, I? It was proposed and supported
for the purpose of givi n g effect to those measures of free-
trade which had been: with such difficulty carried, and
which required, for the full and satisfactory develop-
ment, the removal o f the restrictions imposed by the
navigation-laws. TI le Noble Lord spoke of the loss to
the trade of this coun try of several hundred whaling ves-
sels. Was it free-ti's de which had driven these ships
from England to Ain erica? No; but the infinite re-
rtrictions which it yeas now proposed to remove.—
(Hear, hear.) He had every expectation, however,
that a large prop( Pr don of this trade, under the
change of system, would return to us.—(llear.) One
ground on which our Protectionist shipowners set up a
claim to monopoly Ivies the cost of shipbuilding; but it
was these same shipowners who had resisted a reduc-
tion in the timber du ties. Another ground used to be
the cost of victualling; but this ground was now re-
moved, and our ships could be victualled as cheaply as
those of any other .country. He avowed there was
scarcely any particular, since the recent changes in our
tariff, in which we we.re not as advantageously situated
as was the foreign slai:powner, and there were many re-
spects in which we ha d decidedly superior facilities for
fitting out ships. This evidence of Sir James Stirling
had been spoken of as hasty, incomplete, and incorrect;
he had closely followed Sir James Stirling's evidence,
from a sole desire for information, and he felt bound to
declare his conviction that the entire of that evidence
was well-considered, judicious, and scrupulously accu-
rate in its details. It was to him a matter of great sur-
prise that burdened as English ships were they had been
able to compete with 'foreigners. But once let the ex-
isting impediments be . removed and the impulse given
to British enterprise— -both commercial and maritime in-
dustry would be incres rsed in a tenfold degree. For all
these reasons he should support the resolutions.
Admiral BOWLES. thought that as an officer of the
navy he ought not to give a silent vote, but in what be
should say he would endeavour to be fair, and he should
confine himself to the naval part of the question. He
feared the House was legislating rashly, and that before
long the country would repent it. If the Govern-
ment merely proposed to lay the resolutions on the
table, and to allow time till next session to consider
them, he should have no objection. The same hasty in-
considerate course of legislation had been pursed in the
West India colonies, and the lamentable results were to
be seen in the report from the Committee that had
lately been laid on the table. With that example
before them the House ought to be cautious how they
trusted the prophecies of the Government as to the na-
vigation-laws. The Hon. Member for Montrose had
praised the evidence of his Friend Sir James Stirling,
bat with all respect for that Gallant Officer he (Admiral
Bowles) doubted if another officer could be found in the
navy to make the same statement. The two marine ser-
vices of the country were indissolubly bound up togethr.
Their interests—their source—were the same. Circum-
stances were greatly changed in respect to the mode of
manning the navy. Impressment was no longer available
for the purposes of manning the navy, and he very
' much doubted whether any means existed, in case of
very sudden alarm, for procuring a supply of seamen.
It was, therefore, doubly incumbent on the House to
move cautiously in this direction. Why should a system,
also, which provided a reserve of 25,000 seamen—he
meant the apprenticeship system—be abandoned? If
the navigation-laws were abolished, the Marine Society,
which rid the streets of London of thousands of vagrant
boys, and turned them to useful purposes, would be
done away with. The arguments respecting the in-
creased wealth and prosperity, which were predicted to
flow from the new system of legislation were only so
many proofs that every consideration save that of mam-
mon was forgotten. The navy was only recovering it-
self from its state of depression, and he trusted that the
warnings which, as an old officer, he had offered to the
House would not be deemed out of place. lie had seen
many of the glories of the past naval service, and he
hoped he should not live to see those glories dimmed or
obscured, as he feared they would be if the contemplated
changes were effected.
Mr. COBDEN said he should not follow the Noble
Lord in his arguments as to free-trade generally. He
and the Noble Lord started from two entirely different
points. The Noble Lord was for protecting the few at
the expense of the many, whilst he was not for taxing
any class at all. All he would say of free trade was
that the country was satisfied with it as far as it went,
He did not say satisfied with the present state of com-

merce, but that was attributable to quite different
causes. The Legislature having dealt with free-trade
in corn, sugar, and other articles of first necessity, now
approached the shipping; and how, let him ask, could
the partial protection now given to this branch of in-
dustry be justified? It he had been strong in his argu-
ments against protection to corn, he was doubly so in
respect to ships. The agriculturists urged the excessive
burdens on land and on their productive resources. The
shipowner had no such burdens. The sailor got all his
articles of consumption duty free, and ships paid neither
county nor poor rates, nor assessed taxes. They
were, therefore, in a better condition to com-

pete with the foreigner than the English landowner.
But they must go into the principle of free-trade. What
did it mean ? If it meant anything, it was the impor-
tation of a larger quantity of commodities into the
country—corn, for instance. But they could not move
a quarter of corn from abroad without resorting We
shipping ; therefore, the increased importation of corn
must increase the number of ships. Then, again, it was
said that those who built the ships could not compete
with the foreigner in point of cheapness. But it had
been satisfactorily proved that taking quality for quality
a ship could be built and rigged more cheaply in Eng-
land than abroad. He did not speak of the American
ships which were on Lloyd's register for four years only,
but of such ships as stood their ground on the register
for 12 years. People talked of a ship as if; like
a box, it was made of wood only. Why when the wood
work of the ship was complete half the outlay only was
made. The rigging, sails, anchors, cables, and stores all
were to be added, and they were to be had at a far cheaper
rate in England than anywhere else. There was the
evidence of the inspector of Lloyd's at Sunderland
to refer to on this point, who stated that a ship could
be built of Dantzic oak and equipped cheaper at that
port than at Dantzic ; and when he was at that place
he had asked a mercant there if this was true which
he was informed was the case.--(Hear.) The question
of wages was another element to be taken into conside-
ration. The American workman got more wages, it
was true, but then he worked more hours, and his skill
was superior to the English artisan, therefore, though
he got more money, the American shipbuilder did not
pay him more in :proportion to the value of his work
than the English shipowner. It was also said, and truly
he believed, that the American ships performed their
voyages more quickly than English ones, and that the
English masters of vessels did not take so much care of
their cargoes as foreign shipmasters did. That certainly
did present a difficulty, but it was to be overcome. Let
him take into consideration the characters of the English
masters and the seamen of which so much had been
said and written. He could not say anything of his own
knowledge on this subject, but both Mr. G. F. Young
and the late Mr. Soames, had stated that English sea-
men were very disorderly, Mr. Brooker, the English
vice-consul at Cronstadt, who had resided at that port
for 59 years, also told him in September last, that in the
July previous he had no less than 61 squabbles between
masters and seamen of English vessels to settle in his
counting-house ; and he showed him a circular, issued
in July, 1847, by the governor of the town, warning the
English seamen against the consequences of their riotous,
drunken, and violent behaviour, and of the serious con-

sequences of striking a police soldier. Therefore it must
be taken for granted that ➢lr. Brooker had confirmed
the statements made respecting the conduct of English
seamen in foreign ports. Ho had never accused that class
of being given to robbery, but the question was, were
they insubordinate and given to drink when in foreign
ports, and he believed they were. Was it therefore wise
to lavish compliments and praises on them in that llouse,
instead of telling them of their faults? From the evidence
he had read, he was led to believe that the English
seamen were more addicted to drink than the sailors in
the Mediterranean ports; that they were less qualified
in point of education and information than the seamen
of the northern ports, and that is both these particulars
they were inferior to the American sailors. The best
way, therefore, to serve them was to tell them of their
faults, and so to amend them. But with all his faults
the British sailor was possessed of natural qualifications
which rendered him superior in the hour of danger or
difficulty to the seamen of other nations. his courage,
promptness, and presence of mind during a gale or
under unexpected circumstances, were such that if his
moral qualities could only be made to equal his mental
aad physical powers, he would be able to compete with
the best sailors of the best nations. He did not wish to
have protection removed from British shipping for the
purpose of reducing the wages of the sailors. Give them
the same qualities as were possessed by the Americans,
and they would make better voyages, and consequently
be cheaper at higher wages than they now were.
But the questio❑ the House had to consider was whe-
ther they would continue to lay a prohibition on the
carriage of commodities from foreign countries. The
manufacturers were entitled to get their supplies in the
cheapest way they could, whereas the operation of the
navigation-laws was to prohibit the free importation
even of manure, for if bones or oilcake came in certain
vessels they were not allowed to enter English ports for
consumption. The farmers' friends ought, therefore, to
do away with these restrictions. He had, he confessed,
been much surprised by the Noble Lord's attack on his
friend Mr. Porter's statistics; for if there was one de-
partnaent in which the public had confidence it was in
that presided over by Mr. Porter, whose return, so
much cavilled at, was entitled to the utmost credit for its
accuracy. But the cause for this attack must be looked
for in the fact that no statistics could be found to favour
the protective system. He was prepared even to go so
far as to say if the english ships cannot compete in the

market with foreign ships let the latter have all the
trade. The cheapest market was the best. But let him
not be mistaken on this point. He believed that En-
glishmen were better fitted to ba sailors than any other
nation on earth. England visa great in her manWhe-
tures, but she was greater in her maritime adventure.
What the camel was to the Arab of the desert, or the
horse to the Tartar, the ship was to the Englishman. It
had been urged that there were very few petitions in
favour of abolishing the navigation-laws. The same was
true of petitions in their favour, only 25,000 having
petitioned out of 1,500,000 sailors who were to be
thrown out of bread by their abolition. The true rea-
son why petitions against the navigation-laws had not
been presented was, that those laws were included by
the millions who had petitioned for free•trade in that
policy.--(Hear, hear.) lie should be glad to see a
Navigation Act passed as short as that made by
Lord Dalhousie for India, which consisted of four lines.
He, however, preferred the proposed measure to that
suggested by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Oxford, who wished to have one framed on the basis of
reciprocity. The Right lion. Gentleman ought to re-
member that reciprocity was already promised on the
part of America and Prussia. Now, one word as to the
naval part of the question. He heard with regret the
constant reference made to physical force arguments,
which were so much condemned when urged by the
working classes.—(Oh, oh.) Ile must say he heard with
regret the boasting language respecting England's naval
supremacy. He must say that those boasts were gene-
rally uttered after dinner, and therefore they might be
the result of a little extra excitement.—(" Oh, oh," and
groans.) The abolition of the navigation-laws would
not affect the naval condition of Great Britain. But
was this a time to be always ringing " Rule Britannia."
(Laughter.) If Hon. Members opposite had served
with him upon the Committee on the army, navy, and
ordnance estimates, they would have a just sense of the
cost of that song.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend the
member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had, in the
course of the discussion, been a good deal attacked for
the sentiment with which he concluded his speech the
other night. In that sentiment he (Mr. Cobden) en-
tirely sympathised. His Right Hon. Friend had not
asserted, as had been supposed, that this country was
about to enter upon the millenium of universal peace ;
but he stated that they should treat wars as the normal
state of this country. His Right Hon. Friend had con-
tended, and he (Mr. Cobden) agreel with him, that this
country was in favour of peace ; and if this was doubted,
let but a word be said in this House to indicate that they
were going to war, and then the full force of public
opinion against it would be felt.—(Hear, hear,) The
constant assertion of warlike maritime supremacy was
calculated to provoke kindred passions in other nations,
while, if Great Britain announced the doctrines of peace,
she would invoke similar sentiments from the rest of the
world. With this view he was anxious, while prepared
to maintain every just right for the English people, to
identify this nation with peace, and by removing the
obstacles which the navigation-laws presented to free
trade and freedom of intercourse between nations, to
blend nations together in interest, and thereby place one
of
-the most potential obstacles in the way of war.

Mr. DISRAELI said the Noble Lord the First
Minister of the Crown had been accustomed sometimes
to teach those who attempted to defend the cause of pro-
tection— a cause which he (Mr. Disraeli) and thy,
near him had not yet deserted—that they were reason-
ing in a vicious circle. The Noble Lord had used to
say that if the interests they had formerly advocated
operated to the injury of another interest, that other
interest might, in its turn, by some exceptional legis-
lation, operate to the cost of its neighbours, and thus,
as the Noble Lord well expressed it, they were moving
in a vicious circle. Interest after interest had received
the advantages of exceptional legislation ; but the result
was that the multitude had been injured. The House
was now placed in a new vicious circle. In this debate
new interests had been attacked, and it was said that,
as every other interest had been injured, they
must go round the vicious circle, and that,
after having pursued a course of theoretical legisla-
tion, which had terminated in so much practical misery,
it would be against reason, justice, candour, and fairness,
not to deal out to every other interest the same merciful
interposition which had produecd such beneficial results.
—Meer, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman
who had just addressed the House (Mr. Cobden) had
been the principal author of the first vicious circle; but
for him that thesis would never have been adopted by a
Minister or accepted by a party—(Hear, hear)—and yet
at the end of two years the Hon. Gentleman had to-night
again to rise in his place and become the advocate of a
new vicious circle.—(Hear, hear.) Before, the lion.
Gentleman had promised the House and the country
perpetual advantages—now he said that it was but just
that all should take their share in the universal disaster.
With regard to the unfortunate interest now under dis-
cussion before an assembly called together towatch over the
interests and to guard the rights of Englishmen—with re-
gard to the new victim, he must say that if this question
involved an inquiry into the comparative expense of
building ships at Stettin and at Sunderland—he should
consider that he should himself be guilty of an act of the
utmost assumption if he offered an opinion on that sub-
ject. Though he had paid constant attention to the course
of the debate, he had studied with as much power of
abstraction as he could command the evidence which
had been offered to the two Houses of Parliament, and
still he felt if he offered an opinion as to the relatiee
prices of cordage and sailcloth it would be an act of ar-
rogance which he would not assume. He therefore left
all these deductions from the evidence to the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), for he thought
that even the House itself was not exactly a tribunal cum-
petent to decide with satisfaction upon such a topic. In
such a matter the lion. Member (Mr. Cobden) had im-
mense advantages, because he was the friend of Mr.Brun-
ton, who had personal experience of the cost of building
ships at Stettin and at Sunderland, and had stated that he
had no fear of competition with the ports of the Baltic. He
(Mr. Disraeli) bowed with great respect to the opinions
of that gentleman; but as he had been quoted, he (Mr.
Disraeli) must refer to an opinion expressed by Mr.
Brunton within the last few hours. At a meeting held
at the Exchange of Sunderland on the subject of the
navigation-laws, Mr. Brunton was the principal orator,
and had moved one of the resolutions adopted by the
meeting. In the course of his speech he attacked the
evidence given by a Mr. Wilson (not the [lon. Member
for Westbury), upon whom he did not charge falsehood,
but adopted a milder term—(A laugh)—and then he
was pleased to state that the repeal of the navigation-
laws would reduce property thirty to forty per cent., and
would drive ship-building out of the country, and inflict
equal injury upon artisans, builders, and owners. lie
added that, by the co-operation of all, means would be
found to defeat the plan of the Government. Mr.
Brunton sat down amidst loud cheers, proposing a reso-
lution to the effect that, if the measure of the Govern-
ment was carried, it would be fatal to builders, owners,
and artisans, and calling upon all those favourable to
native industry to rally round those classes at the present
moment. He (Mr. Disraeli) thought it right that he
should thus furnish to the House the last opinion which
Mr. Brunton had given on this very subject. Be-
fore he (Mr. Disrraeli) entered upon the general ques-
tion, he could not help noticing some of the observations
made by the Hon. Member for the West Riding respect-
ing the commereial marine of this country. He had
heard Kith regret his remarks upon the character of the
seamen and captains. In all classes—in all modes of
employment—there must be some troublesome fellows,
from whose conduct it would be hard and unjust to judge
a whole race. It ought to be no evidence against the
system under which they were educated, and under
which they were employed. Now he (Mr. Disraeli)
had before him some evidence of the conduct of English-
men not employed on board ship, but in an institution
which was scarcely less interior in national importance.
A gentleman well known to Hon. Members opposite
Mr. John Brooks, of Manchester—had been examined
before the Navigation Committee, and, in answer to a
question put by the Hon. Member for Westmoreland
(Mr. Alderman Thompson), this witness seemed to
think that it was because crews were allowed to consist
of one-fourth of foreigners and three-fourths of
British seamen they could not agree. But Mr.
Brooks, with more candour than the llonourable
Member for the West Riding, had spoken of his ma-
nagement of his men in Lancashire—that was to say his
own men employed in his own mill. Mr. Brooks was
well known to possess a knowledge of the Lancashire
character—indeed. he himself was remarkable in a
crowd.—(Laughter.) But, speakiwe of the management
of his own men, he said, " I have fought several battles
with my men—there are some of them called flints,'
and some knobsticks'—(Lond laughter)—and I have
been obliged to have sixty soldiers and three officers in
my mill for nine months together to keep them in order,
for, when mixed together, the men would not agree."
—(Hear, hear.) Now it would be quite as just for him
(Mr. Disraeli) to bring this evidence forward as a proof
against the character of the whole of the working classes
of the most favoured district of the country, as for the
Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to con-
demn the seamen in the commercial marine on the iso-
lated instances of undisciplined and unruly conduct
which might be alleged against portions of that body.
He, therefore, dismissed this part of the case. With re-
spect to the allegation, that the coasting trade would
be protected by the ignorance of the native tongue of
foreigners, he begged to state that no man was allowed
to command a Swedish or Norwegian ship who was not
master of the English language.—(Hear, hear.) The
question now before the House he understood to be a
proposition on the part of the Government to abrogate
an ancient national system with respect to navigation—
a system founded upon definite principles, and aiming
to arrive at definite ends; and if he could show that the
principles of that system were an actual advantage to
the country, and beneficient to the State,
then the ques-
tion of the ability or inability of British shipbuilders to
enter into competition with foreigners was not an
element for argument on this occasion. He was
there to advocate the present system, which he main-
tained had worked with great advantage to the State,
and to do this he had but to make evident that the ar-
guments against that system were utterly unsubstantial
arid fallacious.—(Hear.) In the first place, it had been
said that England was not protected in her export
trade, and therefore it was asked why it was necessary
she should be protected in her import trade? He denied
that this country competed with success with the fo-
reigner in the export trade. No Member for Liverpool,
or merchant of that town, would venture to assert this,
but, on the contrary, must admit that practically the
export trade was in the hands of foreigners.—(Hear,
hear.) Every one knew that if a large order was given
from America fur iron, they made it a condition that it
should be exported in American ships. Within a day
or two a large order had been given from the French
Government for coal; and it was a condition of the con-
tract that it should be exportedin French ships.—(Hear.)
He blamed not the American or French Governments
for this; but hearing it said that we were not protected
in the export trade, and yet competed with so much

ability, and knowing that there were no authentic di
cuinents to guide the House on this subject, ho was
obliged to ask for the evidence, and in the want of it
to avail himself of the information which was open to
everybody ; and he could not help arriving at a conclusion
totally diffi rent to that of those who were the protnel'
gators of this opinion.—(llear, hear.) It had been said
that England could compete in an oeen market with any
state, and that while we were trembling before comPe:
titiou on the Thames, in the most celebrated port
of
South America and the Adriatic—Rio and Mean--
English shipping carried euerything before it. Re ac,
copied the test, so ostentatiously offered, and would
show how utterly unfounded and fallacious was the
foundation of the principal arguments which hied been
offered throughout these debates. He had a return
from Rio for 1847, which had been given on oath before
the Lords' Committee. It showed that in that :year 655
ships, amounting to 198,000 tons, read cleared from
Rio with cargoes ; of these the British tomeage "9
32,000 tons, foreign more than 166,000 tons. Of the
British tonnage 15,000 tons cleared for our coloniel
so they were out of the category ; there rerealoet
something more than 16,000 tons for foreigii parts.--
(Hear.) Ot the foreign tonnage 68,000 was American'
15,0(10 Brazilian, 13,000 Danish, 14,000 Swedist , 130,
Hamburgh, 11,000 Portuguese, 10,000 Freud) 1, 7,00"
Sardinian, and 6,000 Belgian. So that out of a tonnage
of nearly 200,000 tons from the port of Rio, Bri'.isb sbiPv;
ping only commanded 16,000 tons.—(Hear, heat'.) no ..,
was it possible, in the face of such a docuurie t as Hat,
to pretend that British shipping carried everyt hi ng befo „
it, and competed successfully in open pores Trieste,l"
nations of the world. He had a return fr one
not of very recent date, but he was informed. by a ileeti:ee_
having very extensive commercial transac Lions there,
that the relative proportions of shipping woe) still Invlc.,
the same. Analysing the trade of 14 countries
Trieste, he found that in seven of them- —the United,
States, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Spain, Hainbu re h,1101,131'„3
and Sweden—not a single British vessel we's etalm°Yi`es
in conducting the commerce between thoi,e cnfor.
and Trieste; that in five others, Norway, Cubtfeito,
tugal, our own possessions at Gibraltar and 'two
and St. Domingo, sometimes one, in other casesnrozii
British vessels were employed; and that olelY Wilear.)
was there a large majority of British ShiplYalg•
:7(ur
Oiil-
Recollecting that England exported to Braze. only
lions sterling per annum, and received front Breit toolc
one million, it was quite clear that the ships Aqui? the
out the four millions must be chartered to TriesteTaY
three extra millions to other ports ; the port of ; fat
attracted this great part of our traffic; so 1339't us
these three millions which the Brazils did net r-lioes
for were drawn by the course of commercial I raneacareat
from the port of Trieste. So much for the We :lb so
cases, which had been appealed to in this deb ate
ear.)
much triumph and with so little foundation L_( the
ybe
The Hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. W hod
great champion of the virtues of cotepetrxlyiotl,
stated, to show the immense advantage of l'e'sot eelf
that from 1817 to 1823, British shipping Was; not having
stationary but absolutely in decline--the tonne ge„nsing
fallen off from 2,600,000 to 2,500,000, notwitril'at the
the increase of population and of imposts; aeis was $
moment the reciprocity Act was passed, iv" trade'
considerable approach to the principles of 0
11l 0. pat
there was a rapid improvement in British siliPPl the
the Hon. Gentleman forgot that, though the dot er took
reciprocity Act was 1823, no increase whate; el 1183;
place in the tonnage of our mercantile marineaie the°
and that it was only in 1834 that it had arrive°
00 tens,
same amount as it exhibited in 1817-2,600,0 for ea
twenty years after the peace,
and eleven years' 14
boasted reciprocity Act.—(Hear.) This was ,_ speech
.ent, 00,
made by one who was called a master of the sue.Vegactee
of those speeches which influenced public opinionrstrieva
revolutions, altered tariffs, and changed Min s ore
(Laughter.) It was impossible to draw conclusnia to
at variance in every respect with facts. In si e yore tbte
the trade of this country and other countries, eres
reciprocity Act, the Hon. Gentleman had talr,t3i, ot
care not to give the name of a single e°ll 06'
the date of a single treaty. Time f bet date see ; a
procity treaty with Russia was only in eas
_
our commerce with that country had in,too,ooo ,
from 200,000 tons in 1824 to more than eses
tons in 1846—an increase owing to nineteen eetieee
that monopoly which the Hon. CI entlealan den,. 101110 g
..
He had represented the whole British trade eStieos 1.11
increased from 3,290,000 tons in 1824, to 8i 11/05,,,
1846; but to obtain the second amount the orator
tleman had taken the clearings inwards and hod 01r,,
and added them together, while in the first he
enlyl
diously separated them.—(Hear, hear.) Whro-r.eateterd
silt the boldness of such evidence as that?---leio be,
But this was the evidence which for InonYe'iea
dot
governed England, which, brought forwarbead saeo in
ments and speeches, had passed laws which °Ste.
the great interests of the country.—(Sean) yid s'e-ad
an unlimited confidence in these documents they roe
rnents, and in the statistical genius of the age' bled
been hurried into Acts which had alreadY toensoci coo
country to its centre, and filled it with disenlithe
sternation, He inquired not the source of wetersho
Gentleman's information; he had tasted thews gob
fore, and greatly suspected that be fillecle Trielejir
from the tainted fountains of the Boar", - sotaaan
(Hear, hear.) There had been shawl t sue o
,mee de V
cussion on the authorities of that dePar'f,,ro ta4
ample vindication was promised; be there-I-a No -00
attack on any one. Since Mr. Porter 11,4' heels !fog
mined before the House of Lords he be'inta ref fog'
summoned, and cross-examined on some P°-,eas state'
to these documents; and that examination Ave er, an
lows:—"Question—In a previous answer Yoti,ALt Slinviera
ment of the progress of British shippinglenjr reljer
increase of 1846 over 1821 of 1,250,000 w„ii'larra4 the
led to the inference that there was a. Wu' hot, res•se
crease in British tonnage than in America a ititisb
Committee understand your statement no 'f
in the one is an increase upon the whole,- an
tonnage, and the increase upon the other is josive-thoe
only upon part of the American tonnage?„„eotlYeee i°
is so.—Hear, hear.) Question—Coro": sane
two are not to be taken as compared, a- of P'-0t,../
any degree the comparative increaseroiall 1,0
over American tonnage? Answere-Cens of St, ger°
(Hear.) Question—Have you any mil eta
the comparison correctly ? Answer these cos
;
that I have." It was not he who introdu that tbeb the
meats into the debate. He did not thini‘
of a ship in Sauderland had anything ta rearee'.,/,
question. Still less did he care for the° syetewtbe
of tbe I
cept that they were part and parcel - tripe- owe-
(Hear, hear.) He had seen that mightY sustasei
Poor-law Commission, sink before ade could
collard of
by such returns. He thought that CO 7%0 00$
that there was a bias in the officials 0
_1", with e_.„
„es'
Trade, and that they were always prepar; 100'5,.."
venient return for any Minister, no matt nropeu the
terous the scheme which he wished t° artleelsnaiscie
(Cheers.) The Right Honourable
Geof only (I*d
President of the Board of Trade bad thilobee
a speech, which was always a dangeras be pold).yicleo
laugh)—but what was still more perilouch
bioge
it—(Loud laughter)—and in that spa jot 0/5 opoe
the question into four heads. He cape", flies, tin coo
in the first place on account of the coM:videoce
.oter,
that point he certainly was not rich loos char'ofer
sisting as it did of a memorial, of a suslueb of the the
from Jamaica, an extract from the dispateesseu whole
nor of another island, and a document sots, the t the
colonial case,
Assembly of Canada. Such was the eeiataiace °toll
printed evidence, of the Government f 0 "-ever sete. ;00
decidedlyand considering that the ellii.l3ree tb° it
the British empire, he felt justified in sa)alricroi but
meagre.—(A laugh.) The isi tiefoloe!flejece,
was said to demand a repeal of the nsvin tile 6" alitri
when asked why, the reply, according
motile--
„,e°,loolll
was, that everything necessary for the he they "there
had been changed, and they did not eee,w so
not have a trial at the same game. Their saws n'ersreei
fore, was, it may ruin the shipping interrebaye eote"
benefit us; but what of that, Piet us 060 q ,bovi
(Laughter.) The Honourable Gentlernau,;we to 0,0
;winos, ft „.
some returns, and argued that it was 0.Ia"
that the colonies were suff,rin from the,._vigstioo .that
said by some Hon. Gentlemen that the they lead ,orei
had been changed a hundred times, and tht to (I°l th 9
fact the basis of the argument that we mtg_
eoct vie
with them altogether; but he drew from l_botirse e.„entlf
reverse, namely, that those laws, in the
and erecl`lo3, we
hundred years, having been graduallY e,nsy the, 3 to
improved, instead of being prejudiced ligm,e 030,Ftef the
ought to assume that they were in a staeLoettor last
the necessities of the times. The Cba ospearicleveas;i)
Exchequer said that they were even
eesetee-C"'le °l3-
year—so had been the Bank Charte .13 _riaciP to the
If he was asked if those laws were just 1..F...0ing 000,
advantageous in their results, he weititioar
effects of the long voyage which emploYeuena sehtevtioie
thus benefiting our maritime interests,
,tog
re
much added to the commercial character
,1104 locSoe
The only cases opposed to the principle or, the ko onb;
were purely exceptional. The becretary:oo thetao
docks, on being examined a few days 81" werehau4be
ject of those laws, was asked if he as a
_„..d he
desirous of repealing or modifying theni,ioot
be e
was not; and in reply to a further flues
e,f c_nts7iog
served that there existed no desi.r hear.)
amongst the City people.—(Hear, ealio° ten%
i direct y pot
the third and remaining one—the n en Oa ,o for
disposed of two points, he
trade. The argument used against ftheo3,"ipossibt ,she
would 00 aarri vt
was a practical one—namely, that it was
trade'lilte
tas'
them to monopolise the indirect carry.egke
Right Hon. Gentleman, although he sPeently seisrice'
person who had been menaced, did not
etxthe late cre
a menace had been made by Prussia ;bu the -dade '
President of the Board of Trade, who Was Iwo 11° f
of the Government, let the cat out of the habit ° see
mitted that the Board of Trade was in the _y tael%p•
et
ceiving threatening notices.—(Laughter.) he'
C rhe ,
what Prussia could do in that respect. gl!
tleman here read at some length the evidendeso, Or.coo.
fore the Lords' Committee by Mr. TYnt it was
derson, and Mr. Powles, to the effect thtt. in 00.,00
pletely out of the power of Prussia to rektiaoi!! Greatw!"-foe
land.)—(Hear, hear.))Then the Right
~.tuie if tvalic
said that America would give us a in. Eauch,)oitea
them a little, and that she would give u,s'f the u_iero'
gave her much. Why that language, of rev' P,
States invotved tho very principT icheerf!/..d
city which the Government abandoned kthe 130._!: 00'
was a rich treat to see the Presidenttom:ssist tat°o re:
f
uld teen'
Trade asking the House of Commons *
when r so
ciprocity with the United States,
not el3l Ober 3
itself acknowledged that they coulduld be still r. roci
vernment in passing a law because it eeyhe Go.eettio
rinetPa. the Vpo
see a Minister who gave up the
Pto advocate , he
reciprocal arrangements; but it wo poi °f -lie'
coming down at some future time vouja
of the most extraordinary specimens 117 con !-'70.00 ciple of retaliation.—(Hear, be.ar.) s ."Lonaial leo2lvas. ,
af
seem that 00. t
(Laughter.) But it would in favour 0t .
;minent and the present one Same time
ieno
the same crt. _
presented to a wondering House foith the ate, th
system of reciprocity, and at
marred all tu jia
the existence of treaties whic.. Was Iv'
tious. Now, if both We Government T'

lo

esesees-es
Llo"erilinent which existed were in favour of recipro-
Y, and both ignorant of the difficulties they had to.
„,"'"tend with in that respect, did they not think that it
1;71,1 be more prudent to keep the present system till
'ajesty's Government had made themselves a little
3bettere acquainted with the facts and matured their
"'lon a little more?—(Loud cheers and laughter.)
Whole thing proved that the measure wt•ra.
re in conception, and that it was tampering and
it:llt With the national interests; because there was no-
ggs more fatal than the recklessness of ignorance.—
7tmaw cheers.) Everything else might be endured—
t the tyranny of men who hal a system.—(au° L ehter.)
eY Might establish despotism and yet preserve order;
e
I,ll' Et Cabinet who called on them to legislate without a
m`ewledge of the circumstances could only produce le-
regeklare anarchy which must eventually plunge. the.comx.-
t,4_,al and political interests of the country into ine
eft-7, °le confusion.—(Loud cheers.) He could easily
the state of blank surprise in which the new
h
,tce-President of the Board of Trade found himselfdatihe
Ze bland smiles of Mr. Bancroft on one side, atritier._
(1: and dagger of the Chevalier Bunsen on the o .Cere-
titttlegetr.) They were not opposed to going into
Atnis Committee; but when they were told by the
Arph ter that they were going into Committee. for th©
0,,n
meek" "or abrogating the navigation-laws, it was a
4:. rY to tell them that it was for the purpose of con-
teem.t.l"eg th
to • em• They did not object to go into C
to 6.lll:Trove the navigation•laws, but they objected to
ii Committee Committee to abrogate them. Now, one word
eittlregard to the question of the national defences
gird
did notmean to enter at that time of the night
Stir. ).the evidence of that very ingenious person Sir J.
ap,ll3g. who had a plan for manning the fleet without
Ittilt-C.Xduch. laughter.) N.or was. he going to sing
Stet; seritannia," for fear of distressing the Honourable
,der for the West Riding..—(Loud cheers.) He
ejeald merely
tion from Jamaica,
',filch read a communication
ef AaPPeared in the New York Sun, dated the 12th
di diseee'". It stated that even in Jamaica symptioui r
ntent Showed themselves; that while " Rule 13thie
the tir Was received with solemn silence f r
(I,ll;ehst Yank Doodle " was loudly called 0 .
boociatii :er.)
, To-nightee they had again heard " Yankee
callede; mildly called for, but he hoped,
ingh loudly
:-:(a'°r, that it would never be encored that House
Tefightfar.) The late Vice-President of thehi Bosauradi.
chilae-e, in a glowing peroration, dwelt with su
im.
Peel"' °II the blessings of peace, and of internal
his
klett'welllent. It was surprising how men differed, but _
ate fr,l3 that these were not the characteristics of the
etiol„,'" which they lived.—(Laughter.) If instead o
Nerree he said it was the age of no trade, if instead of
414 be said it was the age of intended war, and if
mamba internal peace he said it was the age of coin-
'ate nds pulling up railways, he would be near the
kett't(Rear, hear.) Notwithstanding the announce-
idlicliket,he Millennium and the reign of' universal peace
uecitle e"ge3' had been promised a short time ago, he
paiee";?t help thinking, after all that had occurred, with
hi(asee-e'4ll state of seige, Paris in insurrection, Vienna
es en', and Berlin barricaded, with four pitched bat-
likaih in eight weeks, and the Baltic and Adriatic
tfor tOcejtaded—tbat the Hon. Gentleman the Member
14 01 " "'est Riding was not now so devoted a believer
"ies gentiU sine armis. He did not pretend to
the ijoi blame to rhe present power which distinguished
:Nike a• Gentleman and his school, yet, sometimes, in
lel the Past, one may find some instructive monitnodr
tloi; conduct of the present and the future ;
h'etlecit B°--in reading the history of this country—hea
ctsts-11) reason to withdraw his allegiance from that
Power in England which had at the same timed
ilttsei;,eimPire and cherished liberty.—(Cheers.) An
'clew' 'pee fall of thrones and the crush of empires, hehe
atree ~,°` no circumstance more remarkable than t
44" anarchy and demoralisation of those vast armies
IthiNte'nee were considered the best security, and the_e
Feat of those institutions—when they saw th
their military powers of France and Austria deserting
ttiet Incaters in their need, what Englishman could re-
but „I%„'t,h other feelings than pride and satisfaction
hme, itotrett,e.gions reposed:Upon the deep?—(Loud cheers.)
ilh would not incur the responsibility, even by
14414111. ee vote, of endangering that empire which. had
411101441,,i1114 by so much valour, arid guarded with so
both thvi.-ance—that empire which was broader than
etheameelkinericas and extended farther than the far-
tqle kt";l'e-that empire; which had been foreshadowed by
9eli-T,11(14 of a Blake, and consecrated by the blood of a
feleies-ethe empire f the seas.—(Cheers.)
tone.' 41SON explained that the return he had quoted.
the
NS.,,age in 1824' and in 1846, were, in both cases,
SitV inWards and outwards.
141 d, t" ?EEL, who rose amidst loud cries of
." Divide,"
"%I -"rat if he could acquiesce in the op.inion. oft
the
1t44-ierd and those who agreed
with
him'f,th..a.nt hto
tiatotence of the last two years had be.en su ecich.eh
is henstrate the impolicy of those principles o?frwef
ith this
totti Years 1842 and 1846, the commercial tar
Was revised and regulated, he should not
•bne.
~tiSf',l4ed at their conclusion, not to apply those priin
" to our commercial marine; but, notwithnstieainidree.
tritheiPerience of the last two years,
thehis
Protectionistl
Nitl:4 unshaken—(Laughter from
thril;' and cheers from the Ministerial benches)—as to
ttheeririciples by which our commercial intercourse with
the; nations should be regulated.—(llear, hear.)
..
If.
hteoWould reject from consideration the peculiar eombi
We of circumstances whichn had
prevented a fair trial
oaf
! Principles established years he referred to
iney would entirely omit from their consideration
)1,112in addition to any other causes of commercial de-
thiticelnent, all operating simultaneously not only in our
l'ltiZ
tientry but in every other country in Europe with
lteWe had commercial dealing", they had been
Wtst:4ll famine—if they would omit from their consi-
-Itrimilen that that surplus capital which was heretofore
th Ithle to the procuring of luxuries or conveniences
glik44°,,w necessarily applied in averting the sufferings
t(4lslci'creine engendered—if they would reject all these
(Ise4 eations, it was r asy to draw that conclusion.-
111,noisti)ata „ But it was incumbent on them in that case to
what respect there was a connexion in the pre-
of this country, which he admitted and
e 4 sr42elide and theprinciples on which, in the tariffs of
thla 14 1846, they had proceeded.—(Hear, hear.) It
mi man7.oause we had admitted the raw material for
tittht 'etures without duty.—(Oh, oh.) His opinion
4,0 N 4
err oneous, but surely those who thought so
((actitellt,° Confidence in the strength of theirs if they had
Octal cesPser to give than boisterous cla.mour.-
4.4 acted cries of " Oh.") The principles on which they
etriet 1842 and 1846, in the first place, removed
duty
0;1'3:1)4 from commerce, and, by diminishing the
ht; into raw material, enabled our manufacturers to
tie' tee, e°llapetition with their foreign rivals with
Loaiilltom
advantage ; they simplified the cora-
‘44lrttet,,,,e as to the entry of all articles of food and
feee No one could say that the tariffe of 1842
*.tns.....,pnriously affected the country in these re-
Wise bet) It might be answered so. far they
tYillaet
they
were wrong in admitting foreign
toZeowliiieer-strlf Competition with. our. own in this coun-
ne .of ob. roni the Protectionists.) That was the
thsewre lett Jection. Every article of foreign
.manu-
eht°,:ced under those tariffs, it was said, had
,`rie sie", e employment thousands of our own coup-
,"ta a:4e ki,;pould else he engaged in manufactures. of
fee`4--(fslear, hear.) Why, what a doctrine
1,11, (toal V,neei„this great manufacturing nation ?—(Minis-
,Ss ''ittee) ek country exporting 58,000,0001. a year
the v4lllO of its own manufactures, and which, by
tver,l4lo, ef those manufactures, was interfering with
hiNircetllttzlent of every country in the world. If
elks 141 ,r.Y were to adopt that view, they would look
(7,e Lteates3:e.4l of as the benefactors of mankind, as
seithetedl,,tepedinaent to human happiness.—(Hear.)
eta tetioveseewreaPs to the extent of a million a year
se to oollen, and cotton manufactures ; and
ter°l!nee., entries
ttie, übe which sent those articles here to be
"41414?tliiieGeratice they threw out of employment a
e la of artizans here, who might else be era-
-441t fo•ted ands in estimating the quantity of foreign, goods
ti,ti,Nes er the tariffs of 1842 and 1846, trey must
(1.11
quantities which previously
came in in ant
440
oeer4rticlee'ner• The increase in the imports e
131* °1 raw" only apparent. ported
epetoctiwar cs and copper manufacturWese, 1,0ex06,000/.
ri.'ll yarne' 17,000,000/. of cotton goods, 6,000,0001.
oand other, besides large quantities of woollen, linen,
1* ter tetl anufacture, interfering with the industry
llIc)eoed tries in every direction ; and yet we were
Is eke "In other countries because they asked to
t(ii to ,
; so PPIY us in some subordinate and inferior
of 4 et cheaply of those few articles which they could
tatfieeto iteaPer than ourselves. It was impos•
311z>n the distress under which some
sae i,..°Peraives
IS-41 it ""Poste. were ndoubtedly labouring
4po. ut, Let them look to the progressive in-
to ‘lkti". exPorts under free-trade, and let them no
ruined because, from a combination
Vile • 1, akin circumstances distress existed in this
ee ing the first five years from 1827 our
•Nctita P°tsthe next
t 4 the,, ere 34,000,000 i.; during
were
were 43,000,000 i.; in the following five
e'le4 findlner 9,000.000/ , and in the last five years
t eased to e t‘r!, %ear, .4,000,000/.—(Cheers.) And in
43 et 71,000171. a year of severe depression,the they
k4rt, 41.4'44de ,And yet it was said that prinei-
iestott,rl tilt, 1384 failed—that we did nothing but,
" we had to purchase our imports with
hie t and cries of "Question.") The expe
was *an tvee,
neinee him
ott„years had served to co
ha nr it 4 utrainished price of food, and the gua-
qi?Pea continuance, that we must rest
tild ve_ °I increasing prosperity.—(Cheers.)
'Nes fiat `gent
keeetiee-en IaPP proposed that the House
'''matt haws - a proposal for considering the
Itiiihri,„ikpro with a view to extensive and
01 "tt p,h
thought they had arrived
411 Y en it • •
tts ' Whe 'was desirable to consider this motion
hi th.,!he eh_n he looked to the position of our colo-
pre,Pgation of the principles of free-trade
48stie 101,1 mod the state of many European coun-
Peti 11 ,4 en
freenna us the same advantages in na-
sllt orthand tthetc3iated
with them—to our reciprocity
41 ell, malt
tlb, t_ Me of conflicting claims arising
4tin the mutilated and shattered state
th r tek• on-la •
Iteec tile law it existed, he found many rea-
,4o4 w
ut° consideration. The speech
hstithe e. ja%tQbeer for Bucks had scarcely touched the.
they eNatte have shown that the relaxation
1/4114t,lfence 11-" S would diminish our means of
ffferit: at.ld endanger the national security, he
the salkittN, tb.or the II this respect from the Honourable
~Jectiet west. Riding, that a powerful, perhaps
44.4 OUrit; to be urged against sacrificing the
the " %let .° anY interest. But it was necessary for
11144 tetzeepe to ehriftt ited that view to show that these laws
kesitatie "uttietete end- The amendment called upon
114 tetilleslaspe. the fundamental principles of the
illsePowtNees 41°Pe What were those principles? The
Ithe tr oftheWler established to destroy the mai-
-10 ItitilitCh d• litchi but what was their effect?. To
tit s Q the 'Net
TT advantage over us in the inter•
44111141 t these fo `inited States.—(Hear.) Therefore
e ttile.ited strmldable competitors the whole trade
NMI() ireB-s(llear.)
• 4-
Pts Now, the principles
3 laid down /;3' A(141;"421/13'

til