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

THE SUN, _ LONDOIT, SATURDAY E

amendment was negatived without a division, and both
Bills were read a second time, and ordered to be referred
to a Select Committee.
Their Lordships adjourned at Eight o'clock until
Thursday next.
___._......---.

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 R. 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 tNoAVIGAT take any
lON-L vote upoAnWS. the subject.
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 mouths 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 fur 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 takb freights at Rio
for 575. 6d. at the same rate as the foreign vessels, when
they could run to Bahia, and get there 80s. or 90s.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the President of the
, Board of Trade had declared his belief that no risk
I 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 he estimated it by the new measure
introduced by the late Lord Sydenham, 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 tannage of American
ships amounted to 2,760,961 tons.—(Hear, hear.) But
taking his own figures, the United States ships inereased
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 the 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.—(Hear.) 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 124,135 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 •kvas
only 27,000. Therefore, when 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
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 at straws, 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 of 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, aud, consequently, would not have any delay in
freighting vessels; whereas in Jamaica the vessels might
be detained for mouths before a cargo would be ready.
The Noble Lord then read a letter address d
e to Mr.
Cooke, a broker in the City, in which it was stated that
there were American vessels in the River with 16,927
boxes of Cuba sugar, and that it was 2s. per cwt. cheaper
in consequence of being brought in foreign vessels ; but
in consequence of the navigation-laws it was not ad-

. .
NEW SOUTH WALES. i misllth. le into this country. Let those colonists who
Mr. SCOTT asked the Under-Secretary of State for ;
vie foolish enough to petition fa. the repeal of the re-
the Colonies whether a dispatch had been addressed by
\ vigat ion-laws be aware then that they would have 16,900
Earl Grey to the Governor of New South Wales, having . more boxes of Cuba sugar in the market, and 25. lower
reference to a new constitution for New South Wales, lin pi ice than they could afford to sell at.—(Hear, hear.)
and, if so, whether there was any objection to its being The Noble Lord then referred to the evidence of Mr. J.
laid before Parliament? Wila in, of Sunderland, before the Lords' Committee,
Mr. HAWES said the dispatch addressed to the who I was in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws,
Governor of New South Wales was sent with the view but at lmitted that the West Indian colonists would net
of ascertaining the opinions prevalent in the colony with get fe sight cheaper, whilst Cuba sugar could be sold from
respect to a new constitution. The Governor had ss. ts es. cheaper in the market; and observed that if,
obtained the opinions held in the colony, and much uncle r these circumstances, the colonists were in favour
other valuably iuformation on the subject, and it would of th 2 repeal of the navigation-laws, they deserved their
be extremel inconvenient to lay the papers before . fate. , The Right Hon. Gentleman made a great deal of
the House at present, as the whole object of the dis- the p stition from the City of London, but, with the ex-
patch had not yet been accomplished. Earl Grey ceptic et of the names of the Governor and Deputy-Go-
did not suggest any form of constitution, but merely in- verno e of the Bank of England, there were no names of
vited the attention of persons resident in the colony to any g, a at importance attached to it. One of the Meni-
the subject, and on a future occasion all the information hers foe • East Sornersetshire was so struck with the len-
which the Government bad received would be laid on the guage o f the petition, that it induced him to give his vote
with th e Government—and no wonder, if he believed
table of the House.
REMOVAL OF POOR. what it. contained.—(Hear, hear.) If the repeal of the
Mr. BANKES said a case had been referred to the navigts.i on-laws had the effect of pumping the ocean dry
superior courts some time since with reference to the —of st wing the nation, in some 200 years 800,000,0001.
construction to be put upon the clauses in the Poor-law in the csnployment of the poor, besides 100,000,0001.
Act as to the removal of the poor. He wished there- now si velat in the prevention of crime—all of which
fore to know whether any decision had been come to was proem sed by the petition from the City of
on the the subject by the Judges, and if not when it might those whe opposed the re
see the Noble Lord the Member
peal had a great deal to answer
be expected. for indeeti. H
Mr. BULLER said he was unable to give the Hon. for Windt ;or (Lord J. Hay) in his place. That Noble
Gentleman any information with respect to that decision, Lord joine d in the clamour raised against the captains,
1 but it would be satisfactory to the House to know that he mates, and seamen of the British merchant service, and
had received very few complaints as to the removal of bore testim.o ny to the frequency of the disputes between
the poor, and as to the doubts entertained of the mean- the captains; and the men. The Noble Lord was ready
ing of the first clause of the Act. to swear to every statement contained in the reports of
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS. the consuls, forgetting how contradictory those state
Sir G. GREY, in answer to a question from Mr. ments were in themselves. Whilst some of the consuls
Agliouby, said it was perfectly true that the Lord spoke of British seamen as most brutal, Mr. Brooker, of
Chancellor had laid a Bill on the table of the House of Cronstadt, and Mr. M`Gregor, of Elsineur, bore testi-
Lords upon the enfranchisement of copyholds, and that mony to th tir good conduct.—(Hear.) The charges
it would be proceeded with as soon as possible, consis- that were m %de against them were owing to the letter
tent with the other business of the House. of Mr. MurraT, which applied to only one side ot the
WEST INDIES. question.—(ll:ear.) A letter more calculated to liosl
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that on Fri- and slander tae British marine never issued from the
day next, the 16th, he proposed to make a state- Foreign-office. The deportment and manners of the
meat to the House of the views of the Government British seamen were not what they might be; but were
with respect to the distress now existing in the West they to conderc n the British seamen because they had
Indies, and that the first order of the day on Thursday not French an
mners, or did not possess the grace of
would be the Health of Towns Bill. the Italians,
Sicilians, and Sardinians?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said the mail for the West Indies left on Consul Baker c f New York attributed the better disci-
the 15th, and he trusted it would be delayed in order pline on board the American vessels to the fact that they
that the intentions of the Government might be carried still retained the power of corporal Lord prepared to
nishment in the
out by it. American math le. Was-sthe
advocate that sys tem 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; 19§ 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, me.tsur-
ing 16,288 toils, 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 personally 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 bad 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. Ho
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 steam-boat, 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
tonnage than all the ships engaged in our commerce with
America put together. He held in his hand a statement
of our trade with other countries, fairly compiled, and
showing only those countries the trade with which was
really protected or unprotected. The result was this,
that the really bona fide protected trade had ad-
vanced 145 per cent., whilst the unprotected trade
had only advanced 93 per. cent. Did not that prove
thit 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 emu
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?vv hy,
het
Th e
thought Rightf
ro lltmho
ens.
Righte
tro Gentlemanlk Hon.fr
e e -t
tradeal
Gentlemank e d
eolfe
m"
ochel
aardmfoohuee roe.'
been
ruri nwafted into office by clamour—(Hear, hear)—that, after
..) S awn
m ah
a seat
for the place he now represented.—
Yurely the Right Hon. Gentleman was un-
Then the Learned Doctor the Member for
(Cheers)
C nt
eei
efnru g
sl
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 hand 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 corn
p rt froin thn
nine
eh
faadr
trheidnugcse
tod thesev
epnr ifcaer
tohfi breadng s a pound,
oant
hSd t, oacnk
d-
-
p had increased the paupers in that town from 5,500 to
25,0011—(Load Protectionist cheers.) There had been
a Committee up stairs which had brought the truth out
iat 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 wages of labour. The next time the Right
nhatltemtoawnn thele MtheemboerperfoartivAelaanocfhetshteart
toGet
townwent take him by the button and beg him to
for sugar and protection for any otber articles ? The
explain what difference there was between protection
Member for South Lancashire said no one would be
Honoudroawbnle
bold enough to say that cheap corn meant cheap wages.
He (Lord G. Bentinck) remembered when the Member
for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) declared that such was its
meaning
celebrated pamphlet, and certainly expe-
perism had increased fearfully. Would any one desire
reenacneinpgro in
proved that he was right. In Manchester pau-
perism
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
M cruc see wh would
venture to put another great interest of forty millions or
more into the free-
up ? The Learned Memberible forto Boltonat
(the
d
of the
masters and mates of our merchant service, and said we
ought to examine somewhat more closely before we ap-
He (Lord G. Bentinck) thought the
P ointed them.
through the continent,
pleasure trip.
of Dr. Bowring's
t and might suggest that we
masters and mates, recolldecitilnogmetthiestecosstomtoewthhaet nation
might fairly retor ,
Woeurayp
appointed them. The Learned
had turned out anything butcorrect.
g oughte carefullyn tl
emt oa
nex
before
reportsin e
d moderate tariff. The Learned
Zollverein if we adopte a
asked for free trade. A
Gentleman in those days nevetr t
philosopher desired
He had predicted a great reduction in the duties of the
small. fixed duty was all that
rinciples. Did the Zollverein re-
adopted -free-trade p
at that time.
the contrary the Minister was
duce their duties?
On
dsof Prussia' that he threatened
Well, the Government of Sir Robert Peel
so incensed at the deman
that power with retaliatory
the paid commissioner of
Member for Bolton, therefore,d ad misled his countr
ymen.
free-trade, had misinformed retaliatory Measures. The Learned
ue t e power of tliat
reason why we should truckle to
country, but he saw no of our
and important a portion
her, or give her so larg
e equivalent concession what-
carrying trade, exacting no
carrying trade, of which
ever. Of the Cuba
As to America, he did not underval h
rice, if this measure passed,
shewna wouvledryof speedily
that of
enjoy the entire monopoly, as
that
shipping could
Porto Rico. He did not say
Great Britain now possessed seven-eighths.l Ame-
flourish without ships; but when the Manchester people
manufacturers could proceed
begged to ask them how
could, without shi s
without ships—how they
ships, 13 ' exit
talked of the dependence of ships upon manufactures, he
their raw material, or how, without export their
marine, they some seventeen illions
the way talked of cutting down
of the expenditure upon our army and upon our navy.
completed fabrics? The manufacring reformers over
Did they reflect that it they destroyed our mercantile
hence of invasion k
properly protected against the c
d conse l' ma
e
quent y to our
a large addition to our navy an
expenditure. must, if they desired to keep the country
Mr. HUNIE denied that the object of those who ad-
vocated the prisent measure was in any way to injure
the commercial marine of this country. On the contrary,
dition of that iservice than to deteriorate it. The from
Member for Bolton from
Member vindiCated the Ron. Me
it was their earnest desire rather to improve the con-