The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-25 00:00:00

V v NING'
JLA

notice that upon the expiration of existing treaties they
would be prepared to place us on more favourabhs terms.
The Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make a die-
tinction between inward and outward shipping, for the
purpose of this chsbate, contending that inward shipping
only ought to be regarded. Ho would admit that some
years ago, when we had such restrictions imposed on our
shipping as the Hoe. Member wished to revive mad to
perpetuate, his argument might have beta held good,
for then only a comparatively small part of our shipping
was outward.—(hear, hear.) The Ron, Gentlemen
would remember, hewever, thet our outward shipping
had largely increased since 1849, which most satisfac-
torily established the success of the new law. It was
quite impossible that a largo manufacturing country like
Eng,land should have as much tonnage engaged in out-
ward as in inward shipping; for the latter brought in the
large bulk of raw materiels, while the former took out
the smaller bulk of manufactured goods. The Hon.
Gentleman must also know that loss mast always go
out than previously came in. He took the average of
the three years preceding 1850, and contended that
the average of the shipping entered inwards and out-
wards in each of those years exceeded the average of
the subsequent years. Now he (iir. Wilson) found
that the Average tonnage entered inwards and
outwards in the four years preceding 1850 was 7,470,000
tons, whereas in 1850 it was 8,039,000 tone. Bet the
lion. Gentleman referred to what had taken place during
the last nine years, and endeavoured to show that during
that time there had been a smaller increase in our ex-
ports than in the preceding nine years; but he found
thet previous to 1842, the year to which tho Hon. Gen-
tleman referred, instead of there being any material in-
crease, there had been for some years a decline in our
exports rather than en increase: for in 1835 the exports
of this country were 53,000,000/., whilst in 1842
they were only 47,000,0001. [Mr. YOUNG—That watt a
year of peculiar depression.] He admitted that, but
what had been the fact since 1842? That the exports
had increased from 47,000,0001., or takiog 1843, from
52 000,000/. to 71,000,000/. in the last year. But the
lion. Gentleman did not take a fair way of making a
comparison; he took the average of the last nine years,
including the low sums at the early part of the free-tade
measures; but he would find there had been a steady
annual increase during that period; but, by taking
the averege, the Honourable Gentleman :tot rid of the
large sums at the end, It could not he denied that there
had been an increase in the last nine years unparalleled
in the history ,of any other country in the world.
The Hon. Gentleman said there had been a large increase
of foreign shipping during that period, but there had
also been, as he had shown, a great increase of British
shipping. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to America,
the only country towards which we need look with any
anxiety as to the commerce of the world; but he thought
the Hon. Gentleman had exhibited a comparison of the
commercial marine of America with that of England in
a very unfavourable light to this country; for he (Mr.
Wilson) found by an official return made to the Govern-
ment of the United States the quantity of shipping en-
tered inwards and outwards for the whole of the Ame -
rican ports and for the whole shipping of the world was
8,709,000 tons, whilst the quantity entered outwards and
inwards in this country was not less than 12,020,000
tons. How much did Hon. Gentlemen think of the
3,503,000 tons of foreign shipping in the American trade
consisted of ships belonging to this country? No less
than 3,854,000 tons, while all the rest of the world could
muster 659,000 tons only. Reference had been made to
the advantages enjoyed by America in the building of
ships as compared with this country. From the finaace
accounts it appeared that in 1848 the tonnage of ships
built in the United Kingdom was 122,000 tons; in 1849,
117,000 tons; in 1850, 133,000 tons; and, if he was
rightly informed, there was a still greater increase this
year, so far as it had gone, than there was in 1850.
With respect to the comparative ability of this coun-
try and of America to build ships, he hold in his hand a
short letter, in which the writer stated an opinion ho
had previously expressed, that, quality for quality, Bri-
tish ships could ba built cheaper than American, and,
in support of that view, he directed attention to a ship
named the Ana Dickson, which had been built at Sun-
derland, fully 10 per cent. under what it would cost to
build such a vessel in America. That letter was signed
by Mr. Aylwin, who, on his return from America,
frightened the shipowners of this country out of their
wits. The Hon. Gentleman said, what a large amount
of the tonnage of this country was tonnage of steam-
vessels ; but a steam-vessel would perform three or four
voyages for one that a sailing vessel would perform, and
the tonnage of every steam-vessel, therefore, ought to
count for the tonnage of several sailing vessels. The
Hon. Gentlemari also referred to inroads made by the
Americans on the East India trade of this country.
From accounts of tonnage outwards and inwards em-
ployed in the East India trade for the last three years, it
appeared that in 1848 there were in that trade 840,000
tons; in 1849, 928,000 tons; in 1850, when the British
East India trade was said to have been absorbed by
America, the tonnage rose to 1,015,000 tons. During
the last six menthe the tonnage of shipping inwards
and outwards in the East India trade, as compared with
the tonnage in that trade during the corresponding
six months of 1849, was 486,000 tons to 439,000
tons, showing an increase of 47,000 tons in the East
India trade alone. It further appeared from accounts
brought by the last Indian mail, that British shipping
was scarce in India, and that freights had risen from
three guineas to 41. and upwards. He believed it had
never occurred till this year that the East India Com-
pany had experienced difficulty in getting any quantity
of coals landed in India. It had been necessary to bor-
row 10,000 tons from the Oriental and Peninsular Steam-
boat Company, and to tell the Indian Government that
it must rely on arrangements to be made on the spot.
The contractors had not been able to supply the East
India Company, owing to the difficulty they had expe-
rienced in procuring vessels of suitable size to carry the
coals. With respect to the specific motion before the
House, he thought it unreasonable that only 18 months
after the new system had been introduced fault should
be found with foreign countries, because just at the mo-
ment this country changed those countries were not
ready to change. If this country refused to take the
goods of Spain, Belgium, or France, those goods might
easily be sent to Rotterdam, whence they could be ex-
ported to this country. They might make laws, but
they would only be evaded. With Sweden, Holland,
Prussia, Hamburgh, and the Hansa Towns, and above
all with the United. States of America, we had full and
entire reciprocity, and when wo enjoyed reciprocity with
the great maritime countries of the world, it was hardly
fair to select small states like Belgium and Spain in
order to mourn over the want of reciprocity with them.
He could not help deprecating the course of remark
which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had adopted
in speaking of the Dutch. He wished that every Go-
vernment had behaved as openly and as generously with
regard to the navigation-laws as the Dutch.—(Hear.)
They copied, clause by clause, our law of 1848. Con-
sidering the prejudices of the Dutch in favour of re-
taining the trade with Batavia in their own bands, he
considered they had behaved with great generosity in
opening their Batavian trade as freely as their home
trade to British ships,—(Bear.) Our vessels could go
now from Liverpool and London to Batavia as freely
as from Rotterdam, and this was a valuable privilege.
And he understood that British ships were entering into
competition with Dutch ships for the carrying trade from
Batavia to Rotterdam and Amsterdam.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Member had adverted to the trade of France, and
had read a passage from a French writer, who trusted
that his country would not follow the example of the
English nation. In 1842 the French tonnage was 3,609,000
tons, and the English 7,347,000 tons. In 1850 the French
had increased to 3,950,000 tons, being an increase of only
341,000 tons, while the English tonnage had increased to
12,020,000 tons, being an increase of 4,673,000 tons.
The enormous increase in the commerce of France dur-
ing the last few years formed the subject of a re-
cent boast by M. Thiers, who showed that the com-
merce of France had increased during the last eight
years to the extent of 19,000,0001. sterling, from which
M. Thiers drew the inference that the policy of France
was more beneficial to its commerce than that of Eng-
land. But during that period the commerce of England
bad increased in value—not the official, but the actual
value—to the extent of 67,000,0001,, and, taking the offi-
cial value, it had increased to the extent of 118,000,0001.
sterling. [Mr. HERRIES intimated that he had referred
to the French shipping.] He (Mr. Wilson) did not un-
derstand how the commerce could increase without the
tonnage increasing, and vice versa. The other day he
had sent to the Custom-house in order to see what were •
the proofs of the great competition which it was said our
shipowners had to encounter. He found that there were
at the present time loading for Asia and Africa, includ-
ing all the countries eastward of the Cape except the
Australian colonies, 52 ships, amounting to 30,899 tons,
of which only four were foreign ships, with a tonnage of
1,972 tons, and two of those were Dutch, availing
themselves of the advantage of carrying direct
from this country to Batavia the cargoes of British ma-
nufactures.—(Hear.) There were loading forour Austra-
lian colonies in the port of London 32 ships of 16,000
tons, not on© of which was a foreign ship.—(Hear,
hear.) The whole number of British ships loading in the
port of London was 179, with a tonnage of 67,512 tons,
while the number of foreign ships was 82, with a tonnage
of 15,000 tons, almost the whole of which traded to the
Baltic, and on short voyages, while the long voyage
trade was still kept by British ships.—(Hear, hear.) The
name of Mr. Dunbar had been referred te, but a recent
letter of that gentleman's published within the last fort-
night, showed that he was not at all favourable to going
back to the former system of protection. He would
admit that a considerable portion of the shipowners were
suffering distress, especiaily those in the small ports who
were engaged in the coasting trade. But how did that
distress arise? The other day a man came to him from
Hastings, and said he was ruined. He used to have four
ships sailing from Hastings to London, but now he found
that the railway was taking all the goods. The inland
coal trade was also operating on the colliers of Newcastle
and the northern ports. There was no denying the
existence of a rapidly increasing competition in the
shipping trade, but that was a competition between
British owners, and not between the British and
foreign owner. There was, for example, a com-
petition between London and Liverpool. Man-
chester goods were brought to London by railway,
and thence shipped to Calcutta, and this naturally
caused dissatisfaction in Liverpool; but this was a com-
petition between Englishmen and Englishmen, and not
between Englishmen and foreigners.—(Hear, ear.) It
had been proved before the Committee sitting on steam
communication with the East, that the shipbuilding was
in a state of great activity—that no builder would bind
himself to time with regard to steam-ships, on account
of the abundance of work, and that from the same cause
the workmen had become exceedingly troublesome.—
(Hear, hear.) In every great change there were some
individuals inconvenienced; and he had no doubt that
small shipowners had been injured in this case; but,
looked at as a whole—considering the great increase of
our American trade, the increasing trade in our building
yards, and other prosperous symptoms, he thought the
kSouse should pause before they adopted any princi-

JULY

pie of retaliation, or had recourse to the old exploded
system with which the country had so long been bur-
dened.—(bear, hear.)

j Mr. DisnikELl thought no apology was necessa-y on
1 the part of his Right lion. Friend who had introduced
I the amendment for recalling the consideration of the
House to the state of an important class of national in-
dustry; and, whatever might be the opinion entertained
respecting the causes of the distress or depression of
any considerable portion of her Majesty's subjects en •
gaged in any kiud of trade, he could not but think it
extremely impolitic that Parliament, alter sitting six
months, should prorogue and decline considering the
oecesiou of that depression or distress.—(Hear, hear.)
Whatever might be the opinion of the policy or ira-
policy of any lows that House might have passed, or
abrogated, without reference to their influence on any
particular branch of industry, surely no one would
maintain but that it was in the highest degree impolitic
—that, whatever difference of opinion there might be,
there should at least be one point on which all should
agree, viz,, that the House of Commons was the tribunal
to which the complaints of that suffering branch should
be addressed, and where; if possible, a remedy should be
devised.—(Hear, hear.) No one would pretend that the
state of the shipping interest was one of prosperity.
(Hear, hear.) They might account for the distress and
depression that existed—they Might offer reasons for
the distress that was acknowledged—they might say
that the industry affected was in a state of transition
—but they could not deny that it was now in a pe-
culiar position, or contradict the assertion that it was
suffering from the experience of their novel legisla-
tion,—(Hear.) And he begged to remind the House of
the peculiarity in the condition of the shipping in-
terest, that took it out from all those other branches
of industry that might be suffering depression.
There was-acknowledged to be a considerable dimi-
nution is the profits of capital employed in that in-
dustry, attended, nt the same time, by a diminution of
the means of employing labour.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
in all other instances—take the case so frequently, and
perhaps unnecessarily, referred to that night, the ease of
the agricultural intere,t—they were always told that it
was acknowledged there was a great diminution of the
profits of the capital invested in that industry; but no
one could pretend that the employment of the labour of
that industry was proportioned, or at all diminished to
the extent, of the loss of profit. They acknowledged
that the owner of the land might not receive the same
return for his capital as before, bat they could not deny
Elms.; the labour on the land was well employed and well
paid; and they often referred with triumph, and some
plausibility, to the returns supplied by tee Poor-law
Board, as proof of the fact.—(Bear, hear.) But in the
case of the shipping interest, while the profits on espital
were diminished, the means of employing labour were
diminshed also.—(Hear, hear.) And it was acknow-
ledged that there was a dimunition in that power of up-
wards of 500,000 tons as regarded the employment of
British shipping—(Hear, hear.) He had no doubt
,that
in this, as in other instances, they had been too precipi-
tate—that they had been too hasty in the course they
had pursued, He had no doubt that in the case of
the shipping, as in that of the agricultural interest,
they ought not to have recourse to any rash, violent
revision, but that they should have recourse to those re-
medial, those equitable, and those countervailing mea-
sures that the circumstances of the case required, and
which they ought to have well considered before they
embarked in the path they had so rashly pursued.—
(Hear.) What was the amendment proposed by his
Right Hon. Friend? It was not an amendment that
called in question the policy of repealing or maintain-
ing the navigation-laws. It was, on the contrary, a
measure which in the very law passed by the Govern-
ment that repealed those laws was suggested as a re-
medial measure, to be had recourse to if the shipping in-
terest of this country found they were exposed to undue
foreign competition. And, he must say, nothing had
more amused him in the course of this debate—if, on
a subject so serious, when so much was at stake, and
when British capital was so much suffering,
anything could be amusing—than the mode in
which this clause referred to in the amend-
ment had been treated by her Majesty's
Ministers. The amendment of his Right Honourable
Friend was, " that an address be presented to her Ma-
jesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to di-
rect the proper steps to be. taken for giving effect to
those provisions of the Act of the 12th and 13th of Vic-
toria, chap. 29, for the repeal of the navigation-laws,
whereby her Majesty is empowered to adopt towards
any foreign country to which a preference is given, di-
rectly or indirectly, to national vessels over British ves-
sels, such measures as may appear to her Majesty justly
to countervail the disadvantages to which British trade
and navigation is so subjected." This was the amend-
ment, and the President of the Board of Trade rose and
informed them in the most authoritative manner that at
this moment negotiations were pursuing with no less
than three powers, in order to obtain for the suffering
British shipowner the advantages that might be supplied
by the prescient and provident clause which had been
forced on her Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) No
doubt the Noble Lord the Secretary of State had only
very recently employed a part of his much occupied and
anxious time in penning dispatches, the object of which
was to obtain for the British shipowner the effect of
this salutary provision. But what said the Honourable
Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Con-
trol ? Disregarding the solemn announcement
of a Cabinet Minister, that up to this moment
negotiations had been prosecuted with three powers—
forgetting the presence of the very Secretary of State who
had the conducting of these negotiations, the Secretary
of the Board of Control, not in the secrets of the Cabinet,
came forward to deride the clause, described it as one ab-
solutely absurd, and as one with which it was impossible
to effect anything.—(Hear.) But if it was absurd, if it
was utterly useless, if, under all the circumstances, it
was inefficient, how could he vindicate the statement of
she President of the Board of Trade, or justify tho la-
bours of the Noble Lord?—(Hear, hear.) Now, he was
got of the opinion of the Secretary of the Board of Con-
trol. He had more confidence in her Majesty's Go-
vernment than a subordinate member of that Government
appeared to possess.—(A. laugh.) He had faith in the
Right lion. the President of the Board of Trade and th©
Noble Lord; he gave them credit for their intentions,
and he believed they had confidence in the policy they
were pursuing. Nor, after what had occurred only re-
cently in that House, could he bring himself to believe that
the policy indicated in this clause was anything but an ef-
ficient and salutary one. It must be in the recollection
of many gentlemen that a petition was presented not
long ago by the Hon. Member for Huntingdon from the
merchants and shipowners employed in the trade of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It was signed by every
mercantile firm almost in the country connected with
that trade, having appended to it the names of about
150 firms in London, Liverpool, Bristol, Poole, Tyne-
mouth, and other ports. And what was the statement
of that petition ? It was stated that the whole of the
fish trade from Newfoundland and Labrador was fast
leaving this country, and that the Spanish Government
imposed a differential duty on imported cod fish as be-
tween British and Spanish vessels of not less than 3s.
per cwt. The effect had been, that whereas, in 1841,
eight Spanish ships imported into Spain 20,000 cwt. of
fish, there were, in 1851, sixty-four Spanish ships which
imported 150,000 cwt., and to that extent proportionally
the trade had left English merchants and English ship-
ping.—(Hear, hear.) Why not, then, seek in those pro-
visions of the Act for the repeal of the navigation•laws
that remedy which, he supposed, it was sincerely, in-
tended to secure to British shipowners ? The Noble
Lord opposite knew that, in 1837, when Portugal levied
a higher duty on English ships as compared with Portu-
guese ships, recourse was had, under the old Act of Wil-
liam IV., to retaliation, and that then Portugal repealed
the higher duty, and British ships were placed on the
same terms as the shipping of that country. But as to
the course now to be pursued, he confessed he took a
different view, perhaps, from that of some of his friends
who had already spoken. If they were called on to dis-
cuss the policy or impolicy of repealing the navigation-
laws, he would for himself say, under all circumstances,
and at every opportunity, that that repeal was a hasty,
ill-considered, and perilous measure ; but that was not
the question before the House that night. The amend-
ment proposed by his Right Honourable Friend (Mr.
Herries) referred to the retaliatory provisions of the
Act of Victoria. He admitted,with the Secretary of the
Board of Control that the retaliatory clause was one
full of difficulty ; but it was framed in the way in which
it stood from no want of warning. The Government
were told from that (the Opposition) side of the House
that it was not wise to part with the power they possessed.
and that they should hold out to other countries that
the boon would be conceded to them for a fair equi-
valent. But, notwithstanding all warnings, the Govern-
ment thought fit to frame the clause as it stood, and
they were responsible for the difficulties now encountered
so graphically described by the Secretary of the Board
of Control. The Government were also responsible for
the duty of securing to the country those benefits which
that clause was intended to convey. Let him then re-
mind the House of the difficulty which had occurred
with respect to the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend
since the debate commenced. Ministers had announced
that under the clause in question they were engaged in
active negotiations with three powers. Under those cir-
cumstances he did not see how his Right Hon. Friend
the Member for Stamford could press to a division a
motion which might interfere with those negotiations.
Under these circumstances he thought his Right Hon.
Friend, having obtained a fall discussion of the question
—(Cries of " Oh, oh!") He had no doubt that gentle-
men on the back benohes on the Ministerial side of the
House, who were not in office, and therefore not respon-
sible were prepared for anything, even for interference
with negotiations now being prosecuted; but the Oppo-
sition had some responsibility.—(oh, oh.) Therefore,
when the Government virtually stated that the proposed
amendment would interfere with negotiations with three
powers, he could not see how, after that, the amendment
could be proceeded with, and he hoped his Right Hon.
Friend would not press his amendment to a division.
Colonel THOMPSON said, that when Honourable
Members opposite talked of British industry suffering,
they seemed to forget that his constituents were en-
gaged in British industry; and that any restriction on the
freedom of commercial communication would be an in-
jury inflicted on them.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not understand, after the
speech of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with
what view the amendment had been brought forward.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said with great
truth and justice, that when the Government was en-
gaged in negotiations it was not fitting, without some
ground of distrust, to take those negotiations out of the
hands of the Government, or to interrupt or prescribe
their course. That argument was quite conclusive ;
but as there had been a question already before
the House with regard to Spain, the Honourable
Gentleman could not be ignorant that negotiations
were going on, and yet, after some weeks of prepara-
tion, and grand and magniloquent announcements, it was
now, for the first time, discovered to be improper to in-
terfere with pending negotiations,—(Hear, !leer.) rho ,

185 •

whole argument of Hon. Gentlemen opposite was an
attempt to prove that the Legislature had done wrong in
modifying the navigation-laws; but it they were satin-
lied that they had received a complete answer—that
their whole case had broken down, and that all statistics
and investigation proved that they were completely in
error, ho was glad to find that that confession on their
part was about to be ratified, and recorded by a deci-
sion cf that Hause.—(eheers.) •
After some observations from Mr. WAWN, who spoke,
we believe. in favour of the amendment, and from Mr.
MUNTZ, who protested against the supposition that be-
cause a man was doing a great deal of business he must
necessarily be prosperous, niad who asked the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer why he did not carry out his
principles, and take the duty off tin, the galleries were
cleared for a division, as several Members on the Minis-
terial side objected to the withdrawal of the amendment,
but no division took place, and the •amendment was
afterwards by leave withdrawn.
On the question that the Customs Bill be then read a
third time, •

Mr. RuNTZ said he wished to know why the inquiry
which he put had not been answered?
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the subject was
one well worthy of consideration, but at that period of
the session it could not be advantageously discussed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON then said that he wished to
make a statement respecting the claims of persons inte-
rested in Wept India sugar, the nature of which stete-
ment was intimately connected with the Bill then before
them.
Lord J. RUSSELL complained of such a course being
then taken.
Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that he was taking any
unfair advantage, nod said, as they were not then dis-
posed to hear his statement, he should move that the de-
oate be adjourned.
Mr. C ARDWELL stated that his Hon. Friend wished
Si bee, under the notice of the House the case of the
West India proprietors and others who desired to re-
fine sugar is bond, and though that was a matter of
considerable moment, he could not reconcile it to him-
self to stop the progress of so very important a Bill as
that which then stood for a third reading.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the adjournmeat ~,, 50
Againsr it; ... 158
Mej ori ty —lOB
On our return to the gallery wo found Mr.DISRAELI
compleinieg that Lord John Russell should hove stated
that the whole night had been wasted in a fruitless dis-
cussion. He, on the contrary, considered that the sub-
ject which his Right Hon. Friend had brought forward
was one which deserved the discussion which it had re-
ceived. The subject also which the Hon. Baronet (Sir
J. Pakington) wished to have discussed was one of great
interest and importance, and was very germane to the
matter of the Bill before the House. He protested
against the tone used by the Minister on this occasion.
The House had something else to do than pass the mea-
sures of the Administration; and he hoped the Noble
Lord would, upon reflection, do all he could to accom-
modate his Hon. Friend in briuging forward his motion
on the subject of colonial sugar.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not
the least objection to the motion of the Hon. Baronet
being brought forward, but, the Bill now before the
House not having met with any opposition up to its
present stage, he thought it would be very inconvenient
to stop its progress now at the third reading. He had
received many complaints from persons who were suffer-
ing from the delay which had already occurred in the
passing of the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL explained that he did not say
that the night had been wasted. What he said was that
the night had been occupied.
After a few words, which wore quite inaudible,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that in moving the ad-
journment, of the House, which ho should now do, it
was not his wish to. interpose any unnecessary delay,
bat he did so to have an opportunity of again appealing
to the Noble Lord to comply with the request he had
made, and to allow the third reading to be taken to
morrow, as ho (Sir J. Pakington) was anxious to have
a debate on his motion before the Bill should be read a
third time.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Bill had already been de-
layed a considerable time, and he could not consent to
postpone the third reading.
After a short conversation, the House divided, when
there appeared—
For the adjournment ... ... 22
Against it ... . ... 146
Majority -124
_•••_._ • • _

The Customs' Bill, the Militia Pay Bill, and the Ge-
neral Board of Health (No. 2) Bill, were each read a third
time and passed.
METROPOLITAN SEWERS.

Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the second reading of the Metropolitan Sewers Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON hoped he might be allowed,
during the progress of the Bill, to repel the =just at-
tacks which had been made upon him and his brother
Commissioners.—(" Oh!" and laughter.)
Captain FITZROY complained of the unfair course
which the Government had taken with respect to this
question. Three months ago he asked the Secretary for
the Home Department to state the nature of the Bill
which they intended to introduce, but could obtain no
satisfactory answer. Since then he had repeated his ap-
peal again and again unsuccessfully. He always sus-
pected that Government would introduce a Bill for con-
tinuinn, the Commission at the end of July, when it
would be impossible for the ratepayers of the metropolis
to offer c ffectual opposition to it, and that was precisely
the course which had been pursued.—(Hear, hear.) The
Commissioners had shown the greatest inaptitude for
business, and the consequence had been the wasting of
the lunch.. Three-Bftbs of the rates had been consumed
by the Commission. [Lord EBIIINGTON—" No."] The
fact was stated in a petition from the ratepayers of St.
James's, presented two.years ago; it had never been
contradicted, and he defied the Noble Lord to refute it.
The ratepayers were now by this Bill to be saddled with
the additional expense of 1,0001. a year for the Chief
Commissioner. The only consolation they derived under
the circumstances was from the fact that the Chief Com-
missioner was not to be a Member of the House, and
tharefore there was a probability of his being a man of
business.—(A laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the object of the present Bill was simply to continue the
Commission for the shortest possible time, and to do as
little as possible. His Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) a
short time ago stated to the House that he hoped the in-
quiry now being carried on before the Committee on the
supply of water to the metropolis, might lead to some
arrangement with respect both to the water and the
sewers which would be much more satisfactory to the in-
habitants of the metropolis. Looking at the possibility
of such an arrangement proceeding from that Committee,
his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the
home Department thought it advisable to postpone the
introduction of a Bill on the subject in order to see what
the Committee would recommend. The Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee however,
having stated that there was no probability of the Com-
mittee reporting before the end of the session, the Go-
vernment had thoughtit right to bring in a Bill continu-
ing the present Commission for one year only, in order
to leave it open to them to introduce any change they
might think necessary in the system of administration
in the course of another year, and in the meantime
making such amendments in the constitution of the board
as would make it work a great deal better; but doing as
little as was consistent with that object.—(Hear.) The
principal amendment proposed by this Bill was to give
power to appoint a paid chairman who was not a Mem-
ber of Parliament, and upon whom it would be obliga-
tory to attend all meetings of the board, which, he
thought, would be a great improvement. He hoped,
therefore, the House would agree to the second reading
of the Bill now and go into Committee on Monday.
Sir B. HALL said he could allow nothing of the sort.
The subject must be discussed before allowing the Bill
to proceed further.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord D. STUART denounced the attempt to smuggle
through the second reading of the Bill at that late hour
as exceedingly imprudent.
Mr. WASLEY said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
talked of the Bill doing as little as possible. Did he
consider it doing little to continue for another year a
public nuisance? For it was a nuisance affecting the
whole metropolis. The fact was that the public wished
the Commissioners were at the bottom of their own
sewers.—(Laughter.)
Lord EBRINGTON said it would be in the recollec-
tion of the House that he had over and over again chal-
lenged Hon. Membera to bring forward this question in
a form in which it might be fully discussed. He repeated
that challenge now, and would be ready to meet his ac-
cusers whenever the House gave him an opportunity.
The Bill was at length read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed on Tuesday, at Twelve.
The Sheep, Sec., Contagious Disorders Preventive Bill
was read a second time; as was also the Commissioners
of Railways Act Repeal Bill.
The Representative Peers for Scotland Bill was read
a second time.
Mr. HAWES moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the arrangement of claims of the New Zealand Company
on the Crown, and for regulating the affairs of certain
settlements established by the said company in New
Zealand. The object of the Bill, as we understood the
Hon. Member, was to convert the lien of the New Zea-
land Company upon the land funds of the colony into a
lien upon the general revenues of the colony, imme-
diately after the civil list.
Mr. GLADSTONE considered that as this was a mea-
sure involving a grant of money, because it created a
charge upon a public fund, it ought, in conformity with
the rules of the House, to be introduced in a Committee
of the whole House. He objected to the Bill becaast! ht
proposed that Parliament should saddle the colony with
~.
a charge upon its general revenues in a manner, 8811
ceoe-
lieved, quite without precedent in the history ourf
lonial legislation, at variance with the pled geand most
merit had given to the colonies on the subke
dangerous to to the connexion between the colonies and the
mother country.
The SPEAKER was of opinion that the Bill should
originate in a Committee of the whole House.
The motion was, therefore, withdrawn, and notice
given (we believe) of moving foraCboemfomreitTteherethe o is,cdlaoyek..
The House a Quarter

ExcE•-0a 'Dravida Lord
TEE LAW Or rD- ' y
Brougham's Bill, as amended in Committee of the House of
A new clause has been added to
Comm ons, was printed.
save expense in criminal prosecutions, by allowing a copy of
a former conviction, for which 6s. Bd. is to be paid, to be
received in evidence. The principle of this Bill, which will
in a short time become an Act of Parliament, is to admit
parties to suits in the superior courts to be examined as wit-
nesses in court. If a party is to be examined on his own be-
half, he must give prior notice to the opposite side. Such
examination is not to be allowed in cases of adultery or
breach of promise of marriage.

The Earl Fitzwilliana appears as a petitioner in the
Encumbered Estates Court for the purpose of selling a pro-
perty in the King'4 County.

Sligo

PA RLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 22.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
NON-CONTENTS.
Leitrim Dormer
Nelson Kinnaird
St. Germans Lovat
Wicklow Manners
VISCOUNTS. Monteagle
Canning Petre
Gage Stourton
Suffield
Vaux
Wharncliffe

DUKE.
Newcastle

MARQUISES.
Drogheda
Heaufort

EAULS

Aberdeen
Bruce
Charlemont
Delawarr
Fingal'

DUKE,

Leeds

MARQUIS.

EAJLS.

Kemnare

BARONS.

Ashburton
Arandell

PROXIFS.
Limerick De Tabley
VISCOUNT. Denman
Massaroeue Dunfermline
sAucuis. Stafford
Brougham Stuart de Decies
Carew

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

THURSDAY, JULY 24.
MEDICAL. CHARITIES ( IRELAND ) BILL.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Clause 6 (guardians of unions to divide them into die
pensary districts) :—Amendment proposed, at the end of the
Clause, to add the following Proviso :—" Provided always,
that in every dispensary district and other charity where
only one medical officer shall be appointed, every such officer
shall be required to possess the qualification of either phy-
sician' or of apothecary and surgeon :'—Question put,
" That the proviso b 3 there added." The Committee
divided:—

MINORITY-AYES, G.
Banlies, George O'Brien, Sir Lucius
Chichester, Lord J. Scully, Francis
Braga'', W. H. Sonic' s, J. P.

TELLERS.
Reynolds, John
Whiteside, James

MAJORITY-NOES, 65.

Claus:: 7 (Dispensary Committees) :—Amendment pro-
posed, in page 4, line 3, after the word " therein," to insert
the words - and subscribers of one pound annually, or donors
twenty pounds, resident in the district:" -- Question put,
That those words be there inserted." The Committee
divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 27.
Barrington, Viscount Dunne, Colonel Mailings, J. R.
Bowles, Admiral Ferguson, Sir R. Naas, Lord
Brooke, Sir A. B.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. O'Brien, Sir Luchis
Burrell, Sir C. Frewen, C. H. Spooner, Pilchard
Chichester, Lord J. Hamilton, Geo. A. Stafford, Augusta
Child, Smith Hamilton, J. 11, Verner, Sir W.
Conolly,Thomas Hayes, it E. Whiteside. Jaree3
Corry, Henry Jones, captain TELLEu.9.
Lockhart, ly,
Maxwell, J. P. Vesey, Hon. T.
Herbert, Henry A.
DDuncan,enison LO' dineorimged

UAJORITY—NOES, 33.
Armstrong, R. B. Hatchell, John Power, Dr.
Bell, Jacob Henry, Alexander Rich, Henry.
Booth, Sir R. G. Hobhouse, T. B. Roche, E. B.
Brocklehurst, J. Hodges, T. L. Scobell, Captain
Clements, C. S. Johnstone, Sir J. scull, prancis
Cockburn, Sir A. Johnstone, James Seymour, Lord
Corbally, M. E. M'Cullagh, W. T. Somers, ,T, p.
Cowper, W. F. Megan, NV . 11. Somerville, Sir W.
Crawford, W. S.
Divett, E. Monsell, William Thompson, Colonel
Morris, David Hawn, J. T.
Fortescue, Chichester Muntz, G. F.
Goold, Wyndham Norreys, Sir D.
Greene, John Ogle, S. C.
Grenfell, Charles W. Plowden, W. H.

TELLERS.
Bellew, R. M.
Lewis, G. C.

CUSTOMS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read; Motion made, and. Qnes.
tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a third time
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That"
to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an
humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that
she will be graciously pleased to direct the proper steps to be
taken for giving effect to those provisions of the Act 12 and
13 Vic., c. 23 (for the repeal of the navigation-laws), whereby
her Majesty is empowered to adopt towards any foreign
country, in which a preference is given, directly or indirectly,
to national vessels over British vessels, such measures as may
appear to her Majesty justly to countervail the disadvan-
tages to which British trade and navigation is so subjected,"
instead thereof: —Question, " That the words proposed to be
left out stand part of the question," put, and agreed to
Question again proposed, " That the Bill be now read the
third time ;" Debate arising; Motion made, and Question
put, " That the Debate be now adjourned." The House
divided :

MINORITY—AYES, 50.
Goold, Wyndham Sibthorp, Colonel
Grogan, Edward Somerset, Captain
Gwyn, Howel Spooner, Richard
Hamilton, G. A. Stafford, Augustus
Hamilton, J. U. Stanford, J. F.
Henley, J. W. Taylor, Colonel
llerries, J. C. Verner, Sir W.
Hudson, George Vyse, R. H.
Knox, Colonel Waddington, David
Lennox, Lord A. Waddington, H. S.
Manners, Lord C. Whiteside, James
Maxwell, How J. P. Williams, T. P.
Mullings, J. R. Willoughby, Sir H.
Napier Joseph Young, G. F.
Noel, G. J.
Packe, C. W.
Renton, J. C.
Sandars, G.

Archdall, Captain
Baldock, E. H.
Bankes, G.
Baring, Thomas
Barrow, W. H.
Beresford, William
Blandford, Marquis
Booth, Sir It. G.
Buller, Sir Y.

Burrell, Sir:C.

Clive, H. B.
Cobbold, J. C.

Codrington, Sir W.
Disraeli, B.

Dunne,tolonel
Edwards, Henry
Fox, S. L.

TELL.
Newdegate, C. N.
Pakington. Sir J.

Gasiell, J. M.

kbdY. Sir T. N.
Acland, Sir T. D.
Adair, Hugh E.
Aglionby, H. A.
Anderson, Arthur
Anson, Colonel
Armstrong, Sir A.
Armstrong, It. B.
Baines, M. T.
Baring, Sir Francis
]lass, M. T.
Bell, Jacob
Bellow, it. H.

MAJORITY—NOES, 158.
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Osborne, Ralph
Fitzroy, Henry Owen, Sir John "
Forster; Matthew Paget, Lord A.
Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord ClarenCe
Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, VIA.
Geach, Charles ?arker, John
Gibson, T. M. echell, Sir G.
Gladstone, W. E. Pigott, Francis
Goulbuni, Henry Pilkington, James
Graham, Sir James Pinney, William
Greaten, C. Pascoe Ponsonby, C. F.
Grenfell, Charles W. Power, Dr.
Grey, Ralph Wm. Price, Sir Robert
Hall, Sir B. Pusey, Philip
Hastie, Alexander Ricardo, J. L.
Hatchell, John Ricardo, Osman
Hawes, Benj. Rich, Henry
Hayes, Sir E. Robartes, T. J.
Ileadlain, T. E. Romilly, Colonel
Herbert, Sydney Rumbold, C. E.
Heywood, James Russell, Lord John
ilindloY, Charles Russell, F. C.
Ilobbouse, T. B. Scholeteld, William
Ilodges, T. L. Scobell, Captain
Holland, Robert Scrope, G. P.
Howard, C. W. G. Seymour, Lord
Hutt, William Smith, Vernon
Jerilyn, Earl Smith, J. A.
Johnstone, James Somers, J. P.
Kershaw, James Somerville, Sir W.
Labouchere, Henry Spearman, H. J.
Langston, J. H. Strickland, Sir G.
Legh, G. C. Stuart, Lord D.
Lewis, G. C. Stuart, Lord J.
Lindsay, Colonel Thompson, Colonel
Littleton, E. H. Thornely, Thomas
Locke, Joseph Tufnell, H.
Lockhart, A. E. Villiers, Charles
11`Cullagh , W. T. Wakley, T.
M'Gregor, John Walmaley, Sir J.
Magan, W. H. Wawa, J. T.
Mangles, B. D. Westhead, J. P.
Martin, John Willyams, H.
Martin, C. W. Williamson, Sir 11.
Matheson, A. Wilson, James
Matheson, Colonel Wilson, Matthew
Melguad, Viscount Wood, Sir Charles
Milner, W. M. Wood, Sir W. P.
Mitchell, T. A. Wyviil, Marmaduke
Moffatt, George Young, Sir John
Mostyn, E. M.
Murphy, F. S.
O'Connell, M. J.
Ogle, S. C.

Berkeley, Henry F.
Berkeley, C. L. G.
Bernal, Ralph

Bouverie,:E. P.
Boyle, Colonel
Bright, John

Brocklehurst, John
Brotherton, J.

Brown, W.

Bruce, Lord E.
Bunbury, E. H.
Butler, P. S.

Buxton, Sir E.
Cardwell, Edward
Carew, W. H. P.
Carter, J. B.
Cavendish, C. C.
Chart oris. Francis
Cholmeley, Sir M.
Clements, Charles
Cobden, Richard
Cockburn, Sir A.
Cocks, T. S.

Collins, T.
Cowper, W. F.
Craig, Sir W. G.
Dawes, Edward
Denison, J. E.
D'Eyncourt, T.
Drumlanrig, Vis.
Duncan, George
Dundas, Admiral
Dundas, Sir D.
Ebrington, Lord
Ellis, John
Elliot, John E.
Estcourt, J. B. B.
Evans, John
Ewart, William
Ferguson, Colonel
Ferguson, Sir B.

TELLERS.
Hayter, W. G.
Hill, Lord Marotta

MEDICAL COMBINATIONS AGAINST
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
There has long been a feud between certain of the
Life Insurance Companies and the members of the
medical profession. The latter object to answer with..
out a fee the queries propounded to them by the in-
surance companies touching the health of those of
their patients who may seek to ensure their lives, and
some of the insurance companies object to the pay-
ment of any fee. This pamphlet is a statement of
the case of the insurance companies. Now it strikes
us that the case lies in a nutshell. Who are the
parties deriving benefit from the information furnished
by the medical men ? Clearly, if any party, it is the
insurance company ; and therefore, if the informa-
tion is valuable, it ought to be paid for ; if of no
value (which nine times out of ten we believe to
be the case) it ought not to be sought. Suppose, in-
stead of an insurance of a life, it were proposed to
insure a title, would any office think of asking the
opinion of a lawyer without giving him a fee?
Neither ought it to ask the professional opinion of a
medical man without also tendering him his hono-
rarium. The source of the squabble seems to be
that the insurance offices make it a rule to apPI I w
the medical attendant in every instance, and .theen
when they get information which is valueless o tn__7,
. fii:
object to pay for it ; whereas if they were c
these queries to the medical attendants of fart'
of this
siring to insure, only in cases in which SIICO -inf
porornf3eas:
f the fee
tion is really required, the payment
swioonuldwboeulndo
bgeresauttisbfiusdrd;enin,
dasnedd:tthhwee.nlirsdiiitemnralilar
eon.
pamphlet seems to come to a some n 6
elusion, for he suggests— ti. 0 sfied in every ease
trod in its amount by the en-
" That if medical men wo?vliansr
a personal examination,
be entered into, as
of a reference tq them,
with a reasonable fee regulated
to
tent of the transaction
la/submit to the charge;—which
ance companies serious injury to the assured,
they might do without serious
undistinguishin f f
g es o a
But if the extraroglidemanded in
should
every case then the
fall back
. justupon the remedy which
companies oll?I'd own hands—thatof d .d.
eel mg on cases
guinea is still to be
they hold in n.
attendants'
Ost infinitesimally small,
reports. Experience
has pro.-- . 5 would incursb
but a trifling additional risk
and oomP.'nie and • •
without
‘Atheinteisoredviaclaule
sing rejecting proposals without them."
bY weeP • h
Wire concur with him in his estimate of the infinitesi-
mally small value of these reports in the majority of
instances, and would suggest that, as what is not
worth paying for is not worth having, companies
should for the future abstain from requiring such
reports.

c, A DVERTISE3IENT.:I—LIVER COMPLAINTS, JAUN-
Dic&c.—The whole host of denominateddisordersof liver
complaints may be attributed to cold, s
aniety,an
exer-
cise, spirituous drinks, excessive use of mercury, &c. The
causes act powerfully on the liver, and obstruct the due per-
formance of its natural functions and secretions, and the
healthy action of the liver is of such vital importance to the
general health,.that these interruptions, if not attended to,
too often terminate fatally. Should jaundice occur, it serves
to remove all doubts with respect to this disease. Two or
three of Old Parr's Life Pills every night for a few weeks
will restore the patient to perfect health. The causes of
these diseases are before specified, which, as a matter of
course, should be carefully avoided.—Sold by Messrs. Bar-
clay and Sons, Farringdon-street ; Edwards, St. Paul's
Church-yard; Sutton and Co., Bow Church-yard ; Sanger,
151, Oxford-street; and Hannay and Co., Oxford-street.
ST. GEORGE'S, HANOVER-SQUARE.--At a vestry
meeting of this parish, held yesterday in the board-room of
the workhouse, Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, the Rev. B.
Howarth in the chair, it was resolved to oppose the altera-
tions proposed in the Metropolis Buildings Bill and the Bill
for the reconstruction of the Sewers Commission now before
Parliament. Petitions were adopted accordingly, to be pre-
sented by the Members for Westminster.