should merely observe, that Norway did not consume so much of our manufactures as Russia; and that consideration certainly entitled the latter to a greater degree of favour [Hear, hear!]. The inclination of his mind was, to support the proposition before the committee, as pointing out the rate of duties most likely to answer the end desired. It was surely more safe for the House to abide by the decision of a committee which had examined the subject for weeks together, than to be guided by cursory remarks in the speeches of hon. members. Mr. Ricardo said, he was anxious to deliver his opinion on the present proposition, as it involved a principle of infinitely greater importance than the question immediately under consideration. They had been told that they ought to go to the best and cheapest market, and also that the timber of Norway and Russia was better and cheaper than that of America; and yet they were recommended as a practical measure, to take the worst timber at the dearest rate! His hon. friend (Mr. Bennet), in a speech full of the Soundest argument, and as yet totally unanswered by the gentlemen opposite, had shown, in the most convincing manner, that by buying our timber from the north ern powers of Europe, we should save 400,000l. annually on the purchase of that article, and consequently that we were yearly incurring a debt to that amount, in order to put this money into the pockets of the ship-owners. If a bill were introduced for the specific and avowed purpose of granting a sum to that amount to the ship-owners, he would much rather agree to it than to the resolutions now before the committee, for in that case the capital thus given to them might be more usefully employed. At present it was a total sacrifice of 400,000l. a year, as much so as if the ships engaged in the coasting trade should be obliged to sail round the island in order to give employment to a greater number. He was of opinion that, according to the true principles of commerce, it ought to form no part of the consumer's consideration to enter into the distribution by the seller, of the money or labour which he (the consumer) exchanged for any commodity which he wanted. All the consumer had to consider was, where he could get the article he wanted cheapest; whether the payments were to be made in money or manufactures was matter quite of minor importance. In this, as in all other branches of commercial policy, it was useless to urge partial views in behalf of one set of men or another. That House ought not to look to the right or the left, but consider merely how the people of England, as a body, could best employ their capital and labour. Wrong notions of commercial policy had too long prevailed; and now that the country had begun to recognize sounder principles, the sooner they acted upon them the better. There were exceptions to be made in cases of very old established arrangements; but this American trade was not one of them: was of new date, and mainly sprung out of a quarrel between England and the Baltic powers: it was then said that the latter would withhold her timber, and that the colonial trade must necessarily be encouraged in Canada. What once occurred, might again happen it was said.. Well, then, his reply was if ever it should happen, it would be time enough to pay the high price: at present let more economical arrangements be attempted. It was strange that inconsistency always marked the progress of monopolists. One set of men now called out for this colonial trade in behalf of the shipping interest, and the very same set of men, if they were spoken to about the West India Dock system, would call it partial and oppressive. So, respecting the Irish linen monopoly, it was said, why not be allowed to go to Germany, where the same manufacture might be had cheaper? He certainly concurred in the hon. baronet's view of this question. Mr. Marryat said: I have listened with great attention to the discussion before the committee, and more particularly to the doctrines of our new school of political economists; but must confess that they have produced very little conviction on my mind. Hitherto ships, colonies, and commerce have been considered as inseparably connected with each other; but, according to the new system, we are to sacrifice our ships and colonies, in order that our commerce may go on the better without them. Whenever these philosophers will illustrate their theory by experimental proof; if, for example, they will take off two legs from a three-legged stool, and make it stand on the remaining one leg more firmly than it before did on all the three, then, but not till then, will I. become one of their disciples. Our trade with our own colonies and in our own ships, we can always call our own, be- we have prospered under them, and have eause we hold it independent of the will risen to the greatest height of commercial of foreign powers; but in trusting to a prosperity and naval power that ever was trade with foreign nations we are leaning attained by any nation. To argue otheron a broken reed. Have we already for- wise, is to deny the existence of cause gotten the continental system, which last and effect; to shut out the light of expewar cut us off from all communication | rience, and the evidence of facts; and to with every port in Europe; and the non- contradict the highest authorities amongst intercourse and non-importation acts of writers on political economy. Dr. Adam the government of the United States, Smith, speaking of the act of Navigation, which excluded us from all America? Or says, "although some of the provisions of do we flatter ourselves that what has been this famous act (as he emphatically terms may not again be? If so, we reason in it) probably originated in a spirit of naopposition to experience and the evidence tional animosity, yet they are all as wise of facts, and to the true rule of judging as if they had been dictated by the most of the future by the past. Have we any deliberate wisdom;" and, in a subsereason to believe that the jealousy ex- quent passage, he adds, " that as defence pressed by foreign powers of our commer- is of more importance than opulence, the cial greatness, which they envy, and of act of navigation is, perhaps, after all, the our naval power, which they dread, is at wisest of all the commercial regulations of all abated? On the contrary, has not in- England." Another high authority on creased cause of dissatisfaction been political subjects, one of our own memrecently given on our part, to the great bers, in a treatise on colonial policy that European potentates, by our declaration he published some years ago, after agreeto every foreign court, that the principles ing with Dr. Smith that our navigation laid down and acted upon in their attack law is not favourable either to the extent upon Naples, are repugnant to the funda- of foreign commerce, or to the growth of mental principles of the British constitu- that opulence which arises out of it, contion? It seems impossible that our good cludes by saying, that "it is now known understanding with these powers can long only by its good effects." This nation continue, unless they adopt our notions now labours under great pressure, and of government, or we adopt theirs, events men who suffer are apt to show their imneither of which are very likely to happen. patience by readily listening to any proWith such prospects before us, we are posal for a change, without considering called upon, in defiance of every principle whether that change may not be from of sound policy, and with total disregard bad to worse; let us act a wiser part, and to the maintenance of our maritime great- not mistake the source of all the prospeness, to abandon a colonial trade in Bri-rity and greatness that yet remain to us, tish ships, in order to encourage a foreign trade in foreign ships, and are desired to trust to the liberality of foreign powers for correspondent advantages in return, as if history was filled with examples of national gratitude; though if such there are they have escaped all my researches, while examples of the ingratitude of nations, for whom we have expended our blood and treasure, abound almost in every page. In order to put us out of conceit with our navigation laws, we are told, that we have not grown great from our restrictive system, but in spite of it. This is a perversion of argument. The prosperity of every nation depends upon the wisdom of its political institutions. Our navigation system has been so long established, that its effects have had ample time to show themselves. Had they been bad, our commerce would long ago have been ruined; but, as they have been good, for the cause of the difficulties under which we labour, or we shall aggravate them 'till they become insupportable, and render them irretrievable. Let us not cut away the sheet anchor, which will enable the vessel to ride out the gale in safety, and leave her to drift at random among the rocks and breakers with which she is surrounded. Having said thus much on general principles, I shall now advert to the particular points before the committee. The motion of the hon. baronet who began this debate, appears to have received so little countenance, that I shall pass it over without any observations. The motion of the noble lord I shall oppose, because it gives additional advantages to the northern powers over the British provinces in North America. Great Britain adopts various rules in regulating her duties on different commodities. Some pay by weight, some by mea place in anticipation. Now, I am not for sacrificing British revenue for the benefit of foreigners, and am much mistaken if the chancellor of the exchequer has any spare duty so to give away, under present circumstances. The great preponder sure, some by tale, and some ad valorem. Deals have always paid by tale, and the noble lord would now assess them in their cubical contents. This I object too, in the first place, because, any sudden or violent alteration of a long established system is always attended with great in-ence of the evidence also proves that a jury to the interest of individuals, and therefore ought only to be adopted for very strong and urgent reasons. In the next place, the avowed object is, to benefit Norway, who already enjoys more then her share of the deal trade; for her import, on an average of the four years 1816, 1817, 1818, and 1819, was 13,000 out of 40,000 loads, being more than that of any of the northern powers, while that of the British colonies was only 5,500.The scale of duties proposed in the schedule lowers the duty on Norway deals 1. 15s. 8d. and raises that on Canada deals 21. per load; a considerable disadvantage to Canada, which, if increased, would drive her deals out of the market altogether; and, therefore, of two evils I shall choose the least. The contiguity of Norway to this country gives her a great advantage over the other Northern powers; the small size of her deals is a disadvantage, according to our mode of levying the duty by tale; but I contend that we have nothing to do with these considerations. On the same grounds we might be called upon to make endless alterations in our existing system. For instance, oranges pay duty by tale; and the inhabitants of the Western Islands might as reasonably complain that their small oranges pay as much duty per thousand as the large oranges from Portugal, and request that in future they should all be measured, and the duty taken according to their cubical contents, as the Norwegians make this application with respect to their deals. This principle applies to a great number of other articles, and would lead to endless remonstrances and difficulties. I persist in the intention of which I gave notice, of moving an amendment to the schedule before the committee, by opposing the intended reduction in the duty on Baltic timber. I do this in conformity to the evidence given before the committee on foreign trade, which uniformly states that this reduction will be attended with no advantage to the British consumer, but lead to an immediate advance in the price of the timher abroad; and some of them declare, that such an advance has already taken duty of 10 shillings per load on timber from the British colonies in North America is as much as the trade can bear;, and that a reduction of 10 shillings from the Baltic timber at the same time will be going much too far. This is the opinion of ten witnesses; only four think differently; and four others are against any alteration whatever. I have two sheets of extracts, from their evidence, but content myself with giving this abstract of it, rather than occupy the time of the committee by reading it at length. One of them asks where any duty is to come from? the load of timber, which cost 18 shillings in America, producing only five shillings here; and the freight being so low, from the distress of the ship-owners, that they lose money by every voyage. These considerations will, I trust, induce the committee to support me in this amendment. Before I sit down I wish to notice one or two observations that have been made in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Shrewsbury reproaches those who advocate the cause of the ship-owners with supporting a bad trade carried on in bad ships; and they have also been called rotten ships. In order to show how far they merit these epithets, I have examined Lloyd's register-book, and find that of 434 ships that arrived from Quebec last year, 183 are of the very first class, standing letter A; 249 are of the second class, letter E, (vessels fit to carry any cargo to any part of the world), and only two stand the third letter, I. The truth is, that we have now no rotten ships; and very few old ships; because, as even good ships cannot all find employment, the bad can of course expect none, and therefore are broken up much sooner than usual. For this reason the shipping in use at the present moment is of a superior description to what it was at any former period. The right hon. gentleman who proposed these resolutions stated on a former occasion that we had a great number of superfluous seamen. The data on which he reasoned are just, but the conclusions he drew from them were erroneous. He argued from the, comparative tonnage of British shipping in the year 1792 and 1820, but did not consider that in 1792 every ship was manned and employed, but that at present great numbers are not employed, and consequently not manned, for which he made no allowance in his estimate. I greatly doubt whether we have a single British seaman more now than we had in the year 1792, and think it important to explain this point. Mr. T. Wilson rose to correct a misapprehension under which the hon. member for Shrewsbury laboured. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that though he had an interest in the subject, yet he was as independent as any member in the House. He contended, that the view taken of the subject by the two hon. baronets opposite, was the true view of the subject. He could not agree with the member for Portarlington, that it was a matter of indifference whether the return for foreign timber was made in goods or specie. He had lived long enough to know that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and he should feel disposed to trade with a country which would take his own goods in exchange, rather than demand it in specie. Mr. F. Lewis supported the ment; and after a brief reply, from Mr. Wallace, the committee divided four times; viz. First-On lord Althorp's amendment in favour of Norway deals: Ayes 24. Noes 75. NEWINGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL COMMITTEE.] Sir R. Wilson addressed the Chair on the subject of some most disorderly and irregular conduct which had taken place that morning in a committee up stairs appointed by the House. The House would remember the circumstances under which the present committee on the Newington select Vestry Bill was appointed. It had been the opinion of the last committee on that bill, that the preamble of the bill was not true, in consequence of some of the standing orders of that House not having been complied with. Upon receiving this reamend-port, the House was induced to appoint a special committee, to examine whether the standing orders alluded to had been infringed or not. That special committee having reported that the said orders had been sufficiently complied with, the House again appointed a committee on the bill, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. This was the history of the transaction up to that day, when on the assembling of the committee, his hon. friend, the member for the Borough, thought fit to make a proposition to send for the report of the special committee, which motion was carried by a decided majority; but, notwithstanding that, the chairman (Mr. H. Sumner) was the means of preventing the decision of the committee from being carried into effect. Under these circumstances, he (sir R. Wilson) moved an adjournment, in order that they might have the benefit of the Speaker's advice; for their exclusion from sending for the report by which they were authorised to sit, appeared to him to be a gross violation of justice, and of the orders of the House. That question was carried in the negative, and thus they saw themselves deprived of the means of ascertaining the extent of the powers with which they were invested. He List of the Minority. Duncannon, viset. Folkestone, visct. Gordon, Rt. Grant, J. P. Harbord, hon. E. 壓 TELLER. Second-On Mr. Marryat's amendment, against reducing the duty on foreign timber: Ayes 17. Noes 71. Third-On sir M. W. Ridley's motion to reduce the proposed duty on Colonial timber from 10s. to 5s. per load; and to take off only 5s. per load from the foreign duty: Ayes 15. Noes 70. Fourth-On sir H. Parnell's motion to equalize all the duties at the end of five years: Ayes 15. Noes 54. was aware that great disorder prevailed in the committee; but he begged to ask who were the cause and origin of it? Those undoubtedly who refused to send for the papers demanded by the committee in the first place, and then opposed a reasonable proposition to refer the question at issue to the Speaker. He was confident the House would bear out the decision of the committee, by ordering the paper in question to be referred to it. For these reasons he should move "That the report made by the committee on the standing orders, with respect to the Newington select Vestry Bill committee, be referred to the said committee." Mr. Sumner said, that in the committee that day a proceeding had been resorted to, which was one of the most extraordinary, and, in its consequences, the most important that could occur, so far as it affected the course of proceeding before a committee up stairs. To the present motion he had not the slightest objection, but in an hour he would call the attention of the House to the other part of the proceedings which had occurred in the committee. The motion was agreed to. After which, Mr. Hume said, that having attended the committee, of which the hon. member who spoke last was chairman, he felt it necessary shortly to detail the circumstances which took place there. The committee was very fully attended, there being 50 members present; a question was put whether the report of a former committee should be read for the information of the members. The hon. chairman, without waiting for an opinion on either side, opposed the motion; the question being put, the committee proceeded to a division, and a majority was declared to be against the motion. A motion was then made for an adjournment, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain the sense of the House; and on the question being put, three hon. members who stood at the door having made their appearance, the chairman insisted that they should not be allowed to vote. One of the hon. members said, that they had a right to vote, because the question was improperly and irregularly put before strangers had withdrawn, and therefore the chairman had no right to profit by his own irregularity; they there fore desired that the question should be put again. This, the hon. chairman would not listen to; he insisted that he VOL. V. was right, and that the members of the committee were wrong. This decision produced much confusion. The hon chairman, with that suavity of temper, that mild forbearance-and perfect command over himself, for which he was so remarkable, having insisted that none of the three members should vote, another division took place on the question of adjournment-a noble lord, the member for Westmorland, and his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) were tellers; the tellers agreed on the number; but when the report of the numbers was handed by the clerk to the chairman, the hon. member threw the paper out of his hand, saying, "I will not read it ;" an altercation then arose, during which his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) very properly refused to report a second time, and the chairman persisted in conduct as little conciliating as he ever saw from any man in any situation. Language on both sides passed which was extremely intemperate; but all that occurred was occasioned by the want of temperance, and the irregular conduct of the hon. chairman. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the conduct of H. Sumner, esq. member for Surrey, was intemperate and irregular, whilst presiding as chairman of a committee on the Newington Vestry Bill, and that such intemperate and irregular conduct had led to much riot and disorder in the said committee." Mr. Wynn remarked upon the anomaly of calling upon the House to pass an opinion upon a subject of which they could know nothing. If the motion were entertained, the House would be occupied in hearing contradictory statements which could lead to no satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Hume declared his readiness to withdraw or delay his motion. The Speaker pointed out the inconvenient shape of the motion. If the question for the consideration of the House were some abstract point as to the duties of chairman of a committee, under any supposed circumstances, there would be no difficulty in the House entertaining it. But when the question was a charge against an individual for his personal conduct in the discharge of the duties of his situation generally, he did not see how the House could make their way clearly through it. At all events, if a proposition of that nature were to be entertained, it would be necessary to have the Minutes of the committee in question. F |