adverted to the object of the Bill of last session on this subject, enabling the king in council to place the shipping of a foreign state on the same footing as the shipping of Great Britain, provided in the ports of that foreign state British shipping experienced similar advantages. His majesty had been also empowered by the same statute to impose countervailing duties in case any foreign state imposed duties upon any goods or shipping of this country arriving in the ports of that foreign state. It had been found necessary to exercise this last power with regard to the United States. Notwithstanding the act of 1822 had settled the permanent intercourse between our West India Islands and the United States, it appeared that the latter had continued the alien duty on the tonnage of the vessels as well as on the cargo, and it became requisite, therefore, for our own protection, to impose countervailing duties to the extent of those enforced in America. An order in council had accordingly been issued, establishing a duty equal to 94 cents per ton upon the ship, and of 60 cents per ton upon the cargo. This step had certainly been taken by the British government with regret and reluctance, for it was of course very desirous that the duty should be abated in both countries. He was happy to say, however, that the difference was at this time a matter of negotiation between the two countries, and that it had been entered into on both sides in an amicable spirit, with a view merely to secure mutual interests. The step taken by the king in council had not been the result of, nor intended to produce, ill-will in the United States. It had been called for by the justice of the case, and would be gladly retraced whenever the opportunity was afforded. The right hon. gentleman proposed three resolutions, formally to effect the objects he had stated.

expressed his decided disapprobation of the whole system of reciprocity of duties. He insisted that the course ministers were pursuing would be the ruin of the shipping interest, and especially called the attention of the House to the opinions delivered by the late Mr. Marryat, whose long experience had supplied him with practical knowledge of the utmost value upon this great question. To the visionary theories of a speculative cabinet he had opposed the clear deductions of fact, and had shewn incontrovertibly that in the years 1821 and 1822, 22,000 ton of shipping had been built less than in the two preceding years; that 125,000 ton less had been employed, and 8,000 fewer seamen employed as a school for our navy. The president of the Board of Trade had combated this statement by a reference to the arrivals in Great Britain, forgetting that the increase in those arrivals was to be attributed partly to the improved intercourse with Ireland, and partly to our connection with the Continent, which enabled hundreds of small vessels to make many short voyages in the course of the year. As to reciprocity of duties, Prussia, Russia, and the northern powers, might be happy to join in the scheme, because it promoted their interests essentially; they could find materials and labour for ship-building at half our expence, and yet their vessels would be admitted upon the same terms as our own. With America, however, the case was different; she had already seen that her interests drew the other way, and while she laughed at the simplicity of Great Britain, she was too wary not to avail herself of the advantage it afforded. It had from time immemorial been the politic practice of every nation to tax foreign shipping, in order to prevent interference in any particular branch of trade. The carrying trade was the life and soul of the British navy, and the system now pursued would cut it up root and branch, and it was astonishing that the president of the Board of Trade was not aware of the consequences of the course he recommended. He yet trusted to see the House roused to a sense of the danger of the country from gross inattention to the interests of our shipping and seamen.

said, he had not expected that on this occasion the principle of the bill of last year would be disputed; and, though quite prepared to justify all that had been done, he did not think that he was now called upon to do so. What the resolutions proposed to do was, in fact, in favour of the system which the hon. member so strenuously advocated.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act passed in the year 1816, enabling landlords in Ireland to distrain, as in England, the growing crops of their tenants. To this measure he could see no objection; for he was sure that the landlords themselves could have no desire to exercise this odious power, although, perhaps, their agents might. The object which he had in view was, to take from the effect of the act of 1816 all farms, the rent of which did not amcunt to 10l. a year. The landlord should still be left the same power as before of distraining cattle. This appeared to him to be an act of humanity to the poorer classes in Ireland; and it would have also a collateral advantage; for it must be manifest to every one acquainted with the condition of that country, that one of its principal evils arose from the great subdivision of farms, and the tendency of this measure would be to prevent so great a subdivision, and thereby remove to that extent one of the grievances under which Ireland laboured. He should therefore move, "That leave be granted to bring in a bill to amend so much of the 56th of Geo. 3. c. 88, in so far as it applies to the distraining on growing crops in Ireland."

seconded the motion, and remarked that, as an act of justice and humanity to the people of Ireland, the House should remove the power of oppression which at present existed.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion. He should be sorry to oppose any motion which it was alleged was likely to afford relief to the people of Ireland; but at the same time, he did not mean to pledge himself to give his support to the measure in its future stages, or, on the other hand, to state that he should give it his opposition. But it was worth the consideration of those who introduced the measure, to examine whether there were any circumstances that rendered the extension of the measure necessary to Ireland and not to this country; and they should also consider whether in giving what appeared an advantage to the suffering tenant, by depriving the landlord of the means of recovering the sum which was due to him, they did not impose a greater evil upon the tenant himself, by destroying that credit which the landlord might otherwise have been disposed to give him. It was perfectly true, that the process of distraining was one of those cases which might easily be depicted as extremely oppressive; but if you deprive the landlord of the power of recovering, let it also be remembered that you destroy, in a great degree, the confidence which he might be disposed to place in his tenant. However, he should offer no opinion at present on the merits of the bill, nor as to the course which he might feel it necessary to adopt at a future period.

said, the measure proposed by the noble lord would not take away from the landlord the power of recovering his rent; it only altered the time. What the noble lord had proposed, was perfectly fair; namely, that a keeper might be retained on the crop whilst it was growing. In the part of Ireland to which he belonged, and where there were resident gentlemen, there was no disposition to distrain the growing crops; so that whatever it might be in other parts of Ireland, the neighbourhood to which he belonged was exempt from the evil.

rose to give notice of a conditional motion of a very extensive and general nature. He did not know when he should bring it forward, but he believed it would be on an early day in March. It had reference to the relations existing at present between this kingdom and those countries in South America which had formerly belonged to the throne of Spain, and which had now, and indeed for some time past, become independent. He was unable to specify what the nature of his motion would be, or on what day he should bring it forward. He should therefore allow his majesty's ministers further time to make their arrangements; and should be happy to be relieved from the necessity of making his motion at all, by their taking some salutary measures on the subject in the interim.