The Sun. — London, England, 1824-03-23 00:00:00

Gentleman would carry his measure of relief a little farther, einel that it would be extended to remnants of silk, consisting of 30 or 40 yards. He had no interest whatsoever in the trade; and it would be observed, that the petition which he had pre sented prayed that the drawback might be allowed on the quan tity of 25 yards, whereas he was willing that it should not go tam 40. Mr. W. WILLIAMS never had argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pe.rsist in a measure,when once brought in, whether it was right or wrong. He had stated, and he would again state, that the Right H on . G e ntlemaa had anxiously at tended to all parties. He had conceded more than enough ; and th e more there was conceded, he might rest assured of it, the more would be demanded. He should be ashamed of himself if he acted like some of those gentlemen who were con tinually goading Ministers to adopt the principle of free and welettered trade, but who, the moment an attempt was made to act upon that principle, immediately turned round and thwarted the .experiment by every means in their power. He believed the measures proposed by Ministers were calculated to serve . the heist interests of the country ; and, impressed with that feeling,'he should be ashamed of him - self if he did not give them his humble but strenuous support.—( Hear !) After a few words from Mr. CAecueieer, Mr. Hermit, Mr. BA&nen, and Mr. T. Wresosr, the amendment of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer relative to silk, " cut for the purpose .of exhibiting patterns," was carried. - Mr. HUM E then moved that the following . words should be Added after the word " patterns"—" or in pieces, being cut, not less than 30 yards in len_gth." Mr. BARING supported the amendment. Equal protec tion should be extended to all persons in the trade ; and it should not be forgotten, that the whole stock of many dealers in the country consisted chiefly of cut pieces. He suggested, that, instead of silk being sent to be warehoused, it should be mea sured on the spot by Excise officers. The mercer would thus be relieved from the risk of having his silk stained, and also from the inconvenience which must arise from his being tem porarily deprived of his stock. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the paramount difficulty in this case had been to carry the principle into effect with as little incovenience as possible to the dealers. If the suggestion of the Honourable Gentleman were adopted, they would be obliged to send custom-house officers to every town in the kingdom, and, he knew not where they were to find them. Officers had been sent to Nottingham, because the silk manufacture was carried on there, and they had also been stationed at all the seaports. Persons, therefore, who were in cluded in his amendment, would naturally find their way to the officers at the nearest station. It was quite clear, that in proportion as they extended the range of this bounty, they must ;.nultiply the difficulties which opposed the carrying Of the clause into effect. G. PHILIPS supported the amendment. Mr. R. SMITH asked whether there was any mode by which it could be ascertained whether silk had been cut for patterns or for sale ? Mr. HERRIES said, that on the first. instance the declar ation of the dealer would he taken. If a doubtaroSe, an appeal would be made to persons experienced in the trade, who would, in every disputed case, be called on to decide. According to this amendment, every cut piece of silk must be measured; and he believed, the dealer would much rather be saved the consequent trouble and loss of time, than claim the bounty. Mr. CALCRA FT said, there was nothing compulsory in the amendment. If the bounty would not repay the trouble of measuring, of course the mercer would not demand it. After a few observations from Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. Bu T. TERWORTH in support of the amendment, the Committee divided, when there appeared— For the Amendment - - 30 Against it - _ . - - 76 Majority ---4fi On our re-admission to - the gallery, we found Mr, ELLICE inquiring, with reference to a question which he had asked on a former evening, how the Right .Hon. Gentleman meant to - deal with dyed silk ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed he .had misunderstood the Hon. Gentleman when he had formerly put the question. If he now understood him correctly, he alluded to organzine silk, dyed : and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could see no r..son why organzine. silk dyed should be dealt with differently front any other silk that had undergone the same process. On reading the clause which admits the importation of fo reign silk after the sth of July, 1826, on the payment of 301. , for every 1001. value of the silk so imported, Mr. BARING rose to move; as an amendment, that the period should be extended from the sth of July, 1826, to the sth of July, 1829, forming a period of five years, as was proposed by the petioners on this occasion. The Hon. Member for ViTey mouth( Mr. W. Williams) was full of denunciations against those who wished to alter this Bill, who, he asserted, were acting con trary to the principles of free trade ; but the truth was, there was no free trade adopted in this ease. The trade remained shackled in every possible way. The House were mistaken if they supposed that the principles of free trade had been adopted. If these principles were to be carried into effect, they ought to be applied to all cases, - instead Of being confined to one. Woollens, linens, &c., ought to be treated in the same manner. Ministers had, however, made an exhibition of the principles of free trade with respect to this particular article, though it was known and admitted that at all times this country laboured under great disadvantages with reference to this trade. The'llon. Gentleman proceeded to contend, that the silk-ma nufacturers generally were hostile to the measure proposed, al though some were tempted, by the immediate bounties, to give a species of assent to it. The throwsters, particularly, were bribed by the present advantage, into shutting their eyes to the evils which eventually would fail upon the trade. With . respect to the change of opinion imputed to him, no such change had, in fact, taken place. lie was a friend to the principle of ffee trade, if the country could have a free trade in general; but why should we partici-%.arly have a free trade in silk, which could bear that arrangement worse than any • other commodity ? He was compelled to say that the mea_ . sure had been brought forward with a general dearth of infer mation as to the real effects of it. He understood that the throwsters in Italy would be able to throw his silk four shil lings in the pound weight cheaper than the same trader could do in England. He did not know how this difference arose; but it was important in the case. The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract of a letter written by the Committee of the Silk- Trade in Derby, to the Committee of the Silk-Trade in London, expressing a hope that when the time came the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant a further respite to the admission of French' silks, if such a course should he found desirable; and insisted from thence that the silk men generally who assented • to the new measure, did it in hope of getting at its present' bounties, and escaping its ultimate execution. In conclusion, he objected particularly to the time—two years and a half— fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for admitting the foreign article. He thought that the delay ought to be either - greater or less ; and rather with a view of recording his opinion than from any expectation of having his amendment adopted, lie should move to add three years to the term now proposed, and say, for the year 1826, the year 1829. Mr. R. GORDON observed, with respect to free trade, that every body was for it in the general; but it was too apt to be opposed as soon as it touched one's own interests, or those of one's constituents. He decidedly opposed the amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not rise at such a time to discuss the principle of the Bill, but he denied • that the impression of the silk trade, in the main, was unfa vourable to it. The Right Honourable Gentleman then quoted a letter from a body of silk-manufacturers at Derby, expressing their general readiness to make the trial, as proposed by the sill, although there were some traders certainly, who feared the foreign competition ; and a second letter from the silk trade of Manchester, desiring, in the strongest terms, that Government would not 'suffer itself to be disheartened by the opposition which was made to the measure. With respect to the alarm which the Bill was said to be exciting throughout this country, he would just assure the House—he had it from good authority—that it was producing a great deal of alarm in France. He simply stated the fact as it came to him, without attempting to draw any inference from it ; but, however our traders might be distressed at the idea of the French silks meet ing thetit in the markets of this country, the French silk manu facturers were very seriously apprehensive of the consequence of our silks meeting theirs in the general markets of the world. Mr. BARING repeated, that those who consented to the measure were misled by a desire for the present bounties. Mr. F. BUXTON said, that the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had not touched upon the amendment of the Hon. Member for Taunton. He thotigift the working manu facturers were fairly entitled to the extension of time proposed. He was an enemy to hastily throwing off, in favour of new principles of political economy, the old rules under which the country had arrived at its present height of wealth and great ness.—(Hear, .bear, from Mr. Hume).—The Hon. Member for Aberdeen cheered. Fell! If that argument had no weight, he would produce one which should be conclusive with the Hon. Member for Aberdeen,—if the wishes of the manu facturers were assented to, he understood that they were willing to give all drawbaCks, and to have the tax imposed (being d rawn by instalments) for three years. The drawback amounted to 500,0001., and the duty to 750,000/., so that by this course the country would be in pocket 1,250,0001. Mr. G. PHILIPS supported the bill; and pressed the ne cessity of repealing the Spitalfields Acts. With those acts still in being, that the London trade should bear competition was impossible. He agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, that it would be desirable to give time to the manufac turers to prepare for this greet change now proposed in the silk trade. The French looms were on all sides allowed to be superior to those of Lancashire, and great expence and delay must be en countered in constructing new machinery. Half a year, or a whole one, ought to be allowed, and before the whole of the time should expire., there ought to be a total repeal of the Spi talfields Acts. Mr. C. WYNN explained the conduct of the Board of Con_ troul in having refused the application of a young gentleman spoken to on a previous night, to be allowed to go out to the East Indies to trade in silks. Mr. HALDIMAND approved of. any approath ,to a really free trade. He .believed, that if the silk trade were thrown open, there would shortly be exportations'of -silk to Italy, 'as there were already exports of muslin. to India, so extensive that the greater part of the - Seotch mznufactnrers were kept in constant employment by them. Mr. LI TTLETON,on behalf of the silk-trade of Stafford shire, disowned any participation in the compromise offered by the Honourable Member for Taunton ; not that they would object to the extension of time, if given to them, but they would not give up the remission of d u ti e s promised them to obtain it. Mr. ELLICE expressed a similar disavowal on behalf of the Coventry silk men. He was of opinion that the ultimate success of this and other measures like it, must depend upon the application of the principles of free trade to the articles of food, so as to establish an adequate competition between the prices of labour here and on the Continent. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON was for postponing the opera tion of the measure till October, so as to secure the manufac turers and dealers in the transactions of the summer trade. Mr. Alderman BRIDGES said a few words. The Amendment was rejected without a division. Mr. ELLICE urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the measure from the month of February, 1626, till October in the same year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was afraid to concede the request of the Hon. uentleman, from the dread of other applications of the same nature. The original clause was then carried. The House resumed —the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up, and the House agreed to the Resolutions. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at TWELVE O'CLOCK. GAME LAWS. The following is an , Abstract of the 13111 (as amended by the Committee) to amend the Laws for the Preservation of Game Clause I.—Repeals certain part of former Acts relating to Game. IL—Vests the property in Game in owners of inclosed land within .which such Game may be found, and in lords of manors in cases of Game being found in uninclosed lands. - 1 ll.—Certain persons may reserve right of sporting over land demised. IV.—Persons possessing certain qualifications may autho rise others to sport over lands belonging to such persons. V.—Restraining persons from sporting, during certain sea sons, and also unless they have taken out Game Certificate for the current year. Vl.—Enacts a penalty of from 11. to 5/. on persons trespas sing on lauds for the purpose of sporting, or killing hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, grouse, black game, heath or moor game, teal, or widgeon, bustard, woodcock, quail, land rail, wild duck. Vll.—Trespl•.ssers r efusing to quit land may be apprehended. Vlll.—Enacts a penalty of 101. on trespassers refusing to give their names, &c. IX.—Enacts the punishment of night poachers. X.—Convictions to he registered and stated, as to being the first, second, or third offence. XL—Certain persons may appoint game-keepers. X lI.—No persons (except game - keepers) to have snares, &c XIIL—No person to deal in Game unless licensed. _ XlV.—Justices may grant licences to deal in Game. XV.—Persons entitled to the property in Game may sell it to licensed persons; and any person may purchase Game o# such licensed person. XVI.---Licensed persons may buy and sell Game under cer. tain restrictions. XVII.—Not to extend to Game prohibited at certain seasons. XVlll.—Power to search licensed persons, and their pre mises. XlX.—Prohibits game-keepers from dealing in game, ex-. cept with permission. XX.—Penalty of 51. on Innkeepers dealing in Game, fur every head. XXl.—Penalty of Si. for destroying Game nests or eggs. XXll—Enacts that the word Game shall he deemed and taken to include and mean, hares, partridges, pheasants, black game, grouse, heath and moor game. XXlll.—Relates to recovery, and application of penalties. XXIV. lustices empowered to administer oaths. • XXV.—Admits right of appeal. XXVL—Enacts a penalty of 40s. on witnesses refusing to attend when summoned. XXVlL—Proceedings not to be removed by Certiorari. XX Vlll.—Saving of Rights. _ _ xxix._This Act hot tO'extend to Scotland or Ireland. THE ARMY. GENERAL ORDER. ITORSt GUARDS, MARCH 10, 1824.—The King having been pleased to decide that one uniform system of Field Exer cise and Movement ahall be established throughout his Army, the Commander-in-Chief has received his Majesty's commands to direct, that the Rules and Regulations, approved by his Majesty for this important purpose, and now detailed and pub lished herewith, shall be strictly adhered to, without any devia tion whatever ; and such orders, hitherto given, as may be found to interfere with, or to counteract their effect and opera tion, are hereby annulled. All General-officers, Colonels, and Commanding-officers of Corps, are therefore held strictly responsible for the due and accurate performance of every part of these regulations ; and in order that no deviation may creep into practice, so as to dis turb the exact uniformity which must be attained and preserved in all movements, it is his Majesty's further pleasure, that no formations shall be executed, except such as are here prescribed, without due and competent anthority ; and General Officers on the Staff will report at the periodical inspections, whether these his Majesty's commands are strictly complied with. The Commander-in-Chief has received his Majesty's further commands to direct, that every Officer shall provide himself with a Copy of these Regulations, and Commanding-officers of Corps are to take care that this Order be duly observed. By Command of his Royalliighness the Commander-in -Chief, H:TORRENS, Adjutant-General to the Forces. PETTT SESSIONS.--MOSt of the Judges OR the present Circuits have recommended the general usage of hold ing Petty Sessions frequently and regularly. No regulation could tend more to preserve the peace of the country, and to fa miliarize the peasantry to the advantage s fl ow i ng f rom a j us t, prompt, and impartial administration of the laws. The good ef fects of this system are found to be incalculable in England, and why it should not be brought into immediate operation in this country we cannot conceive. There is one part of it (Clonmel) where, we observe, these Sessions are frequently held by the Ma gistrates, and in which that truly patriotic Nobleman, the Earl of DONOUGUMORE, takes an active part; and the peaceable state of the neighbourhood, with one or two exceptions, fully establishes the benefits which have resulted from the union and co-operation of the Magistracy in Petty Sessions. Every town and village of any note has a number of Magistrates residing in the vicinage, whose assembling in this manner would confer great advantages in the speedy administration of justice. All favouritism and partiality would be destroyed, and the peasantry might be taught to look up with respect and con fidence to the proceedings of such a body. Several of the trifl ing informations, which are now reserved for the Assizes, might be returned to this Court, and a prompt decision had upon them, without waiting for the tedious and expensive pro cess of a trial before the Judges of Assizes. In, fact, the benefits likely to accrue from the extensive adoption of this regulation are innumerable, and we trust and hope it will be acted upon in all parts of the country, more especially in those places most subject to disturbance. and crime. If an outrage should occur, who is more capable of tracing out information which might lead to the detection of the offenders than a body of Magi strates assembled at these Sessions, aided as they would be by such an efficient police as is at present embodied in several districts ?—(Dublin Correspondent, March 20.) UsErni: DISCOVEILY.-1 t has long been a pro- blem, to make or find a kind of cement or mortar for general use, with the property of hardening under wa t er , or enluring in building whose foundations are laid in marshy or wet ground - . Puzzelana earth, from the Mediterranean, is known to possess this property, and is consequently used for this purpcse ; but, from the expence of transport it is not within general reach. A French engineer (M. Vicat) has lately discovered that lime stone, half burnt, or taken out of the fire before it is converted into quick-lime, will answer the same end. When it has un dergone this process, it may, he says, be bruised, and formed into a kind of plaster which hardens like ferruginous earth, un der water. ON the RECIPROCITY of DUTIES BILL (No. TO THE LORDS OF HIS MAJESTY'S MOST HONOUR ABLE PRIVY COUNCIL. The Humble PETITION of the San' OWNERS of the PORT of LONDON, SLIEWETH—That the. Bill to authorize his Majesty, under certain circumstances, to regulate the duties and drawbacks on goods imported or exported in foreign vessels, which declares it to be expedient that his Majesty should be " empowered to " allow the importation or exportation of any goods, wares, and " merchandiza, when imported or exported in foreign vessels, " from or to those countries in which no other duties are " charged, or other drawbacks, bounties, or allowances granted " upon the importation or exportation of any goods, wares, or " merchandize, into or from such country, in British vessels, " than are charged or granted upon such goods, when imported " or exported into or from such countries in foreign vessels," — having passed into a law, and your Petitioners being the more convinced, the more they have inquired and reflected upon the subject, that if the powers given to your Lordships by the said Bill should be acted upon, and the rules thereby laid down be applied to the trading intercourse between this kingdom and the rest of the commercial world, (particularly the Northern States of Europe), the most destructive consequences must nursery of seamen merchant shipping of Great Britain, and resultt hereby to the he which it is the means of main taining; your Petitioners, as individuals practically acquainted t with the subject, fed it to be their duty to make the present most solemn appeal to your Lordships, against the adoption of measures so ruinous to _British shipping, and of such infinite danger to the mot importitnt national interests ; or, at all events they do entreat your Lordships to defer the same until you shall have received that evidence which your Petitioners have been prepared to give, if an opportunity had been afforded them, upon the important question of whether the British Ship Owner will eventually be likely to retain any, and what portion of the trade with the several ship-building States of Europe, if the protection by difFetences of duty and drawbacks and allowances, which has hitherto been found necessary should be withdrawn. That your Petitioners have no hesitation in declaring to your Lordships, as their most decided conviction, that the disadvan tages to which the British Ship Owners would be thereby sub- ject, would be such as to make it impossible for them to com pete with the shipping of other countries, particularly those in the north of Europe, and consequently, that the greater part of that portion of the British Trade with them which the British Ship Owners now enjoy, will eventually be carried on by the shipping of those countries ; in like manner as the intercourse with the United States, under the same system, is chiefly car ried on in American Shipping. That the Petition of the Ship Owners of London to the Hon. the House of Commons, against the said Bill, contains extracts from the official accounts, which clearly shew that the amount of British tonnage is annually diminishing; that British ship building is rapidly declining; and that, of the late increased trade with Norway, Prussia, and Sweden, foreign shipping has had much the greatest proportion. That, in the discussions in the House of Commons, upon the said Bill, the evidence afforded by those extracts from the official accounts, was opposed by further quotations from them, which shewed that the number of arrivals of British ships, in the year 1822. exce.a.a.. by 1.474 ships, and 126,425 tons, the number of arrivals in the preceding year. That, upon this head, your Petitioners humbly beg to sub mit to your Lordships, that although an increase in the num ber of repeated voyage; made in any one year, might be evi dence of the increased trade of the country, it would by no means follow that the shipping interest was therefore in a flou rishing state. With respect, however, to the fact itself, yoni to observe, that although the official ac counts of the number vessels arrived in Great Britain Petitioners beg leave (in cluding the arrivals frau, Ireland) exhibit an increase in the year 1822, beyond that of 1821 (as above stated); yet those ac counts also shew, that the number of arrivals in the United Ki ng d om , in the year 1822 (which, your Petitioners hum bly submit, presents the correct view of the subject), was only 282 vessels, and 64,204 tons beyond those in 1821 ; and that, if the comparison of the arrivals in the year 1822 be made with those in the year 1820, there i s .a falling off of 198 vessels, a nd 4,433 tons ; and t hat, if the comparison be made with the year 1619, the fall in g et is 887 ships and 145,501 tons. That your Petitioners, however, beg to submit to your Lord ships, , thatthe in accountord er to should the state of the foreign trade of the be taken exclusive of the number of shi p: arrivedhat the in arrivalst4il !kingdom from Ireland; when it will appear, in the United Kingdom from foreign p ar ts, in the year 1322 that , exceeded those in 1821 by no more than 438 tons; and that the arrivals in 1822 were l 2 e 3 s 6 s than vese in s and lB 311 ships, and 18,830 tons, and less than in 1819 by 832 shis 2 : b 74ps, and 138,890 tons. That on the occasion of those discussions in Parliament, your w ith the most painful feelings, the pre valencePetit Petitioners e o r s perceived, of great nii a PPrehension on the part of those Hon. Members by whom the Bill was supported, on the subject of s the relative durability of British and foreign Shipping, and of the power of the British Ship Owner to build, equip, and na vigate his ships, upon such terms as to enable him to compete with his rivals in the North of Europe. That your Petitioners are prepared to prove to your Lord ships, that the maintenance of such competition is impossible ; and that it must continue so, notwithstanding any remission of duties on articles used in the building and equipment of ships, which it may be in the power of the Legislature to grant, as the. British Ship Owner will always have to struggle against the effects of freight and expences on the materials necessary for building and equipment, and likewise of indirect taxation, which raises the price of labour, and extends to every home production used in their construction ; together with the una voidable and important difference in the expense of provisions and wages, which still remain, and form an irremediable dis advantage; and your Petitioners trust that the matter will ap pear in the same light to your Lordships, when you consider the following circumstances, viz. 1. That no vessel is entitled to registry, unless British built or prize. 2. That every British vessel must be manned with a master and three-fourths of the crew British seamen ; and, if exceed ing 80 tons, must have a certain number of apprentices accord ing to their Register Tonnage. 3. That no British vessel - can be repaired in a Foreign Port (unless such repair as may be absolutely necessary to enable her to return home) to an amount exceeding 15s. per ton di. 4. That any sails with which it may be found necessary to provide a British ship, in a Foreign Port, are subject on the vessels arrival:, to a duty of 1041. 9s. 2d. per cent. ad valorem. 5. That heavy duties are in like manner chargeable on any spars, cables, cordage, or anchors, which a British vessel may have occasion to provide in a Foreign Port,. That the effect of these burthens, with the other duties and charges to which British Ship-Owners are liable, (as your Pe titioners are prepared to prove) is, that a British ship cannot be built and equipped for less than from 141. to 23/. per ton, whilst the Prussian pays from 71. 15s. to 101. ditto. The Swede and Norwegian about 7/. ditto. The Frenchman about 101. That the disproportion in the wages and victualling is not less than in that of the cost of the vessel, viz., Present rate of " The new Registry Act allows 20s. per ton. wages for British seamen, 455. to 555. per month, according to the voyage. The average may be -50 s. per month. Prussia 245. to 265. average 255. do. Swede 12s. 6d. to 20s. -17 s. do. Dutchman - -28 s. do. That the difference in the expense of provisioning being extremely variable, cannot he stated with accuracy, but is in proportion to that of the wages ; the result'of all which is, that the Foreigner has an advantage of 40 per cent. in the employ ment of his Capital over the British Ship-Owner. That under such disadvantages nothing but the protecting differences of duty, drawbacks, &c., arid the co-operating re gulations of the Navigation Laws, have hitherto enabled the British Ship-Owners to compete with those of Foreign Powers , and therefore your Petitioners submit to your Lordships, that if that protection be withdrawn, the exclusion of the British Ship-Owner from a participition in many of the trades with other countries will be inevitable, whilst what remains will be unproductive of income; and that in the event of war between Great Britain and any other Power, which would subject Bri tish shipping to war expences, all the considerations herein submitted to your Lordships would apply with double force, especially if any further permanent stipulation is made with other countries as to duties. That in support of what is thus set forth, your Petitioners beg to state to your Lordships, that previous to the protecting bounties on certain articles exported in British ships, the whole of the trade to Hamburgh was carried on in foreign vessels; that, at the present time, British ships have but a very small proportion of the trade of the world not carried on from or to British ports, (as will be evident from the fact, that out of 208 vessels arrived at the free port of Hamburgh, between the Ist January and 3d July, 1823, only about 12 were British) ; and that, at the present time, Prussian vessels are engaged for freight at 20s. to 225. per load, for the supply of his Majesty's Dock .yards and the London market with timber, &c. from Prussia, whilst a lower rate than 28s. to 30s. per load will not yield to the British Ship Owner an adequate remuneration for the employment of his capital. Tlr t since the peace your Petitioners have been struggling against ruinous rates of freight mid immense depreciation of capital, in a degree nothing inferior to that which the Agricul tural or Manufacturing Interests have sustained; and by the Navigation Act of the 3d of his present Majesty, together with the West India Intercourse Bill, and the Warehousing Act of last Session, foreign vessels are permitted to engage in various branches of the carrying trade, which, previous to the passing of those Acts, had been confined to British shipping. That under all these circumstances, and there being many branches of the carrying trade in which it is impossible for British shipping successfully to compete with foreigners, with out the aid of some advantages in respect of duties— Your Petitioners most earnestly entreat that your Lordships will be pleased not to exercise the powers given to you by the Act of Parliament in question, without affording them an op portunity of proving to your Lordships in what manner and degree the interests of British shipping will be thereby affected. And your Petitioners will ever pray. London, Aug. 4, 1823. (No. II.) REPORT of the SPECIAL COMMITTEE of SHIP- OWNERS of the PORT of LONDON on the preceeding PETITION. We, the undersigned Members of a Special Committee ap pointed to prepare evidence in support of the Petition to the Lords of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, dated 4th August last, praying that their Lordships would be pleased not to exercise the powers vested in them by th e Reciprocity of Duties Bill until opportunity had been afforded to the Petitioners of proving to their Lordships in what manner and degree the interest of British shipping would be thereby affected. Having used our utmost endeavours to obtain such evidence as might place, in the clearest point of view, the important question whether the British Ship-Owner will eventually be likely to retain any and what portion of trade with the several ship-building States of Europe, if the protection by differen ces of duty drawbacks and allowances which have hitherto been found necessary should be withdrawn, beg to submit the following Report : - REPORT. In entering into this momentous question, it was obvious to your Committee that whatever reciprocity of advantage might be mutually conceded as between British and Foreign ship ping by the reciprocal removal of those protections by which Maritime States have hitherto endeavoured to support their native shipping, the balance of actual benefit must ultimately, under such a system of unrestricted competition devolve on that nation whose shipping could be built, equipped, and navi gated on the cheapest terms. To ascertain, therefore, the rela tive expence of building, equipping, manning, victualling, and sailing British and Foreign shipping, was the first and m os t anxious inquiry of your Committee ; and when, by concurrent testimony it became apparent to them that in all these particu lars the Northern States of Europe possessed a decided advan tage, they next endeavoured to ascertain how far any efficient counterpoise to such advantage might reasonably be anticipated in any superiority of construction or durability in British ships, in the skill and activity of British seamen, or the capital and enterprize of British Ship Owners. With respect to the relative expence of ship-building, your Committee, considering that from the various dimensions, scantling, and modes of construction adopted in ships of the same tonnage, any actual statement of cost might alone be deemed inconclusive, have prepared a calculation of the cost of a vessel in Great Britain and in several of the ports in the North of Europe, in which the same quantities of materials and labour as were actually expended on the British vessel are applied to the existing prices of those materials and labour in the foreign ports respectively. This calculation which exhibits an enormous difference I n favour of foreign-biiild shipping, will be found in Appendix, marked A. ; and your Committee cannot forbear remarking, that they are confirmed in their belief of its accuracy, by having ascertained that a vessel is at, present building in London of nearly similar description to that on which this calculation is founded, at a price corresponding very nearly with the result of the calculation itself. But in further corroboration of this point, your Committee beg to refer to Appendix 8., containing a statement of the actual cost of a number of ships built in the different ports of England and in foreign countries, from which it will be per ceived that while in England the price varies from 281. to IE. per register ton, it amounts in Prussia to only from 8/. Bs. to 151. 10s. ; and that in several other countries it is considerably lower. The greater part of these statements can be verified by document, and the remainder are derived from sources on which your Committee believe implicit confidence may be placed. While on this branch of the subject, your Com mittee would remark, that it has been clearly proved to them that a very small proportion of the difference in the cost of building and equipment arises from direct duties payable on articles employed therein and that therefore any relief to be ex pected by a reduction or even a total remission of such duties would be inconsiderable, and any . hope of reducing thereby the scale of expence to any approximation to that of foreigners is altogether fallacious. - The next important article of maritime expence is the wages paid to the officers and seamen employed in navigation. On this point your Committee request particular attention to ap pendix C. from which it will appear, that in this particular the advantage on the side of the foreigner is no less striking than in the cost of the ship,—British seamen's wages in the Baltic trade being at the present moment from 50s. to 31. while the Prussian seaman receives but 245., the Swede 20s. and the Rus sian 15s. per month ; with respect to the British wages abund ance of documents can be adduced in proof, and though the na ture of the case does not admit of similar demonstration on the case of foreigners, your Committee have satisfied themselves of the truth of the statement by personal inquiry on board ships of the respective countries. In the 'article of provision your Committee have experienced considerable embarassinent from the difficulty of establishing any general standard of victualling. The scale, however, taken for British ships is that usually adopted in the West India trade; and for foreipers it has"been ascertained by the most ' careful inquiry. That a number of minor articles of provisions and comfort usually afforded in the British merchant service, are omitted, in the desire of not overstating the comp a ri s on, an d is a further advantage to the foreigner. In this relative view will be perceived the fact that in British ships engaged in the Baltic trade no limitation of provisions is practiced, and that the quantity actually consumed exceeds that exhibited by the cal culation referred to. The result will be found in appendix D, and completes the chain of evidence by which it is proved, that the positive expence of building, equipping, manning, and vic tualling is infinitely less in the ports of the Baltic than those of the United Kingdom. But it has not escaped the attention of your Committee that great as are the advantages in point of abstract cheapness possesed by foreigners, circumstances of a countervailing nature might possibly exist, calculated in a great measure to restore the equilibrium thus totally subverted by difference of cost. From the belief, indeed, which appears to be entertained, that such differences do actuallyi exist, your Committee were scarcely prepared to anticipate the result to which they beg next to solicit the most attentive consideration. It has been first asserted, that vessels - built in those ports, the rivalry of whose shipping is most seriously apprehended, though cheaper as to first cost, are wanting in durability, and are therefore ultimately as expensive as British built ships. In order to arrive at a correct conclusion on this point, your Com mittee, beginning at a part of Lloyd's Register Book taken in discriminately, abstracted from thence in the succession in which they stood ; the first 20 ships of the following countries, viz. England, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, and lsbaway, m wil a l rk b i o ng fo t o h n e d a i g n e A s of pp e e a n el E T , o th th ey e v s, o s u u l l t d o e f n t t h r i e s a a t bpsatrrtaiccut, t utiac_th. tention as it not only refutes the assertion of the superior bility of British shipping, but exhibits them as the leas_ u the rable of the whcl e , w hil e the Norwegian shipping, which !s, t c i h o eapeet, and has b ee n cons id ere d i s qua li ty a l m ost vio is actually p r o ve d t o l as t l onger t h an any, an d t o exceed durability of th e B r iti s h by more t h an one h a lf ! n Your of Committeehow far onex comparativet directed theirview consideration tie costand x to thee ques of British and Foreign Shipping, was effected by the alien oifference in the mode of measurement, a reference to APPe n . dix F, will prove that whatever force this argument may po , : o seas with respect to American and French shipping, I ,,t h e as eee application to the vessels of the north of Europe, which are stated on competent evidence to stow larger cargoes in ge ll-- „ es than British built vessels, according to their nominal tonneate; ascertained by the rules prescribed by the British Reg° of laws. A reference to the manifests o f the cargoes of som e i s these ships has convin ce d y our C omm i ttee, that this opinion correct, though the difficulty of reducing mixed cargoes to 11 _,n uniform standard capable of accurate relative comparson, n s : or prevented then, from rendering the fact the subject i ,f d mentary evidence. The next point that suggested itself to your Committee Aar whether; the disadvantages to British Ship-Owners in the 1 1„ wages and expensive provisions allowed to their crews, is CO, , t pensated by such a red uc ti on i n th e num b er o f seamen as mig be expected to be consequent on the alleg p ed sueriority os. British sailors in activity and skill : Appendix G establish e that instead of this being the fact in the cases therein reforr, to, the foreign ship em pl o y e d b ut 4 men to s i n t h e Brit t while an abstr a ct f rom a P ar li amentary return, El , shoo t the number of men employed in navigating the whole d e t t r is ships and ves se l s c l eare d outwar di f rom t h e several por ts or , United Kingdom during the last 9 years, including their re , peated voyages, was in the proportion of about 6 men to 0 ' 1) 100 tons British, and only 5 to every 100 tons foreign. it But as, notwith s t an di ng th ese conc l us i ve d emonstrat ions' , 3 has been ass er t e d th a t B r iti s h s hi ps ma k e quicker voyage' tl4',. foreign and compensate ther e by f or th e i r i ncrease d expef - j . your Co , mmittee have been at some p a i ns t o ascerta i n t hi s nua l ls As regards the B a lti c t r ad e . Th ey annex, in appendix I n tl certificate of two experienced brokers conversant with the trael; stating that the number of vo y ages ma d e annually b y description of ships is equal; and though they have no t li=e 3 able to obtain more con c l us i ve corro b oration o f t h e fact, w idens indeed, is scarcely susceptible of direct demonstration, th result of all their inquiries on the subject leads them decidedly to the same conclusion. It has further been asserted, that frontthe general prevalence of assoc i at i ons f or mutua l insura nce" the rate of premiums paid by the British Ship-owner is e° lli. paratively trifling. Appendix K. contains the most ample re futation of this ass er ti on , i n th e f act t h at i n t h e p or t of New: castle, in which a gre a t er num b er o f s hip s are insured in diat principle than in any other in the kingdom, the average ° ° l tributions paid by the owners for actu a l l osses on ships insure, in all the associati ons f or th e p or t d ur i ng t h e l ast 4 years vi 4 i 91.175. 7d. per c e nt. per ann um — near l y equa l to t h e ra te ° premium paid at Lloyd's, which is about 101. per cent. The result of these differences on the employment of 'capita in British and foreign shipping will be found in appendix In: exhibiting an advantage in f av o ur o f t h e P russ i an o f 391. 11 ' 1 sd. per cent. on his capital, if admitted to embark in the carry' ing trade on equality of duties with British shipping. In the prosecution of the foregoing inquiries, your Coll'', mittee have had to con t en d w i t h many difficulties, and °/1 that part of th e su bj ect more i mme di ate l y embrac i ng , formation only to be derived from foreigners, or tho se connected with foreign trading interests, they regret to b et .; experienced a general unwillingness to impart it. The is investigations have however been conducted with all pos.sibm diligence and circumspection, and in every important calculi' tion they have been anxious to avoid any charge of partiality by giving to the Foreign Interest the benefit of any doubt the; may have arisen. But with the most anxious desire to discard every prejudice, and to take the fairest and most impartial dui °.` view of all the bearin gs o f thi s i nterest i ng quest i on, it "a scarcely be a matt er o f sur p r i ze , a f ter t h e ev id ence they barb adduced, that your Committee should come to the conclusion' that all the apprehensions expressed by the Ship-Owners 31 ; the petition which h as g i ven rise t o th e present R eport mus t be fully realized, should his Majesty's Government determin e on exercising the powers vested in them, by th e rec ip ro city! , , 1 4 Duties Actin regulating the future trading intercourse wi de the Northern States of Europe, nor is it on th e a b s t rac t nattl re a of the evidence alone th a t th e y groun d thi s d e d uct i on ; they w'" supported in their conviction of its correctness by the more ge' neral obserVatione they have been enabled to make in the Pr?' gress of the inquiry, by remarking the increasing degree 2 i , which foreign ships are even at present superseding Brit' i• tonnage in the Baltic Trade ; that they are sailing at eateS a ° freight so low as to d e fy a ll B r i st i s h compet i t i on ; t h at i n n; contracts y ttple, neo srk:ei eycieuytnaontr b edde y esengir ß pghuwlaara r oi llo i tlty t ihs i tzets s hhad h tetNehiyi s l: neean i ovte e nra r it alorlchycdfheuesarmenttrciogotolsrsirentleaifvtdsrnoheeurieytettaiihsshe circumstances, conveyance ft s epot u ,i alngroy p ptfnh p po el lights,et hfyrsa appears hos f pi ecslhp advantagecaejiaor articles, ruori V et tenyl ! yre s bto t te, y inshzultat.ii..; lastage, atc. have so increased their facilities as to enable theta Committee,i47l r i e a t timber to the extent to which they possess tonnage to mbar encouragement they would receive by the abrogation of t '„ - protecting duties hitherto afforded to British freight, to ina°7 ( - / such further embarkation of capital in foreign shipping as wou,' g lead to their monopolizing the entire trade with their resneet' l :e countries. Assuming, indeed, that this must be the result, ! r they are actually enabled to build, equip, and navigate thet s ships at a cheaper rate than the British Ship-Owner, it apPe ta l to your Committee an extraordinary inconsistency, that 1 , should at once be contended that such an advantage in P° ln e . of cheapness does not exist, while the necessity for restricti, l4 British navigation to native shipping and native seamen is fended. If British ships, either in point of actual cost, or fro''' „ superiority of construction, are even t ua ll y as , c h eap as thin built in foreign ports, the pr ov i s i ons o f th e Registry Act can P" considered in no other li g ht th an as an absurd and useless r_ i ," striction on trade ; nor cou ld any ev il resu l t f rom their miler since self-interest, the best and surest guide in matters of towel would most effectually prevent the British Ship-Owner fr° A ° seeking in a foreign coun t r y w h at h e cou ld procure on terms at home. But if the continuance of the Act be necessa r ' for the protection of the various branches of native industrii connected with the equipment of shipping from the overwhelm' ing effects of unrestricted foreign"comptition; the admission of such necessity involves also the admission of the superior cheat' : ness of foreign s hi pp i ng , an d esta bli s h es at once t h e c l a im '; protection ; and it app ears t o y our C omm i tte , t h at to contin ue the restriction on th e Ship-Owner, an d a t t h e same dine to open the channels of his employment to unreserved cool' petition, would be to place him in a situation of such peen, liar hardships, as it could never have b een th e i n tentior i of the Legislature to sanction. The same observation sr plies and with equal force, to the restrictions on manni n g by ap plies, seamen. If their wages be equal to th e i r pseuit skill and actually, compensate for any diff erence t h at may ex's' the same un i versa l law of self-interest will induce the employ' meat of native crews, without the intervention of the compel" e sory regulations of the Navigation A c t. If, th ere f or e, th Legislature or the Executive Governm en t, p rocee di n g on s conviction that the British Ship-Owner can succe ss f u lly Mau_ l , tarn competition with his for e i gn r ivals, d e t erm i ne t o annul the restrictions by which his freight has heretofore been Pro' tected, your Committee would strongly advise an a ppeal W made for the abrogation of all those restrictions by which 10 is at present prevented from maintaining it, as well. as of those by which Agriculture and Manufactures are supported. 1 10 1 far such abrogation may be consistent with th e ma int e nance ° the important national objects for which those restrictions wel l , r imposed, it would4ll become your Committee to inquire, I !°` though they are by no means of opinion that the time hes er ed when perfect freedom of trade can safely be resorted to, they jyuestecne of his tertain Majesty's Government confident conviction that could su not fail to such an appeal ton , Justice induce either the continuance of those Protecting Law s u n der wh:°; , f Ship Owners have vested their capitals, under a n assurance that protection being continued to them which is extended L ° the other great departments of nation a l indu s t r y, or suc h a re laxation of the restrictions under which they excl us i ve ly labou r. as would afford them some chance of maintaining that conoPf: tition to which the measure in question would expose thenn ae Having thus, they trust, succeeded in demonstrati ng that T. manner in which British Shipping would be affected by 1 : e operation of the Reciprocity of Duties Act would be to OW° it to unequal competition, and having proved that the de in which it would be injured, will be little short of its ,an' u annihilation in the trade between this country and the North er t States of Europe, your Committee cannot close their Itef °r i . without suggesting the expediency of embracing the onpor„ e d nity afforded by the production of the evidence thus coltec` to brine under the consideration of his Majesty's Governmentnot only the propriety of continuing the existing protection t o the Shipping Interest, but also its present inadequacy to eO, , able them to maintain competition with their foreign and mot s favoured rivals, and the strong necessity established b 1 evidence for a still further extension of assistance and protec tion, if either on the grounds of individual justice or national policy the maintenance of the naval supremacy of Britain /) C considered an object of importance. London, 9th Dec. 1823. (Signed) • Geo. F. Young. - Thos. Forrest. ' . Ra. Fenwiek. Roht. Douglas. Rich. Smith. J. Nicholls. Henry Nelson. Thos. GilfespY• Thos, Urquhart. Henry Blanchard. . Chris. Tennant. J. Q. Bevels. - Edw. Hurry. William Parker. William Tiudle. J. 31. Maude.