The Sun. — London, England, 1827-05-08 00:00:00

• colleague was 'most elelelAieeey. Tice use made of the rev art was hot at all justifiable. The shipping owner' never ceased to advise him, and to point out the ruinents consequences which must follow. The Right reion. Gentleman still persevered, and in the speech whie;de he addressed to the House, he stated, that having tt'.ade those very concessions to America, he could not with hold them from the Prussian Government. In reasoniug upon the report, the Right Honourable Gentleman had as sumed things as being contained in that report, no syllable of which w as t o b e f oun d i n i t : not hi ng wh i c h ten d ed to justify the Reciprocity Act, much less to make it perma nent, could be found there. He admitted that a revision of the shipping laws were necessary, but it was a little too much to confer benefit on other nations at the expense of this. By the alteration made in these laws, no less than 5,000 ships had been admitted to the privileges of the British trade. Ia 1816, America had 99,941 tons of shipping employed in the trade with Great Britain and Ireland, and tlsie country had 45,140 tons employed in the trade with America; but by a recent statement it appeared that in the last 10 years America had doubled the amount of her's, while Great Britain had diminished to 37,800. He 'would ask why this advantage should be yielded to a'etnerica ? He was ready to prove that by these treaties England had to encounter competition with other nations, who could build at 81. per ton, while it cost this country 28/. per ton. He was ready to admit, that as 28/. per ton was only the price in London, it was not fair to con sider it as the general price. He would therefore take the price at the ports, and then the difference between our prices and those ofthe northern nations would be the difference between 81. and 181. If this matter were referred to a com mittee, he would pledge his honour that he would prove this fact. The comparative prices -of building in England and foreign countries, taken from papers before the House, were as follow :—in London, the price was 28/. a ton ; but that he conceived to be a moat extravagant charge, and he took the prices in Ergland, therefore, at 181. a ton. In Prussia, it was Si. 8 :e. ; in France, 11/. ; in Sweden, 61. 155.; in Holland, 10/.. O n D enmar k, 9/. 10 e . ; i n R uss i a, 4/ .155. . The wages - de these countries amounted only. to half as muel, as in England. Reckoning according to the returned recce, a Prussian vessel might be navigated feir four voyages at about SOL; while an English vessel of the same tonnage, and carrying the. same number of men, would cost about 664 L Had the English shipowners any advantage on their side to set against all these ? Certainly not. It bad, in deed, been said, that they had an advantage in the insur ance, but that was not the case. It must be recollected, that when a foreign ship cost only half as much as an English one, the foreigner had to ensure for only halfas much us the English owner. A certificate, signed by the principal !?rokera in London, had been presented to that House, and it declared that the British vessels possessed no facilities in this respect which were not enjoyed in au equal degree by the foreign. It was a well-known fact, that foreign ships made as many voyages as the British, and with equal safety; and so great an improvement had taken place in naviga tion in the northern countries, that it was by no means uncommon for the owners of vessels in those countries to enter into a bond to perform a voyage in a cer tain time, wind and weather permitting. The vessele of the northern countries therefore possessed the same advantages as the British ships, while file eXpence of building the latter was enormous: He was informed that, at that very time, where there Was one British ship entered at Liverpool there were ten foreign ships. The returns which had been laid upon the table would show the superiority of the numbers of foreign ships entered over that of the British, and the exports had been diminishing for some time past, and were still dimishing. From Prussia the imports, in 162 , t, amounted to 504,140/. ; and the exports amounted: to 634,0741. ; the next year the im ports amounted tee 620,2871., and the exports were only 468,4681. Ile exports to the northern countries did not amount tee more than one million, and the House would hardly suppose it possible that we were paying 37,0001. a yea , : to these individuals, without including 36,0001. due to the Trinity-house, making in all a sum of 73,000/. per annum. Not satisfied with this, they must have the ad vantage of our colonial trade given them in addition.— [The Hon. Member here entered into a detail respecting the intercourse between this and the northern countries, but afterwards confessed that he was in an error, and had been stating the tonnage instead of the number of the vele seh.]—The colonial trade furnished a proof of the disad vantage under which the British navigation laboured. In 1822, by a comparison between Prussian and English vessels, there appeared to be a superiority in favour of England of two to one. In 1825, when these treaties were in full force, the English vessels were only supe rior to the Prussian by 4,000 tons ; and in the year 1826, the relative amount was 83,000 tons of foreign vessels, and 64,000 British. From the last accounts which he had been able to procure, it appeared that there was a considerable failing off in British shipping in the last year, especially in the trade with the south. If foreigners could navigate their vessels, as they cer tainly could, at forty per cent cheaper than the English, and could build them for half the money, the British trade must be sacrificed when brought into competition with persons who possessed such advantages. The result heal already been felt. The shipping interest of this country had been materially injured. There had not only been a 'material falling off in this department, but he could chew that the trade was now being carried on at a loss. The shipowners did not meet with a greater return than five per cent. ; and, when it was considered of how perishable a nature their property was, it would he easily seen that a return of five per cent. was by no means a profit. He wished that the hook of the register, which, though it could not perhaps be laid before that House, might he pro duced in a Committee, had been investigated, because he thought that a great deal of light would be thrown upon the extent of the distress which at present prevailed among the ahipoweers of this country. He thought that, by an investigation of that hook, it would be found that that dis tress was much greater than was generally believed. It might be said, "Look at the number of ships employed; look at the comparative statement of the numbers of Bri tish and foreign ships cleared out, which has been made up to the sth of January, 1827 ;" but he begged leave to say that that return was by no means a fair one. Ha could not possibly conceive why any comparative statement of British and foreign vessels should hare been made, when it was well known that no foreign ships could be cleared out to the colonies. If the returns were divested of this comparison, he thought that, instead of the amount stated, the British ships cleared out would not be found to amount to more than 800,000 tons. He coufeseed himself utterly unable to comprehend that comparative statement which had been laid upon the table, and the reason of the statement having been so drawn up, was as inexplicable to him as the mode by which another ingenious person proceeded to find out the half of any thing, which he did by first doubling the actual amount, and then divide it by two.—(A Laugh.)—lt had been attempted to he proved, that the great increase of shipping within the few last years was a proof of the floe ' ishing condition of the shipping interest. This was an assumption not warranted by fact ; because if there had• been an excess of ship-building, there must also be an ex teen of tonnage, and he thought, from what he had already shown, that such was not the fact. It was a fact for which he could vouch, because he had it from the best possible source, that in the port of Liverpool, vessels, the building of whicheriginally cost_l4,oool.,were sold a short time ago for. 6,0001. It was urged by the supporters of the e.ystem upheld by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if the Corn Bill should pass into a law, it would give employment to a great deal of the shipping now disengaged. He for one sincerely hoped that the Corn Bill would never be carried. But if even it should, the anticipations of the Right Hon. Gen tleman and his friends would be found totally to fail, for he was convinced that the passing of that measure would not give employmeni to more than 5,000 tons of British shipping. Foreign shipping would always have the pre ference. The falling off in the number of sailors was in proportion to the amount of unemployed shipping. By a calculation which had been made, and the result of which was now before him, it appeared that there were nearly 12,000 sailers less in the present year than in 1816. The ships were still in existence, but the energies of their owners were paralysed. It appeared that nearly one-third of the ships built for the British merchant service were built in Canada. Now he (General Gascoyue) could see no ad ventage to this country from the transfer which had thus taken place. It appeared that in 1825, 536 ships were built in the British plantations. In 1826, there were near 400 vessels built in the British plantations. Now, what was the number built in England during those years ? In 1825, 413 ships were built in England; end, in 1826 Only 415 ships were built ; making a falling off in that short pace f 2S shins. He could not but regard with jealousy the transfer ° fer ' to the colonies of our trade in ship build ing, and he objected to it principally because the price of colonial produce was thereby enhanced. The gallant Ge neral entered into a calculation respecting the amount of tonnage inwards for (we believe) the last three years, by which, he said, it appeared that the average of foreign tonnage employed in conveying merchandise to this country, amounted to 61 per cent. more than the average of the British tonnage employed during the same period. There was a material distinction between merchants and ship owners. Merchants were generally partly shipowners, but the shipping interest was divided between a class of men who were deeply, he would almost say exclusively, interested in the shipping question. It was quite true, as Isle Right Hon. Colleague bad asserted, that several of the merchants of Liverpool who were shipowners supported the project of Government, but he (Gen. Gascoyne) denied that the shipping interest as a body had ever expressed a favourable opinion of the changes introduced by his Right Hon. Friend. It was impossible, he contended, that one night's debate would be sufficient to satisfy the shipping interest and the country at large with respect to the all important question which the House was now called upon to discuss. If his motion should he lost, would it satisfy that interest whose welfare and prosperity were so closely connected with it ? The wealth, safety, and independence of this country depended on the state of the shipping. His Right Hon. colleague might attempt to " mysticate" the figures of the shipping returns.—(A laugh.)—He meant mystificate, for he was well aware that his Right Hon. Friend and colleague possessed that art to the greatest perfection. If the opportunity were denied of entering on the enquiry which it was the object of this motion to obtain, the result, be feared, would be ruinous to the shipping interest, and perilous to the Government by which that in quiry was refused. Before the_next meeting of Parliament the subject would be agitated at every place where the shipping interest was affected, and a pamphlet war would ensue in which the question espoused by his Right Hon. Friend and its supporters, might meet with a defeat by no means convenient. Declaring this to be his impression, he solemnly declared that in bringing forward the present mo tion he was wholly uninfluenced by party feelings. He had no personal animosities to gratify, no personal attach ment to any man.—(Hear, and laughter.)--He declared he had no wish to attack the Administration .of to-day, more than the Administration by which it was preceded. —(Hear.)—So help his head—(A laugh)—he was influ enced by no party feeling in bringing forward the present motion, and had no other object in view than simply to ac complish a pledge made to his constituents. He hoped the House would treat the great question now under discus sion with becoming temperance, and that no party feelings would show themselves on this occasion. —(Hear, bean)._ He hoped, therefore, that his Right Hon. Friend would not refuse the motion with which he intended to conclude. The Gallant General then moved—" That a Select Com mittee be appointed to inquire into the present distressed state of the Commercial Shipping, and report the' same to the House." Mr. LIDDELL hoped that the petition of one of the greatest commercial towns in the world would not be op posed by his Majesty's Government. Feeling every dispo sition to support the present Administration, and he should do so on principle, he owned he felt considerable pain in seconding the present motion, because that motion in volved the first great question which was brought forward in that House under the new Administration, at the head of which was that enlightened statesman who for years had succeeded in securing his (Mr. Liddell's) confidence and that of the public.—(Cheers.)—ln his defence, if defence it could be called, where there was no accusation, or rather, he should say, in the explanaion of his conduct with which that Right Hon. Gentleman had favoured the House, there was something so satisfactory, so candid, so dignified and patriotic, that it must have brought conviction even to those unwilling to be convinced.—(Loud cheers.)—Under these circumstances, he should sup port from choice and conviction the present Administra tion. At the same time his duty told him, that the ques tion which was now before the House was one which he was also bound to support. He denied that it was a pirty question. There were two points in it to v - Lich he had to direct his attention. The first was to establish the claim of the shipping interest to the consideration of the House ; and the next, to meet the great talent which he knew the Right Hon. the PreSident of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson) would bring to bear on the subject. He did trust, however, that that Right Hon. Gentleman him self would see the fairness of the course he was now taking, as lie (Mr. Huskisson) had, in the course of his celebrated exposé on this subject about twelve months ago, observed that if any Hon. Member should have cause to differ from the course then pursued, it would be open to him to point out his objection by a specific motion. It was not denied that the great body of shipowners had viewed the mea sures then adopted with a jealous eye, anticipating that they would in the result prove greatly injurious to their inter rests. It was true, that thebody generally did not at that time petition against those measures, but they were not allowed to go altogether without remonstrance. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the comparative state of the commercial marine in 1816 and at the present time; and he wished to be understood that he spoke of the amount of tonnage- In 1816 the amount of tonnage be longing to all the ports of the United Kingdom was 2,783,949. in 1826, it was 2,635,653, being a decrease since the time of the war, of 147,296 tons, while there was in the same t im e a decrease of from 11,000 to 12,000 sea men. Now, considering the situation which we occupied during a great part of the war, as the carriers of the greatest portion of the trade of Europe, which we did not hold at present, it might be to some a matter of surprise that our commercial marine should still stand so high as it did ; but then it should be recollected that there had been since the war an immense increase in our imports and exports, and by there the state of our foreign trade should be judged. In 1816 we had imported 60,000,000 lbs. of cotton. Our import of that article continued to increase until it reached, in 1825, to 150,000,000 lbs. The question then was, why we had not increased in the same proportion in the number of our seamen? The answer to which was, that foreigners, who could afford to navigate their ships much cheaper than we could, came and filled tip the void thus created in our shipping. From the Baltic we had the greatest competition in our trade. This would appear from two tables which he held in his hand. From one of those it appeared, that in 1821, the amount cf foreign tonnage in British ports, from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, !and Prussia, was 91,457 tons. In 1822 it was 132,251 tons; in 1823, 202,000 ; in 1824 it was 322,816 tons; and in 1825 it was 395,643 tons. Mr. HUSKISSON asked across the table, what writhe amount in 1826 ? Mr. LIDDELL had not received the account of the amount inwards of that year, but be could state the aggre gate amount of tonnage which cleared outwards to the Bal• tic in 1826, was 267,861 tons. British shipping was nearly stationary till the stimulus given to it by the specu lation of 1824 and 1825. In 1821, the excess of foreign over British shipping clearing out to the same ports (as we understood the Hon. Member), was 23,911 ; in 1824, it was 40,420; in 1823, it was 86,720; in 1825 (we did not hear the amount in 1824), it was 127,318 ; and and in 1826, it was 153,723. This he considered a strong case of the shipowners, for it was clear that the British shipping suffered very much from it, particularly in the northern and eastern ports, from which the greatest compe tition with the ports in the Baltic was kept up. He was aware of the fact, that even if all the protection which had been given to the British shipping had been continued, there must have been an increase of foreign shipping, as compared with what it was during the war; but that, he submitted, would be a reason why the little protection it had against foreign trade should not be withdrawn—(Hear, hear. )—lt had been said that the decrease and deficiency of the present year arose from the over-speculations of 1825. This he did not believe to be the real cause. That cause he thought to be the competition with those nations which could build and equip their vessels much cheaper - than we could. He--would now show what had been the state of ship-building within the last few years, and a great falling off would appear in 1826, and that much of what was done in that year was from the contracts of the preceding. In 1823, the ships built amounted to 3,700 tons ; in 1824, to 6,000 ; in 1825, to 6,613, and in 1826, to 2,300. These accounts were taken from the returns of shipowners ; and from later accounts it appeared, that in some ports, where much business had heretofore been done, none at all, in the way of ship-building, was now going on. This proved that the new system, howeier ingenious it might he in theory, did not work well, and was, in practice, at variance with the prosperity of the shipowners of Eng. land. If evidence of this were wanting, it would be found in the petitions, which had come from all quarters. Wer e these petitions to be neglected, or wer, they to close their ears against the grievances Which pressed so hardly on au large a portion of the trading interest of the country? When they talked of reciprocity of benefits, he must observe that our situation was so different from that of other nations that we got no advantage from reciprocity. Every thing done with this view, was giving an advantage against ourselves to our rivals. Allusion had been made to the committee in 1825, and it was said that if any thing there suggested should be found at variance with our interests, it might be modified at some future period. But complaints, and very strong ones, had since been made against the system then proposed, and be trusted they would not be allowed to pass over without that attention which their import ance deserved. He did not at all despair that employ ment would be found for our shipping, bat that, he thought, must now be looked to, from an increased intercourse with our colonies. To that source he looked with much con fidence ; and he trusted, that if Government had the firm ness to maintain the interdict against American interfer ence with our colonial trade, a channel of intercourse would be opened to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, which would be found most advantageous. Another mode by which our trade with part of North America would be increased, would be by a repeal of some of the duty on North American timber, and by some modification in the bonding system. He would also suggest some modifica tion of the duty on deals, which might be considered a manufactured article. This was recommended by the I Lords' Committee in 1825, and if adopted, would lie found extremely useful. A return had been made of the amount of duty paid on American timber within the last 10 years; and from that it was endeavoured to be shown that we might have obtained a much higher duty if the saute quantity of timber were imported from the Baltic, and that the difference was the amount of pro tection given to American timber. But it should he recollected, that if the duty were not thus low, the same quantity would not be imported. It was now imported in such quantities, that some of it was cut up for fire wood, which in itself was an advantage to the poor of the country. The Honourable Member then proceeded to con tend that the Colonial trade was that which ought to be particularly encouraged by the country ; as, besides the employment it gave to the capital of the British ship-owner, it was one of the best nurseries for our minim. In sup port of his argument, he read an extract from Mr. Brougham's work on the Colonial system, in which the same principles were maintained with respect tc the trade with the Colonies. It might, he observed, he objected to him, that he was opposed to those large and liberal views of commercial policy which prevailed in the country ; but he thought there was a great difference between a liberal policy and that which went to cripple a main branch of our commerce. It should be considered that there was one central spot, which he tool to be this country, from which every improvement extended to all parts of the commer cial world, and that if we were too premature in enlarging our commercial policy, we might impair our energy, weaken our maritime superiority, and that if we suffered in these respects, we should not suffer alone, but the injury would extend to the universe. On these grounds, he felt it his duty to second the motion. Mr. POULETT THOMPSON, in rising to oppose the motion of the Gallant General, felt the greatest -Ipprehen sion lest it should be supposed that he did Fa from any fear of what the result of the labours of a Committee on the subject of shipping would be. On the contrary, he felt certain that as nothing but truth could be elicited by such an inquiry, the cause to which be was attached, the liberal principles of policy, as applied by the Right Hon. Gentle man to the shipping of this country, would only be made more manifest, and be more than before confirmed. On this account he should rejoice at the establishment of a Committee ; because he felt that the principles of the Right Hon. Gentleman would come out brighter than before, after having passed the ordeal of inquiry. Still he was bound to oppose the motion for two reasons, because be conceived that two evils might result from its being granted —one, that it might be construed into something like a doubt, on the part of his Majesty's Government, of the expediency of the principle ; the other, that it would necessarily raise delusive hopes in the minds of the ship-owners and their friends. There was yet another reason which induced him to oppose it—that he did not think a Committee should be granted on any subject, unless asufficient case could be made out; and certainly, in his opinion, the Gallant Officer hail failed entirely in doing so. He thought he should be able to show to the House, that the Honourable Gentlemen who had brought forward the motion were equally unfortunate in facts and conclusions. He did nut accuse them of having wilfully made mistatements all they had done was, to believe a little too impli citly what had been stated to them by others. And certainly there was nothing in their credulity which astonished him so much as he was by the extraordinary— lie might almost call it unblushing—effrontery with which they were supplied with those distracted statements, by those who must have known how much they were so. The same hands which had supplied the Gallant General had supplied the documents which were upon their table, and he should proceed to shew in what manner these state ments had been compiled. And first, with regard to the cause of distress--the only part of the Gallant General's statement in which he could at all agree, and in that be only partially coincided ; but the bare instance of distress was not sufficient to institute a claim for a Committee, es pecially when the cause of that distress was obvious. He agreed in the existence of distress amongst the shipowners, but he would ask the Gallant General in what class of men, in what line in which capital was employed, did distress not exist at present ? Did it exist solely amongst the ship owners ? The Honourable Gentleman had talked of a depreciation to the amount of five-and-twenty or thirty per cent. in shipping. Let him run his eye over the ge neral price current, and he would find that, in many other departments of our trade, there had been a fall of above five-and-twenty per cent. He might perhaps be told that the distress in those classes was becoming daily alleviated, whilst that of the shipowners was increasing. This he denied; but if so, it was easily to be accounted for. In those businesses, such as shipbuilding, where capital ex pended cannot be withdrawn or transferred, except by an almost certain sacrifice, it was natural that the distress would last longer -than in 'others 'not in that situation. But the cause of the distress in the shipping was the same with that in other lines of business--the over speculation and over-trading. The papers on the table chewed what were the returns of ships built in the British empire duringthe last few years : iBl9 111,000 tons: 1823 1820 ..... . 84,000 , 1824 143,000 1821 1822 ...... 67,000 1826 178,000 Here was, in 1825, an increase of nearly 200 per cent. on 1823; and in 1826 of 100 per cent. Was it, then, to be wondered at that there should be difficulty now in employ ing all this increase of shipping, when; owing to the over-speculation in other branches of trade, the amount of goods to be transported had likewise fallen off? But we were told by the Gallant General, and by his supporters, in their correspondence with the Board of Trade, that the distress was now owing to the competition of foreigners. And how do they attempt to prove this? Not by a refer ence to the amount of the respective shipping employed— not by showing that a decrease had taken place in the amount of British shipping—because, ache should presently show, they could not—but by a reference to statements of the cost, time of sailing, and comparative durability of fo reign ships, in which it was easy to impose upon the cre dulity of those who were not well versed in the subject.— These attempts were so open and so barefaced, that they deserved to be exposed ; and he should certainly do so. First, with regard to the cost of building, the parties left out of their calculation altogether the difference of the ad measurement, owing to the registry regulations of this coun try. The foreign s hip was built at so much per tons bur den, the English vessel at so much per tons register ; and the British vessel so built carried one-third to one-half more tons burden than her registry admeasurement. This the ship owners attempted to meet by a declaration that " the ca pacity of ships built abroad was equal to that of English." This was a mere miserable quibble. Now, taking the proportionate rate of capacity, it appeared from the best returns which could be obtained, that the cost of build ing was, during the last six or seven years, as follows : per ton British register :—ln London 201. ; in Hull, 17/. ; Newcastle, 161. to 17/. ; if wood-sheathed, 121. to 15/. ; Nor way, fit only for timber, 10/. ; Baltic, 121. to 13/. ; if fit only for timber, 91. to 10/. ; Holland, France, and Hamburgh, 131. to 16/. per ton. If coppered, ISZ. to 20/. Undoubtedly there was here a difference in the coat price ; but this was more than accounted fur by the com parative durability; the time they each commenced the voyage, and the difference of the number of men. An at tempt, and a most unworthy attempt, had been make_ by the body of ship-owners, to show that in no one of their particulars did the British ship enjoy an advantage. First, to prove that the durability was not greater, they had given what appeared to any one not conversant with the subject, a fair comparative statement taken front Lloyd's books. Now, what was the truth of this? Why, it was the most unfair that could be ; and showed anything but the truth. British ships were registered at Lloyd's the moment they were off the stocks ; and if any accident happened to them they were instantly effaced. A foreign ship was only re gistered when she came into this country, and no ac count was taken of accidents which might have happen ed to her : so that very probably half the foreign ships quoted by the ship-owners as a proof of their longevity, might have ceased to exist altogether ; 2dly, with regard to the time :—A certificate was given by two brokers on this subject ; but it was not the better for that. He would appeal to any man—any member in the House who, like himself, was in the habit of employing shipping—whether the foreigners were not, proverbially, dilatory in their voyages. Lastly, with regard to the dif ference of the number of men. Here a statement in figures was given, in which it would have been difficult to have erred unknowingly ; but these Gentlemen actually went against their own figures ; and after giving a calculation, which showed that there are five men employed to every 100 tons of British shipping, and six to every 100 tons foreign, actually told us that there were only four to every 100 tons foreign.—(Hear.)—lt remained now to see, whether what the shipowners said ought to have occurred, had really occurred ; and whether we were uudersailed lW foreign ships, as according to their calculations we ought to be. The House had already heard the immense increase of British ship-building in 1824, 1825, and 1826, since the Reciprocity Acts had come into force. Now, what was the statement as laid upon the table of the House, of the British and foreign tonnage entered in those years? British Tons. Foreign Tons. ISIS 2,457,779 704,511 1820 2,270,400 408,401 1822 2,390,238 419,694 1824............ 2,361,219 694,880 1825 2,786,844 892,601 1826 2,476,047 643,922 From this account; it did not appear that foreign Shipping bad increased in proportion to ours since the alteration in the law, although he certainly expected it would ; bet this was only a further argument against the assertion of our being undersailed. He would now turn to the state of the Baltic trade. What was the return of the number of ships, British and Foreign, that had passed the Sound ? British. Foreign. British. Foreign. 1821... 2,819 6,358 I 1821... 3,540 6,978 1822...3,097 5,386 1825. .5,186 7,974 1823...3,016 6,187 1826. .3,730 7,335 Comparing 1826 with 1824 and preceding years, it did not appear that we had lost any thing of our relative pre tension. It was not, then, the fact, that we were under sailed by foreigners. If the contrary were true, why did they not obtain all the carrying trade of the world ? How happened it British shipping retained so large a share of it ? He would appeal to any merchant, whether he did not always find it his advantage to give the preference in a neutral port to a British ship. A statement had been made in 1823, by the ship-owners, that in that year, out of 208 vessels arrived at Hamburgh between the Ist of January and let of June, only 12 were British : that was before the alteration in the law. W hat was the case even in 1826 ? By a return he held in his hand, out of 802 vessels, 700 were British. Did this look as if the car rying trade was lost to us? He had said thus 'such, to show the fallacy of the statement of the shipowners ; but for a moment admitting them to be correct, he would ask the Gallant General what he proposed doing? Re-enact the Navigation Laws ? Was that his remedy? And what must follow? Of course retaliation, by those powers which would be attacked by our doing so. And sup posing that such barbarous measures were actually com menced in this war of prohibition; which would of course be carried to the extreme length by both parties, who were likely to he the greatest losers ? This country, which pos sessed an immense commercial income, and had such an enormous capital employed in shipping ; or that country, whose marine was yet scarcely formed, whose extent of ca pital employed in this branch was very trifling?. He had now shown that the Gallant General, and those who sup parted him, were wrong as far as their own interest, and the interest of the shipping itself, was concerned, in their exclamations against the reciprocity acts. But he now turned to the wider field—the general interests of the people of this country, and of commerce generally. When the shipowners talked of sacrificing the trade with Prussia, as being of little moment, were they aware what that trade was ? Did they know what the amount of British goods exported to that country was ? Was it a question of a few thousands? In 182 S, according to the account laid on the table of the House, the imports into Prussia of British pro duce amounted to 7,465,0001. —(Hear.)---And was this immense amount to be sacrificed—to what, too ? To a supposed good which the very parties interested could not show to be one. And did the country pay no tax for the shipowners already ? What was the difference between the amount of duty on Canada and Baltic timber? For whose supposed interest was that ? and what was the amount? By the returns laid on the table, it appeared that the diffe rence between the duty which was levied on Canada tim ber and that which would have been levied on Baltic, was, in 1824, 1,226,000/. ; 1825, 1,409,079 t. ; 1826, 1,278,591/. This was a tax on the country for the be nefit of that class. He was far, however, from opposing their reasonable demands, when those demands could be complied with compatibly with the general interests of the mass of the nation._(Hear. ) The duties on hemp, on linens, on iron, on copper, might be further reduced. That was a just claim, and such a one he would support. This was not the time for entering into the question of the na vigation laws; but if he did so, he must say that they had been from the beginning prejudicial instead of advantage ous to the British commerce, and even to British ship ping; and he could fortify his opinion by quoting that of the most illustrious persons, all of them cotemporaries of the introduction of the system. Sir Roger Coote, Sir Josiah Child, and after them Sir Matthew Dukes, who ex pressly-recorded their opinion of those laws as unfavourable to this country. He had, he now thought, sufficiently an swered the gallant General and the Honourable Member for Northumberland. Nothing but the importance of the subject could have induced him to do so ; but he considered the present attack as.not merely one upon the principle of the alteration of the navigation laws, but as one on the prin ciple of free trade generally ; and he conceived that on such an occasion, when an attempt was made (if he might borrow from the eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite) to " arrest the march of human improvement and beat back the tide of . civilization," it behoved every honourable and independent man in that House, more especially if connected by circumstances with the commerce of the country, to stand forward to oppose it. He should never he found weaning, lie boped, on such an occasion, and how- ever feeble he l';elS aware was his voice, however little was his support, the .Right Hon. Gentleman should have all he could do.—(flear.)—But more than that, he would venture to say, thatif the Right Hon. Gentleman only per severed in hia course, if he only persisted in his liberal policy, the voice of the country would be with hint—his country's applause would be his weed ; and he would enure the Right Hon. Gentleman that—Nec quiriquid ha bet fortune tue majus quam ut possis, nee nature tua me liuB_quam ut,velis servare quern plurimos. (The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud applause from both sides of the House.) A MEMBER under the gallery made a few observations, which did not reach those who were in it. Sir. J. YORKE said, it became him, as a British Ad miral, to defend the interests of British commerce. Be was not a learned man, but he had, he thought, been able to form a correct opinion of the question before the House, and must confess that, notwithstanding the ability, dis played by him, he could not concur with the young and Hon. Member who had just sat down. That Hon. Gen tleman, from his connection with Northern shipping houses, could sail ships cheaper, no doubt, than those who had British bottoms only at command ; but that very fact was sufficient to convince him that matters were not going on well for the commerce of the country, particularly when he saw a Broom at the mast head.—(Loud and continued laughter and cheers.)--But when lie saw British seamen walking about unemployed—when he saw British ship ping rotting in our docks—when lie saw foreign brokers tendering, at reduced rates of freight, a fine Prussian, a beautiful Dane, and a charming Swede—(a laugh)—he could not agree--delightful as was the prospect held out —in opinion with those who thought, that to effect the prosperity of the country was not practicable with such means. He should vote for the motion of the Gallanr Gene ral, because, in such a case as the present, the support of a British Admiral ought not to be withheld ; and he thought that Hon. Gents. ought not, on such an occasion, even though they did sit on the Treasury Bench, to suffer their jaws to remain locked. He entreated of the House to look at the question as it stood on its own merits, and not to attend to the ar guments of the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, or of any other Hon. Gentleman who had the power to make the worse appear the better reason. The proposition to repeal the Navigation Laws would, 30 years ago, have been enough to send a man in office about his business. He therefore again repeated his advice, that Ho nourable Members would not he led by.speeches, but decide on that truly British question like a British House of Corn mom. Mr. HUSKISSON rose amid loud cheering, and spoke to the following effect.—l shall not attempt to follow the Gallant Officer through that which he has said respecting the question before the House, but I shall leave to Hon. Gentlemen to decide how Far, in point of fact, the words he has adduced in support of the motion, did really con.. duce to that object. The Hon. and Gallant Officer has drawn upon the stores of his own fancy, while hi called upon the House not to be led away by the argu ment of others.—(Hear.)—However, before I proceed to the main question, I trust I shall be allowed to make my unfeigned acknowledgements to the House, for the indul gence with which I Lave been favoured, by the frequent postponement of this question, in consequence of my una voidable absence from indisposition. I regret the cause of that postponement exceedingly, and the more so, because, at the same time, another question of great importance, the Corn Laws, was under discussion, in the course of which, frequent reference was made to my name, and to my opinions on the subject. I admit that, in thus referring to me and my opinions, Hon. Members of this House have only done their duty—for if it became necessary to refer to my public conduct in this House, it was always done under the con viction that, on a future occasion, an opportunity would be afforded me for explaining and defending my opinions and conduct. While I feel, therefore, nothing but thank fulness to this House for the indulgence I have received at its hands, during my absence, I must say, that I do net feel equally pleased at the manner in which allusion has been made to me in another place, where, 1 will say, a most unprovoked attack has been made upon me, and in which my character and my public conduct have been referred to in a manner perfectly unjustifiable, because it was done in a place where I could not be present to defend myself.--(Cheers.)—l am speaking of a place, where, under no possible circumstances, in sickness or in health, will it ever be in my power, at any future-time, to meet the individuals making that attack, face to face.-,-(Cheers.) .—lt may have become the feelings of the individual to whom I refer, to allude to tee as a wild theorist, ready at all times to introduce innovations calculated to produce imminent danger to the country. It may have been deemed justifiable'by that individual to state, that I have palmed on die House, measures of the greatest importance upon false pretences.—(Che,ers, and cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair.") Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM rose to speak to order. It appeared to him that the Right Hon. Gentleman was out of order, inasmuch as he was referring to that which had taken place in the other House of Parliament. Mr. HUSKISSON—If allusions are to be made else where to my conduct in this House—(Cheers)—ifiny cha racter is to be attacked—l will not say where—hut no matter in what place or by whom that attack is made—l must, in this House, be afforded an opportunity of defend ing myself. (Loud and continued cheering.) It has been said of me, in the place to which I allude, that I have passed through this House measures of great public im portance upon false pretences, and that I have been guilty of that which would be neither more nor less than political fraud. —( Hear.) There is an old observation, that those who are must practised in tortuous courses themselves, are ever the most ready to charge that species of conduct on others. --(Hear, hear.)—l know not how far I am at liberty to refer to the charges brought against me ; but this I will say, that I have now, for more than thirty years, had the honour of a seat in this House ; and that, from the first moment of that period to the present, I have looked upon myself as subject to that moral responsibility to which every public man must hold himself liable. To that moral responsibility I am quite willing to submit my connection with this and the other measures which, as a public ser vant, it has become my duty to bring forward, for that which I intended to be the service of the State. Further it would not become me to say—it would be ar rogance in me to say more ; but I must say, that, with re spact to the individual to whom I allude, I have attended to his public character and conduct for five and thirty years--I have marked all his proceedings--I have read every publication of his that has issued from the Press, and with which he has favoured the public, down to his last Pamphlet on the Corn , Laws—(A laugh)—l have read them all—(Laughter)—and, in saying that, I say more than, perhaps, any other man in the country can say.-- (Long continued laughter.)--Among the many blessings which Providence has showered on this country, in the course of the long war, which continued for so many years of the period to which I have referred, it was not one of the least, that we have escaped from the calamities which would result from that individual's being clothed with the power to inflict on us the wild theories of his disordered imagination—theories, which were, and ever will remain, incapable of practicable application. —(Cheers and laughter. ) I now turn to the subject more immediately under dis cussion, begging pardon of the House for this di gression, and thanking it most sincerely, for the hear ing with which I have been favoured, while treating of matters principally personal to myself. --(Cheers. )—I, for one, rejoice most sincerely, that the Gallant Officer, my Hon. Friend and Colleague, hasbrought forward his motion, not only because it affords me an opportunity of stating my own sentiments and opinions, but because it has given to the Hon. Member for Northumberland a means of dis playing his extended and enlightened view of the subject, and of those talents which hold out a promise of a distin guished political career. It has also afforded to the Hon. Member for Dover an opportunity of manifesting an extra ordinary degree of knowledge, on a subject of such vital im portance to the country, as that under consideration, and in a manner that must have afforded unmixed pleasure to the House.---(Hear, hear.)—Among the other statements which fell from my Hon. Colleague was this—that the tables of this House have, for the last two yeara, been weighed down with petitions from the distressed shipowners of Great Britain, to which his Majesty's Government have never condescended to pay the slightest attention. It was too hard to bring such a sweeping charge against his Ma jesty's Government—for what is the state of the case ? A great number of petitions were last year presented to this House on the subject. What became of them? For the moat part, the Hon. Gent. presenting them were content with moving, that they be laid upon the table, and be printed. I, however, from the situation which I filled in the councils of the country, felt it my duty to recom mend inquiry—(Hear)—and, with that view, I did, of my own accord, bring forward a statement, exhibiting the state of the commercial marine of the country, with which our power and safety are so intimately connected.—(Hear, hear.)—ln making that statement, I availed myself of the opportunity to bring before the House my principles re specting the Navigation Laws. I also compared those means with those now possessed by other countries—coun tries alien to us—and likely to become, some day or other, the opposers, if not the enemies, of our maritime power. The statements I made, have been, and are, before the pub lic ; they have been alluded to by the Gallant General, who brought this subject on the present occasion before the House, and they were made in a way that will sufficiently warrant any Hon. Member in holding me responsible for their con tents. To those statements, however, much misrepresentation has been given out of doors; these misrepresentations have been, in many cases, of so gross and extraordinary a nature as to force upon me the belief that they have been wilfully made, and so I must consider them. Sir, I trust that an op portunity will be this evening afforded me, by permission of the House, and that my physical strength will enable me to set myself right, with respect to those misrepresentations, and, what I bold to be of far greater consequence, to set in a right point of view the Government of the country, and the late Parliament, by which that Government was authorised in its proceedings. I trust I shall be again allowed to overthrow, if I may be allowed the expression, that which has been already overthrown by the lion. Member for Dover. I know I can do so ; I know I can sweep away every calumny that has been directed against me personally, by those who have put them forth. Let not the authors of those calumnies fear that I am about to retort upon them after their own style of low and vulgar abuse. No such thing. I am only about to purify my own hands from aspersions which, I know, cannot rest upon my character—from aspersions, which, I know, cannot affect me. Those who used such weapons against me in an unjust cause, may be assured that I will not use such weapons in a just one. If, however, I ab stain from personal' abuse, in retorting the libels that .have been uttered against me, I cannot, in justice to myself, or in justice to the State, pass over the unfounded arguments and statements, the sophistry and the false assertions, of those Gentlemen. With respect to the Shipowners them selves, in consequence of their peculiar situation, distressing as, in a great measure, it has been, I must hold them in entirely excused for much of the language they have made use of. But, I must say, that their sentiments and their declarations have not been and cannot be supported by proof. Sir, I am fully aware of all the disadvantages under which I app roac h th e di scu ssion of this subject in its de. tails. They have been commented on by the Member for Dover, who addressed you at some length , and with much ability. I am also aware that, in a case such as this, many Hon. Members have been forced to yield to the solicitations of their constituents. I know that, even amongst those wh o are not immediately connected with the Shipping interest, there has been a most active canvass carried on by the delegates, and that ex-partestatements, such as I wis h and expect t o ex pose this evening, have been made, toinfluence the minds of many Hon. Members of this House. I urn also aware that any thing connected with the Shipping Interest is so interwoven with our maritime state—with the state of the navy--and, therefore, with all that we consider the pride and glory of the nation, that it is easy to gain listeners to statements of alarm and danger when those important ob jects are concerned. Sir, I know farther, that many have been incessantly labouring and endeavouring, for months past, to enlist the best feelings of Englishmen, through what they call maritime innovations, against all improve ments that have been made, and are making, and to direct them against those who form his Majesty's Government. Sir, notwithstanding all those considerations, and making every allowance for the many Members of this House who are, in a manzrr, obliged to vote in favour of the Gallant General's motion, in deference to the wishes and the judg ments of their constituents--conduct, be it remembered, to which I ass' far from imputing any blame—l feel it my ditty to state fully, and to state fearlessly, the grounds upon which I now stand, trusting that many who hear me, will imparti ally and dispassionately form their judgments upon the state ments I shall make, and the facts as they shall appear. Nov, Sir, I feel myself somewhat at a loss how to proceed, not that any difficulty has been created by discussion in this House, but in consequence of the manner in which this question has been treated out of doors, by those who have brought forward their arguments through Members of this House—l feel, I say, somewhat at a loss in what man ner to deal with them. It appears to me, that they have a logic peculiar to themselves—a logic—l know not to what I can compare it, except to that which prevailed in the middle ages, amongst those who were then called philosophers. Certainly, it is not upon facts that they ground their statements, nor from facts that they draw their conclusions. It seems to me, indeed, that they put facts studiously out of sight; and they have gone a step farther than was gone in a debate upon a question somewhat re semblingthis, during the last Session of Parliament, when it was sought to persuade the House to change its' policy in reference to the silk trade. Oa that occasion, the course pursued was this :--It was assumed, that if the measure, with reference to the silk trade, were carried, that trade ' would be altogether ruined—it would be destroyed root and branch-- , -and that one of the great sources of industry and wealth in this country would thus totally disappear.— Now, Sir, if I had been prepared to admit the premises, nothing would -have bees more natural or more rational than the inferences. We were told of the millions that had been embarked in that trade, which must be lost—we were told of the Ave hundred thousand men, women, and childrolt subsisting by it, who would be deprived of eusploynten t, and left to starve or become burdens on the parish—and vi e were told of a thousand- other consequences that would tos turally arise out of these. And as I thought it necessary to proceed with my plans, I was described as a hard hearted metaphysician, who was prepared to contemplate all these miseries without a single compunctious feeling. Wen' the House did me the honour to agree with me in con sidering that all this superstructure was raised without anf foundation ; that there was no proof to support the in ferences drawn ; and it considered that the measure ought to be allowed to take its course. Now, it is with no little satisfaction that I have to state, that, during the last year-' a year of peculiar pressure, difficulty, and distress—no one branch suffered so little—(Hear.)—no one branch was rn so thriving a condition—as the silk trade of this country' I will say more—l will say that this has been the result of that free competition to which I looked for the improverae nS that has taken place. I speak from the reports of the ma' nufacturers themselves, and at this moment they are 1 0 only fearless of the rivalry of France, but are actually porting to France the silk manufactures of this country So far, then, for this topic, and as to that which, on the occasion to which I have referred, alluded so much to Ban' Jana handkerchiefs, I believe I have authority for stating' that the silk-manufacturers of this country have made, an d are making, Bandana handkerchiefs, to export to India' But these ship-owners go a step further—they have no t only prepared us for the dangers which, during the las t Session of Parliament, were prophesied, with respect to t he silk manufactures, but they state, positively, that these re' sults have taken place, which, in the other instance, we re only anticipated ; and they declare, that the shipping interests have already gone to decay. lam not stat ing that which I am not authorised to state, because have read all the petitions that have been laid Iwo the table of the House of Commons, with reference to this important subject, and there is not one of them which does not assert, that foreign shipping htis creasing to an alarming extent, and that British ,hipping , , has decreased in proportion. Then, of course, the nature s consequence of such increase of foreign, and decrease 01 British, shipping will be, that foreigners will supersede rh e l . British in the foreign trade of this country. If so, tow conclusions are we to arrive ? If the fact be true, the in' ferences are just; and, if so, it is our duty to consider hoW we can remedy the evil, and to see if that evil be the result of the measure referred to, or by what other course tha t evil is to be obviated. ' Then, I say, this question, is a mere question of facts. If the facts be thus, we have only on e course to adopt ; but, if the facts be not so, I will call on the House to say that no inquiry is necessary, that ne t , question is to be entered i n t o , an d th a t th e a pp o i n tment of a Committee would be at least an ideal proceeding, which could have. no other grounds than that of inducing th e House to cast a doubt and a suspicion upon the fitness of pursuing 'the course which his Majesty's Governmen t thought the interests of the country called upon them to bring into Parliament. Ihe Gallant General states it was not his fault that this question was not brought form earlier in the present Session. I think it would have been better for his purpose if it had been brought forward earlier , because the necessary papers which were not laid on the table of the House till the latter end of-March, or printed until the middle of April, would not then have been her e for me to refer to. I will not say of the petitioners that they were aware, that when these accounts were brough! forward, all their statements would be over t urne d ; but i• will say, that the allegations made in their petitions wer e made at random. No doubt the persons by whom thel petitions were signed believed those allegations to be We l founded, because we know, when parties upon whom d e , - , volve the task of what is called "getting tfp a p e tition , raise. an outcry upon any great public question, it is no dif: ' ficult matter for them to get those who sign such 'Nadel ° to believe what they are told ; therefore, -for aught I knor t to the contrary, the petitioners did actually and i give credit to the statements to which they affixed 66r affixed thele names; yet I confess I find among those allegations some which a little surprise me, because it al 3- peals to me that the credulity of those signed them must have been largely drawn 11 1 )° ''' inasmuch as, of their own personal knowledge, i ought to have been aware how incorrectly some of thete statements were made. Those petitions, as I have s tate, I have deliberately perused, and to some of them I feel t necessary to allude. The House need not fear that l am lu I about to read all these petitions. I shall content re, g with referring to one or two of them, to show how vatic' they are in reality worth. The first, which was sent in. On the 16th of February, from the place which has the honottr to return you, Sir (the Speaker) to Parliament (the Port of Scarborough), states the value of ships to have &o 1 1" nished twenty per cent. since the year 1825. This nor have been the ease; but it proceeds to state also, the great alarm that exists at the increasing number of Baltic ye s ; sels entering all British ports. Now, this is the statemen made by the inhabitants of Scarborough, and their all', gation is, that, in 1826-, the entrance of foreign vesselsh!'' increased to an alarming degree. Now, in referring to th e returns to which I have alluded, I find the coMPara tis d e numbers of the years 1825 and 1826 therein stated ; a n e . according to those returns, I find that, in the year 18 2 '' there entered into the port of Scarborough 19 British Ire v sels of 2,451 tons, and 17 foreign vessels bearing 991:1 tons , and I also find that, in the year 1826, the year thatth created so much alarm among, and so overwhelmed w i despair, those inhabitants of Scarborough, 17 British pe e ' Fels of 2,349 tons, and two foreign vessels of 119 tons en tered that port. So much then for the petition from Scar borough, and so much for their knowledge and estimatioo of what they signed. The next port I will go to is the l port of Greened, a larger port than that of Scarborough --hat the petition from Greeno c k contains similar on e " gations, and, as the House will perceive, founded on similar basis. Those petitions declare that the British trade will soon be totally destroyed ; how far this dela *. tion is correct, I will not presume to say, but as they'll ° proceed upon the assumption that the increase of foreie shipping has been alarmingly beyond the increase of Brr, tish shipping, I w ill s h ew b y the returns to what c redit this assertion is entitled, as far as regards their knowledge and experience. In the year 1825, there entered into th o e port of Greenock 201 British vessels, bearing 51, 0 a tons, and 21-foreign vessels of G,SOO tons ; in the yea* . 180 7 the year when a termination to British vessels of all kir)°, was.contemplated and • prophecied, I find the quant it y tonnage was 51,000 British, and 2,300 foreign. So Vi e then, for this petition from the inhabitants of Greenock' If 1 go on to the other ports from which petitions gape been received, I shall be enabled to exhibit similar state-f ments from similar returns, and the House will judg e nt the value that ought to• attach to their allegations. il°," di this course of proceeding would be unnecessary, and ten i " th! occupy too much of the time and the attention o f House. There is, however, one other petition to whic the will allude, because it refers to that topic which has been made use of in another manner, as bearing upon the poo r er classes of the community. It emanated from person s cop nectcd with the Port of London, and employed in departments, and as labourers about the shipping ; a nd states, that in the year 1825, they were in a pros P e r? us state, with plenty of employment, but that in 18 26,0 wine in a great degree to me and to my measures, whieli P re ; meted the influx of foreign ships, they were in grea t wan of employment, and, consequently, suffered great- distress. Now, Sir, I find by the returns to which I have so fre quently had occasion to refer, that, in the year 182 6 1 302,000 tons were brought in by foreign shipping ; en, that in the last year, the year 1826, the tonnage en tere " by foreign shipping was only 215,000 ; so that, as a inafr ter of course, those petitioners ought to have had more ployment during the past year, than during the Ye e , previous : is it not, therefore, evident, that the effe 4 7 complained of, must have proceeded from other c.auselt; Yet these petitioners were overwhelmed with disineY, use their own words, and to the circumstances I have 01 they have referred all their ha difficulties.r eo_i3u tit is ae e Perhttp:te t a i m ced detaining the use sary for me to ex hibit th e f ac t s , as it i s w ith facts 1 era dealing, and t o s h ow h ow u tterly gro un dless are ~,t t h- o charges mad e aga i ns t th e s y s tem, which it is my defend. I must now go through those facts in detail, "'" cause I must vindicate Parliament from the charge of Ol e °. tributing to th e ru i n of the shipping interests, by pee l s -- ing in the measures which it was my task to i n trodn ne L Last year, it is true, I made my statements, and all the r'-‘, turns I then alluded to, have been since produced. If a % Honourable Member will compare what I then stated w 1„, those returns, he will find that no one can, with j oati ; i : accuse me of exaggeration, but I have been accused b y individuals, for purposes best known to thernselvo--74 some individuals out of doors. I have been greatly 0 1%4 presented, and, perhaps , with some effect, as having ga r " e4 and mixed up those re turns, so as to mislead the eounnle, It has been asserted, and I believe I use the very 1en.,..`"; that I have been " guilty of mixing the Irish and C oas ii Trade together, for the purpose of producing a false instead of the real, with a view to promote the foreig; trade, and to injure the trade of the country." Sir, as tbni statement is calculated to ma k e a great impression out d doors, and to revive a clamour which had nearly sbsideroo, n , it was my duty, before I noticed to call for those retur which would put it o u t o f th e p ower o f sny individu al a longer to avail themselves of so baseand pitiful an s i gh comparative state of the British t ra de with ".4 foreign trad e . The House must:' bear in mind, that w" the foreign trade, up to the year 18 23 , was included