The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-29 00:00:00

4c.!2;

t 7214

193,097 1,720,721
Ineresr, 642,027 took or 9417 pa oust.
Usrooracnro 7.24 i.. 1624 INS
SON. Tams.
..... in.lB3 4330
—.— 11,074 17,131
il 416 Ma
6,7311 9,631
.. AO
.. NAN
67,346 NON
46,263 IL 274.441
4. 141.711
Time _ KIM 964911
Partesal, Aerate, owl lladoira
• 46,71S SAW
V —... 46,724 97.9.
011ashst — 4,416 KO
2,346 11173
Molls —
114,44,
l sad
iartory asdf=a 2,269 I ,
in'
11741
26,270 320
114mistilm 3,075 14396
=se ladles
811644 ar darks ...
44,994 r* '
liaziro4444 "WI of South 34444146 0,787
6,391

Hods

;weclen .
Norway
Denmark

Germany
United Netheriandi

ihT..T."

Ofte Tod lamb
loath ess limit

11071
141

rokata hhihala
Increase, 1,634186 tens, ar 1111118 per cent.
The somewhat ,larty argumentative obseasks at Ihe
return is unmiftelmaNeti . It describe* in terms, sae dem d
trade* as protected by the navigation laws, the mbar es or
protected. It aims there, ad *midis's, is PadMt
columns ; and maims the inimence le be dukes& shwa set
appear with staeleat peenimme is the meeeseisel emeha
it triumphantly ramie is the eentivekm thee, glib the
protection Cl die as Ism has, within the WNW
period it embers, itsaiaMd is the tredve to which it IMO
these Ism is be enekelmly applicable an ammo k
Britt& sesetrilem et 9417 per Dent., that seas
ha
. one paled, minuted the
loam dis
aam ismally, whisk we tieeleihei as millbeeel
la sals, sod vassisal hem the surepstido
et *miss alp, me bee them 1111314 por colt, drue pet*,
the web ethereal mar am salmi system of tree tad
Is Midi OM dialed sew a mom of protestant. Oa
the pmeeellal Whom et walk a metemeet, via
seek eell6l4lh I Nei set emesmat. It wee, a bets

--IN,-

mowed, ostentatiously paraded in every journal,
4.43,,mg by every essayist opposed to the navigation
it furnished one of the moat sarcastic sneers to the
has • .parable mover of the select committee, and author of
t.
ejeg caricature of those laws with indifferent wit
" Anatomy." And I freely confess that had it
;Wino, instead of being, as I am about to prove it, ut-
terly undeserving of credit, I could not myself have resisted
ths .e,bision, that experience had demonstrated free cora-
tiuo ee be, on the whole, better calculated to advance
Veep marstime commerce than the protective policy so
hag and so fondly cherished.
dad now, sir, to the disproof of this bold but unfounded
•detenent." Will it be believed that the tannage em-
ployed in every one of the crazies enumerated is tee
,jemn described as " unprotected trade " is actually pro.
weed in a high degree, and, in some cases, to an extent
aii,,,maieg to exclusion as absolute se that of the colonial
lode, and this by the very laws which are invidiously, and,
y must add, insidiously, represented as applicable alone to
theo protected tradeo," enumerated in the opposite column?
Imolai is the indisputable fact, as an examination of the
Act of Navigation will instantly confirm. I take the trade
with China as en illustratioa. It is denominated en unpro-
tected trade, and as such is described as having increased
they V 3,270 tons in 1824, to 63,693 tons in 1846. Now, did
tha eocepder of this document ever beer of a single foreign
eke) t^tine the ports of the United Kingdom within the
ode period trom China ? Was a tingle ounce of tea ever
imported from China for the consumption of this country ex-
wpt in British ships ? Does be doubt the the owners of
mier,„a ships would eagerly avail themselves of permission
is compete with British shipping in this valuable trade ?
What is it that prevents taern ? The law. What law ?
Why, the navigation law. How, then, I mast ask, could
the compiler of this " statement" have the effrontery to
mike her Itleiesty tell her parliament and people that the
We with China ta an unprotected trade, and that therefore it
geariskes ? Sir, he must know well that the case is the
Iwo with many of the states of South America, and with
all Out du not possess merchant shipping of their own.
Dewing that by the Navigation Law., goods, the produce
feisreign countries, are not permitted to be imported into
Skis country to be used thereto except in Britian ships, or
daps 01 the country of which such goods are the growth or
reduce, or in which in some cases they may be found, he
'sabot but be aware that this restriction, varying, it is true,
b effect, in proportion to the tonnage possessed by each
weary, but acting es an exclusive privilege to British ships
biome, and ensuring to them a proportion of aU, does con-
mieete *great, an efficient, and a valuable protection • and I
imikes, that with this knowledge, notwithstanding my
manence of the reckless assertions et political economists,
mid of the successes they ottea achieve by the mechless
boldness of their assumptions, it ekes amaze me that
my pu'ilic functionary of station and information ,
ihould have ventured to speculate so largely on the
wedolity or carelessness of his opponents, as to have ex-1
=that such a misrepresentation could possibly pans utt-
er unrebuked. I repeat, because I have proved,
that the trades described as unprotected for the purpose of
breciating the navigation laws, are all really protected by
these very laws; and having thus demolished the fact
bged, I leave the worthless inference deduced to your dia.
*Blasting judgment and impartial conclusions.
Bat I canuot, air' suffer the occasion to peas without
espeeMp britfiy the distortion of facts for the purpose of
heading and deluding the public, of which these state-
ments are also full. One illustration may suffice, but it shall
is a crushing one. The inward entries from France, which
111524 were 82,650, will be perceived to have increased in
1846 to the enormous amount of 656,821 tons. Well, indeed,
M this were an unprotected trade, anti gave employment to
each a tonnage, might free-traders cite it, as the " statisti-
cal department of the Board of Trade" has done, as oonclu-
ass evidence of the tendency of their system to develop and
Weed the bevel resources of the country, Sir, I have
emeived while I write a return laid before parliament
isring the present section, on the motion of Lord G. Ban-
tle& (parliamentary paper No. 28), and just printed, which
Meg the real value of this monstrous statement, and must I
link make the checks of its concoctors tingle with confusion.
By this return it amuse that the steam-vessels entered in-
roads from France, in 1846, were 47 in number; their
beensge, 7,101; and that they were manned by 698 men.
These are ell included in the " Statement," while (can
It be believed ?) they are absolutely made to figure as
228,189 tons of the 6,56,821 teas of British shipping
Ilachred to be engaged in the trade with France, and
advanced to prove the inefficiency of protection, and the
propriety of repealing the navigation laws! !! One vessel
glom, the Magician, of 96 tone, is actually made to repre-
sent 14,208 tons ; and another, the Prince Ernest, of 146,
le stand for '24,215 tons, the astounding exaggeration being
protheed by the calculation including the repeated voyages,
bkich in the former of these cases were 148 in number, and
la the latter 167. Sir, I will not comment on this discredit-
able and almost incredible attempt to deceive the public on
the important question of the navigation laws ; but I
entreat you not to forger, when you are examining these
returns, that if you find in the deereciated Column 14.090
ISMS of British shipping engaged In the trade with India,
yea look at the exponent of perhaps fourteen magnificent
ships of 1,000 tons each, exhibiting in substantial truth the
proved results of a maritime commerce, raised and sustained
Maar the protective policy of our navigation laws ; while, if
your eye should glance at an equal amount of tonnage in the
apposite and vaunted column, you may, perchance, but be
required to take as of equal value for naval security some
beggarly steamers of less than 100 tons. As a statesman, as
a eibinet minister, as the selectee guardian of the interests of
British commerce, as an upright and prudent man, I invoke
your serious and dispassionate consideration of the momen-
tous questions involved in the projected destruction of the
navigation laws ; and I call on you to weigh well the cha-
racter of the evidence before you lend your aid to a reckless
proceeding, which, I believe in my conscience, is calculated
le place in jeopardy the safety of our common country.
For penonal reasons, which it is not necessary to explain,
it has cost me a painful struegle before I could resolve on
expceing the misrepresentations I have, I think, unmasked.
Bet, identified as I have been throughout my life with the
shipping interest, and profoundly convinced as I am that by
tot maintenance of the principles of the navigation laws
the supremacy of the British mercantile marine can alone be
eonate], and that on that supremacy depends the naval
power, and consequently the security of my country, I have
been unable to reconcile It to my sense of duty to allow so
great a cause to be hazarded by such unworthy attache,
while I felt It was in my power, in some degree, to with-
draw the poison from the weapons with which it is assailed.
I would gladly now avoid obtruding my name on public
attention, but, basing advanced s grave and serious accuse-
Mon, it seems to me unmanly to attempt to shelter myself
from responsibility under an anonymous signature; I
therefore subscribe myself,
Sir, your very faithful and obedient servant,
80, Cornhill, Dec. 24. Geo. FRED. YOUNG.