The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING. MARCH 10. 1849

both of Eogiish sad American vowels. (Hear, bear.)
The melt was As same with regard to the trade to the
mos, their 'gaga empire, and Ceylon. The import of
eager bad increased from 4,900,090 cwt., which it wee In
1841, to 8,209,000 islet. in 1848, bias an increase of nearl
double. (Hear.) With regard to °Wee, the lecreg.e wag
57,000,000 lbs. in 1818 as compared with 43,000,000 lha 'it -
1841. Now, with regard to Australia. The importation et
wool bed in • similar poperdem. Now,
with regard to the timber trade, which ma** mum M-
urata% of ell. The whole of their timber Wren gem
British parsessiocs in 1841 amounted to 700, tam ;la
1848 they roes to 1,200,000, notwithstanding the suguagen
of duty cm foreign timber. (Hear, hear.) Their Raise
trade with the whole world amounted to 950,000 bade la
1841 ; In 1848 it Increased to 1,850,000 loads, so thee she
trade increased nearly double under a reduticomf bay, Whilst
the restrictions of the navigation laws remained asthey's/sm.
The right hon. gentleman made light of the ievitatisa of
America, end the threat of Russia, that oar treaty maid
expire in 1852. He (Kr. Wilson) admitted that if no better
reason exited for the repeal of the navigation laws than the
invitation of the United Butes and the threat of Rustic, no
ground would exist far this measure. But there were
weighty reasons for their repeal, independently of such con-
siderations. The more, indeed, the effect of theme laws upon
the shipping interest and eommerce:of the country was in-
quired late, the more abundantly would reasons, exclusively
*Mimi and imperial, appear for their repeal. (Hem.) It
was only last year that house was induced to paw a
OSMIUM foe admitting the refined sugar of the continent into
this country, on the payment of duties calculated in propor-
tion to the duties charged on raw sugars admitted
here. The sugar refiners of this country complained
bitterly of the injury done to them in being
excluded from the privilege of taking in cargoes of foreign
surer introduced into the ports of this country. It was a
restriction which that house would net be ab'e to continue,
if, whilst they exposed the :sugar refiners hero to competi-
tion with the foreign refiners, who had all the advantage of
impor.ing sugar from the plus of growth in the cheapest
ships, they did not concede a gimlet privilege to them. This
was only one of a numb-r of trades that complained is the
same way. It appeared, lemma, from the report of the
House of Lords committee, that the leading shipowners
of this country were of opinion that the exist-
hes laws were of no great importance, for all
the mischiel was already done that could be done.
Yr. Richmond says of the navigation laws, " They are com-
pletely mutilated. I was not aware so little of them is
left se there is." (Laughter.) He was speaking of the
long-voyage trade—the trade with America, with which they
bad a reciprocity treaty. It was only by recipreeity that
they had that lonkvoyage trade. Mt. Young held the same
laisge as Mr. Richmond, and he (Mr. Wilson) thought
born these gentlemen were right. The navigation laws, as they
now stood, were of little importance to the Bri.ish shipowner,
With whom was it that the British shipowner did not now
compete ? He was now speaking of the folioyof the Bulge-
tioa laws, and the policy of these laws in the long-voyage
trade was that the ships of this country and the ships of the
country with which they traded should bring the produce of
that country to this country. That was the policy of the
original law. What was the effect of this, but to lain the
British shipowner into competition with the America* ship-
owner in his own country, in his own market, where all the
local advantage was on he side and against the British ship-
owner ? (Hear, hoer.) Were he to send a vessel in search
of a freight of cotton to New Orleans, he would have to
compete with the American shipowner, who had all the foal
advantage, and who might be connected with the port from
which the cargo waste come. That was the OW in every part
of the world. The British shipowner had to compete with
the Prussian in Prussian ^twt% and with the fipeoldi is
Cuba. (Hear, Dear.) Let It be tecollected that this hap
theaeaed very laity of the navigation laws. (Heat,lleU , then, the British shipowner is able to com-
pete with. the American in his own market, and with the
Prussian in the Prussian market, why should he be afraid
to compete with both in neutral markets ? (Beer, beer.)
Why could they not compete with them ? There was alma-
dant evidence collected during the last two years, that U
there was any place where ships could be built cheaply it
was is this country, U quality and everything else was taken
into account. (Hear, hear.) The evidence given by Mr.
Mtwara, • reddest of New York, who had been is
this country last year, was clear upon this palm.
There was no evideses that there was • decline in the
shipping trade of this country. The tonnage owned by the
United Kingdom in 1827 was 2,480,503 ; in 1844 it was
3,637,231 tons; in 1846 it was 3,817,112 ; and Ia 1818,
3,952,629 tons. (Hear, hear.) In the debate of last year
the hors. member far Bukinghanultire contradicted a state-
ment made by him with regard to the total tonnage dewed
inwards and outwards. He mated that the British tonnage
cleared inwards and outwards in 1824 was 3,484,863 ; foreign
1,606,148; in 1846, British, 8,688,148; forties, 3,727,438,
being en increase in British tonnage of 5,233,295, and of
foreign of 2,221,290 tons. In both indium, he (Mr. Wilson)
was quite correct in his figures. (Hear.) It appeared to
him from thew flute that the more the British shipowner
was brought into competition with the foreigner the better it
would be for him. U this country could stand the teat of a
comparison with America fa the income of her foreign ship-
ping, he thought it would show there was but little danger
to the shipping interest of this country when all the advan-
tages of America were taken into emideration.
Mamie= tmnegu he Mears trade wee ia
bean.
1517 747,110
1044 1,046,764

Inman 43 per ant.
United Kingdom : T.
1627
1844 1,617,t11

Imam 44 pot eat.
Ites.

Intreele—Ammieen 911.1C4
Inideb 1,178,731
He would sow compare the tonnage of Amerissa ships
and British ships entering into American ports, and the re-
sult would show that the British ships had increased more
than the American In their own ports. The tonnage of
American ships entered inwards into American ports In
1827, was 918,000 tons ; the tonnage of British ships enter-
im American ports in the same year was 101,000 tens. In
1844 the America* tonnage increased to 1,977,000 tons,
whilst the British incroused to 768,000 tons, beteg an in-
crease of 110 per cent. on the tonnage of American ships,
and of 630 per east. on British tonnage. (Hear, hear.)
It was hardly pomade to find too trying a test of the power of
British commerce to compete with that of any country in the
world. When the result was so favourable in competing
with a nation of so much energy and capital as America—with
a country of such vast extent, and • rapidly inerearng popu-
lation—he thought there could be but little danger to the
British shipowner from any part of the world, (Hear, hear.)
He bad shown that in the long voyage trade the shipping
interest of this country c •uld not be said to have any advan-
tage with respect to the foreign trade. He did no speak of the
colonial trade. (Hear, hear, from the opposition.) Well,
but he had shown them that the colonies considered the re-
etriotion of the navigation laws mss great a burden that they
could no longer bear is, aid that the West Init.. and Ca-
nada were crying out against it. It was inconsistent with
the 'Merest tif the eelesim that the navigation laws should
be lay Maier mitialsei Bat with regard to that trade of
whisk the askeihn had se right to complain, they did
MIN into eesspetitiou with other countries under dr-
eamless= unfavourable to the British shipowner, and un-
favourable tleaugh the 'operation of these very navigation
laws, which we. pored to protect him. (Hear.) The Bri.
tisk shipowner wee subjected to this disadvaatage, that he
had to tend out his vessel to foreign °pantries with balled,
ait bat partially laden, because the goods sent in the outward
mega were Ism balky than those entered inwards ; but the
Beata stairslitote came into this country with bulky goods,
which gaveldni an advantage. They bad the advantage is
the trade in their goods, bemuse the British shipowner
would have to compete for the timber cargo in
rhombi with the Pruden owner, for the cotton
mugs in an American port wi h the American owner ;
wilt regard to the continental trade,they prohibited, in order
st=ese this long voyage trade, the import of any of these
breathe sentiment of Europe By that they did not
WWI their own shipowner, but they protected the
shipowner of the United States, and of every other
emit, with whisk they had direct communkatka.
(Bear, bear.) Thus they protected the foreign_ eldp•
emus as ebe injecy of the English owner. That woe
exempilied in the wen-known ease of the vemeel which
arrived Is Ham laden with cotton at the time when
the sandatio, broke out. (Hear,_ hear.) The owner was
deirres of bring!*[ the sago to Liverpool, bat he could not
de it. But Uit been an American ship coming directly
to Liverpool there would be no difficulty in the matter.
The right ion. gentleman made a great many observations
to the *videos' Rives before the House of Lords' com-
mittee, and he mid that some of the largest shipowners
found it inspossitie to discover any inconvenience which
moment of the navtlatien laws. Well, there was the ease with
regard to hides. M. Any, a most respected. merchant In
the City of Loadoe,tregli. with South America in giving his
evidence stated ia theatent general way that no inconvenience
was ezpsrimend from the operation of the navigation laws.
Further ea be said, is Islay to a question, " The instances
of ineemembsee are so Ow that I may my generally that no
insonvgalimais are wed " He went on to state.
however, gag be Woad( MI imported in an English ship a
quantity of Wee diem Saudi Alileita, which ooght to have
been leaded at Owes, bat as the proprietor of the
other part Mthe aerie obese to mad the ship to Antwerp,
his bides were leas. at Antwerp instead of Cowes.
(Her,
hear.) He added that he applied to the Board of
, and had a hag correspondence on the rail tot with
Sir G. Clerk, and after all he was obliged to sell his hides at
a loos at Antwerp, instead of selling them, as belied expected
to do, at a considerable profit in London. (Hear.) This
was the gentleman who said that no Inconveniences
Mewled the working of the navigation laws. (Hear,
bur.) Thaw were disadvantages to which the trade
of a great country like this ought not to be exied.
Bat what did Mr. Gray propose as a ears for this evil ? Why,
be said that all goods which were sent from foreign countries
to the continent of Europe, or id ships whose dewnauoe was
aseertain, ought to be accompanied by eertilleates ststina
whether they were or wens not intended for the Mid*
market, end that if accompanied by certiticatee that
they were intended for that market, they might be landed on
the continent of Europe and afterwards allowed to come
into this eeontry. Now, he would ask the right
hon. gentleman whether in such a MO all the eoffee
shipped from death America, and all the sugar shipped
from Java, would not uniformly be accompanied with
c.rtiflcates to seem their admission hose? Would not
what was euggeeted be • mere clumsy evasion of the law ?
Well, then, hi might be told that be had made oat too strong
a ease— that U the navigation laws conferred no benefit upon
the shipowner, they could indict so Injury es the consumer.
However that ebleetiee Welt be urged, he May could not
conceal kis opiaiaa that the smogs rate of freights was not
mind by the operation of the invitation laws. After •loalg