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

and careful study of the sabjest, beigaldbring himself
e 4
to believe that the British shi sided on the
average a higher rate of freight restriction, any
possi
more than the Engli h mastufaaturer i=
be benefited by
en import duty on calicoes, whilst he was a large exporter of
them. Bat he might be asked, " what Injury, then, du the
riavigetion laws inflict ?" It had been said, and he thought '
very fairly and properly, that the injury arising from those I
laws was much more real than apparent. Every now and
then there were bad harvests ; there were unexpected dill-
scones in the grain crops or the sager trope, causing a gad-
den and unusual demand for shipping ;-and on such occasicaa,
end in such emergencies, the freights of British ships
were higher than these of other countries; and two years age
they were obliged to aband. n the navigation laws in order
to allow foreign ships to bring corn to this country on a peat
emergency. It was on such accidental occasions that the
navigation laws became a peculiar burden. But did the
high freights which British sl,ipownen received at nub
periods do them any good ? He believed that nothing said
be more detrimental to the real interests of the shipowner" of I
this country than the oc-urrence of those accidental peke
of high freights, for they were invariably followed by wadi
a great supply of shipping that thus was a ruinous MOW
ti.in, which generally lasted for two or three years. (Hear,
bear.) An hon. gentleman shook his head; he would
therefbre refer to a few facts. Darin, the lest
twenty yeah there had been two periods in Par-
ticular of extraordinary demand for shipping 'swede& by
sionspondirg depression. He would begin with 1821. In
three years, commencing with 1821, the average tonnega of
the ships built was 76,000 tons per annum. In 1824
there erne very great speculation in shipping, and in
suer queue of the sudden large importation of various corn-
modiues, the shipowners received high freights. What was
the result ? Why that in the two succeeding years, instead
of ships being built annually to the extent 0176,000 tons, the
hosiers of new vessels was 205,000 tons. What followed? A
period of 4 years, during which there was the greatest depres-
sion amongst shipowners ever known is 34s country. In the
three years from 1829 to 1831 the 'tonnage of ships built
was 115,000 tons per annum. The position of matters went
on gradually improving until 1836, and in the threo years
ending 1837 the average ship building was 182,000 tons.
But let the house mark what followed. Every one remem-
bered the bad harvest of 1838 ; every one remembered the
importation of 3,000,000 quarters of foreign corn in 1839, and
the difficulty which wss experiercd in obtaining British
ships to input corn in that year. Further, every one re-
membered—for every. one had felt year after year since that
period—the inoonvesuences which resulted,the disarrangement
of the money market, the impouibilil or feeding the popu-
lation, the gloom and despondency in all directions. The
shipping interest was the only interest which flourished at
that period. And what was the result of its prosperity ?
In the next two years, instead of 182,000 tons, no less than
319,000 tons of shipping per sawn were built. He
would however, ask the hon. gentleman, whose position in
the City of London enabled him toproaounce an opinion(Mr.
T. biting) if he remembered such • period of depression
as that through which it pseud in 1812 and 1843.
He remembered being in Liverpool at that time, and it was
a souston observation in that town, that there never had
been so many ships with a broomstick at their mast-head,
bulb:Wig that they were for sale. The ships were, in fact,'
rotting IA the docks. And how could it be otherwise ? Here
was a sudden increase following a sudden demand, and when
the accidental demand for the importation of corn ceased,
then came the reaction. la the three succeeding yews the
teenage of shipping built fell fr0m1319,000 toes weans" is
154,000. Was it desirable, he asked, that such a state et
should be witnessed—that the shipping trade
Told be liable to such fluctuations ? . (Hear, hear.)
1 Wei It for Ai Sill eTitgegy of sue ampc,„„,
of this country that they should have these accidental Ugh
freights at particular periods, to the injury of the consumer
and the restriction of commerce ? (Hear, hear,) Would it
sot be much better if merchants could rn at to the ships of
other countries when there was an acelental and extra-
ordinary demand for corn or sugar ? The suspension of the
navigation laws in 1847, for example, was, he believed,
beneficial to the shipowners. For had they not been
suspended, such a stimulus would probably have
been given to shipbuilding that tt • subsequent depression
would have been greater than that of 1842 and 1843.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that that system which produced
the greatest uniformity was best both for those who dealt in
shipping and for those who were supplied by means of ship
ping. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, there was another acci-
dental disadvantage under which British merchants laboured
with regard to the navigation laws. No one knew better
than the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Baring) the
iseinvenience which had at certain periods been occasioned by
not allowing foreign ships to bring sugar from the ports of
Mauritius end other distant colonies, however dee rable it
might be to employ them; while if the demand owed, or a
penisialar crop happened to fail the British vessels which had
guns out were obliged to seek cargoes elsewhere at lower
freights. Such accidental disadvantages might be greatly
'deleted if foreign ships were available at all periods. Now,
the right hon. gentleman who had preceded him had en-
larged at greet length on the importance of the navigation
laws, net in &commercial sense, but as regarded their poli-
tical influence on the defence of the country. That was a
Testis into which he (Mr. Wilson) did not wish to , See
at that moment. The only remark which he would make
to sheens to it, was this—that, admi ting, for the moment,
that the assiatemenee of a commercial marine wee essential I
to the ashetssee of a royal navy—he would not then
elder late as to whether it wee so or not—he
world put it to the ht hon. gentleman whether the royal
navy would be best supported by a system of laws which
tended to increase thecomenercial marine or by one which did
not. What were the facts with regard to the number of
men employed now and as a former period ? He would
only go as far back as 1842. He had shown the large in-
crease of tads which free-trade measures had brought since
that period ; be would now show the increase which had
token place la the number of seamen. In 1842 the entire
number of men employed in the commercial marine was
1118,010 ; the number in 1847 was 242,000. (Hear, hear.)
Even admitting, then, the right hon. gentleman's own pro-
position, that a commercial marine was necessary for the
support of the royal navy, it appeared that, u free trade bad
Rene on, the number of seamen had increased. Having re-
gard to the arguments need in that house, as well
as to the evidence taken before the committee
which eat in the last session, her Majesty's go-
vernment thought the time had come,—and he
thought he had advanced powerful reasons to show that
it had come—when restrictions on shipping should be
abandoned, and when Britishrtheiping, like every other
branch of industry, should be ex to healthful competi-
tion. The next question was ow the object was to be ac-
oom; lished. He believed that the government had taken
not only the wisest course, but the only one which would
afford practical benefit to the country. He objected to reci-
procity first, because it was against principle ; seoondly, be-
cause it was against wise policy • thirdly, because it would be
found inconvenient, if not imps:nimble. Nothing could be
more prejudicial to the extension of free trade principles, than
the prevalence among foreigners of a notion that this country
had made concessions merely for the purpose of obtaining
concessions in return. To carry out reciprocity they must pro-
ceed on the principle of equivalents ; and, that beige the
case, there was no country in the world except the
United States with which they could have anything
resembling reciprocity. (Hear, hear.) He admitted
that there was a great distinction between reciprocity in
shipping and reciprocity in produce. (" Hear, hear," from
the opposition benches.) He would not evade that question.
It was quite clear that if they imposed retaliatory duties on
the produce of various vaunts' for the purpose of meeting
duties imposed on their own goods, they did not visit the
suns interests with this retaliation. For example, they sent
their cotton and woollen goods to Prussia ; they received
from Prussia corn, timber, and wool. If Prussia imposed
high duties on their cotton and woollen goods, they could
only retaliate by puttinghigh duties on the corn, timber and
wool of Prussia when imported. But, them, in this ease
they did not retaliate upon the same interest. The Prussian
government punished the woollen mantifesturer and the
cotton manufacturer of England, by imposing high duties on
their goods; and then the English legislature ecuOilied
them again by imposing high duties on the raw material
from which those goods were manufactured. (Cheers.)
Nothing could be more monstrous than such a course of pro-
ceeding. If they acted on the principle of reciprocity,
thLmust give perfect freedom of trade to those who gave
t freedom of trade to them. They must impose •
pert
corresponding in amount to those which were
imposed on their own goods. He objected to the adoption
of the principle of reciprocity on another ground, viz.,
that it would introduce great practical inconvenience.
He (Mr. Wilson) had spoken of the immense variety
of trestles which would be required if the prin-
ciple of recipseity was proceeded upon with regard to
manufactures and produce; but a corresponding or analo-
gous difficulty would arise from the adoption of that prin-
ciple in the ease of shipping. Very intricate and compli-
eated regulations would be required Smarting they
found a country which was disposed to give all—they them-
selves would be obliged to give all. But then it must be
borne in mind that there were twenty countries with whoa
they already had treaties, and to whom they were bound to
extend the advantages which were obtained by the most fa-
voured nations (hear, hear), and therefore, if thee gave new
privileges to any one country they must at ones extend them
to all the other countess which stood in the same polities.
He objected to reciprocity, because he believed it weal" only
lead to • great evasion of the law. ft
Hamlstirgh or any other town 'on the aetathtont
were to give this country all that it regained, and
that in return its ships were placed on the ems* feeders
as British ships. What guarantee would they have that a
third country, which had given them nothing, would net
derive the ease advantages es Hamburgh; or that the sear
of Java, end the coffee of South America, would net is
brought to thisoonntry Lathe ships of Hamburg ? There would
be no mid to evasion ? Well, then, it was said that all the
important countries with which they traded at present would
no doubt enter into treaty with them, being already disposed
to do so. If these important countries would give
them sow all the advantages which they cold
obtain from reciprocal treatise, or from the carrying
out the singled" of reciprocity without treaties, what had
they to fear from taking the simple course armrest's:glt
navigation laws ? He considered that the great objects
which the commercial classes of this country ought
to aim at were the greatest possible degree of certainty, end
the greatest possible degree of simplicity, in their trains- I
dons. (Hear.) He believed that if we relied upon reciprocity,
there would be infinitely Imes certainty and infinitely greater
complexity for the British merchant to enctenneer than under
any other system. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of GEANBY said, the ottaiticon was simply
whether the British shipowner, unprotected, could compete
with the foreigner. If the house did not think this, they
ought to give this proposition a most distinct negative:
There was the high authority of Mr. Mackay, in his
work "The Western World," to show the country that
America needed our most attentive observation in this as in
other rope*. "The recourse of America," Mr. Mackay