The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-13 00:00:00

MANAGEMENT OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS.

Mr. FORBES, seeing the Lord Advocate in his plane,
wished to know when the bill would be proceeded with for
the more effectual management of lunatic asylums, and whe-
ther time would not be afforded the Scotch counties to deli-
berate upon the measure.

The LORD ADVOCATE replied that it was not hie in-
tention to mai the bill through the house before Beater, but
that it would be discuued isomedieelp after that time.
NAVIGATION LAWS—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day being read for the resumption of
the adjourned debate on the Navigation Law Bill,

Mr. GLADSTONE said :—Mr. Speaker, I can have no
hesitation as to the vote which I shall feel it my duty to
give upon this (metes. Being convinced that the time has
arrived when parliament ought advantageously to consider
the question of the navigation laws, and being prepared to
assent to a great change in those laws, and indeed eager that
seek • (huge should be made, I cannot refuse or hesitate to
vets fee the second reading of the bill which offers to me the
and the only opportunity I am likely to ob-
of intirodneing into them such • change. With re-
te te the justification of that change in general,
gliendd be content to rest it either upon the
gist/mint of the friends of the existing law or the state.
Mat of its opponents. If we take the 'tamest, of the
Mese a the *awing law, we see that they partake ef so
ISINk (weggeestion—they are in such diametrical opposition
te tests upon many most important particulars, that out Of
their own mouths, I think, it is not difficult to show that a
great change ought to take place on this subject. If I refer
to the evidence given by Mr. Richmond before a committee
of the House of Lords—by a gentleman who, after being de-
puted in 1847 to represent the shipping interest of on im-
portant port before a committee of this home, was again de
patella 1848 to represent the mats body before a committee
of the House of Lards—l see that the statement of Mr.
Richmond would lead any impartial man to the conclusion
that these laws ought to be changed. For what is his re-
presentation? He says that for many years past—l believe
for the last twenty or thirty, full half the capital embarked
in the shipping trails of this country has been lost, and that
dike other part • very large proportion has yielded no re-
muneration. Only, according to his statement--and his ex-
perience is extensive—only a very small fraction, • few in-
dividuate, and rarely any more than • few, have succeeded
in saving themselves from universal ruin. He uses • homely
expression to describe this state cf things. He says it is
true that • greet many have entered into this trade, but it
is also true that • great many waddled out of it like a lame
duck upon the Stock Exenge--ta laugh)—and he ex-
perts his belief that a greater number have constantly and
imeesesively been found to take the places of those ruined
individuate. If it be true that this trade is so diem-
ties to the majority of those who engage in it, on what
plea is it that we should continue to einem them to such
hardships, and thus impose a tax on the commun to
which they have no right to be subjected? ("Hear,
hem," and cheers.) But without referring to mere mat-
ters of opinion—without going into those particulars d
cost and charge upon the navigation of ships, with respect
to which I wili only say that if you are to be governed by
statements of that character you eeeee would at any cue
period have introduced any relaxation into your eon-
menial code, for it was always practicable for linglia.
men to appeal to the standard of living sail
the cost of necessaries in this country, and te
show that the rate of wages was higher here than it
would be in the competing countries abroad—without 're-
ferring, therefore, to that argument, I will say that the
figures of cost, as given by Mr. Bahama, are °seclusive to
favour of the relaxation which has heretofore been intro-
dived into the navigation laws. (Hear, hear.) It is net
my intention to argue that we ought to be guided upon this
question by the pure and unmixed doctrines of political ow
nomy—(" hear, hear," from the pretectionies)—and I ass
willing to admit that to emus in that way might be sub-
jected to the severest animadversions, for these reasons—
first of all, for the reason the ritish legislature him
recognised, namely, an equitable consideration for the
interests of those classes whose trades have bees
fostered under the protection of the existing sys.
tem, and secondly, by the still more important
consideration of the bearing of this question upon national
defences. If I could believe that any change which might
be made in the navigation laws were to being about the di-
minution, far less the destruction, of oar seareantlis amine,
I would not stand here to propose or ressmagad such a
change. (Hear.) But let us appeal to somedgege. Let us,
if it be so demanded, cast aside all &bank 7011101ii14.
(Hear, hear.) We have now been engaged las gases in the
introduction of relaxations into the system of Iheagellgeffien
laws. It is nearly thirty•five years dose we NW
meneed them relaxations. It is twenty-Au, years am
the relaxations became numerous, frown; and die.
limit. Let us :tempers the course of English Alma
and its fortunes before thus relentless were effected,
with its state and fortunes Mee; and as lime is • suspicion
respecting figures which proofed from government offiess, I
us
content to argue from them figures with which Mr.
Helmond has set out. In the third report of the com-
mittee of the Lords, page 766, he has given a table showing
the progrer of increase or decrease. of shipping belonging to
the British dominions, distinguishing the shipping of
the United Kingdom (seem the shipping of the felo-
nies and Wayne* compering that proven with the
shipping of the United States. Let us compare the pro-
gress made by British shipping during the period of re.
eviction with its progress during the period of
relaxation. No man can dispute the fairness
of that emparisoa ; but, U it is unfair, it is
unfair in favour d the existing navigation laws, because
it appears that since we relaxed these laws by the treaties of
reareeity, • 'Practice has prevailed of deducting from the
groin
Vitals of slips' tonnage that which was sold to fo-
rams, and Me that which me log. Before the relaxation
this tonnage was included in the totals. It is, therefore,
evident that the numbers before the reciprocity trea-
ties represented • greater amount of tonnage than
we possessed, and that the figures aim represent what
we de peens with exactitude and nothing km (Hear.)
In the 34 years frees 1790 to 1824, when we formed our first
reciprocity treaties with the northern powers, we added
1,048,000 tons, or at the rate of 30,800 tons • year. In the
24 years from 1824 to 1847 we added • tonnage of 1,399,000;
showing in the first period 30,000 tons a year, and in the
second 58,000. It may be said that • considerable propor-
tion of that is owing to the rapid increase of our colonial
skipping, and that that is not • fair test of the shipping of
the United Kingdom. That is perfectly true, because we
know that the increase of colonial shipping and the pressure
of competition upon British shipping is such that only a few
years ego a proposal was made by the friends of British
shipping to lay a differential duty upon colonial shipping for
the purpose of checking its increase. But speaking of the
shipping of the United Kingdom only, it is true that it has
been advancing sines the relaxation of the navigation laws
at • very accelerated rate. In the 34 years from 1790 to
1824, the fist of the two periods then named, speaking of
the United Kingdom shipping exclusively, it increased by
933,000 tons, or at the rate of 27,000 tons • year; and .
in the 24 years from 1824 to 1847, the second period,
the imams was 960,000 tons, or 40,000 tons a year, against
27,000 tons a year during the period of restriction. 'I
do not
know what fair or sufficient answer can be made to that.
(Hear.) It is mid that our shipping has not increased so
rapidly as the shipping of the United States, and I grant it,
if you take along with it the foreign and coasting shipping;
but that comparison is palpably unfefr, because as • 'Mr
country, occupying vast tracts of virgin soil, the
United States employed those natural high-
ways afforded by her rivers and irille. Under them
airemataness there is no parallel. (Hear, hear.) Besides,
If you my that the United States skipping ham inemsed
mon rapidly than ours since the relaxation of the navigation
laws, yea must also 'topsider that before that relaxation took 1
place the shipping of the United States was ineresaing for

mon rapidly still. If you wish to make a fair comparison
'Mel test of British energies by appealing to that standard I
veer you to the increase in our colonial shipping. I think
it is Gin to compere the increase in the shipning of our
North American colonies with that of the United States.
Between 1790 and 1847 the shipping of the British colonies
ismessed from 96,000 to 614,000 tons, or 667 per cent., while
that of the United States increased only from 602,300 to
RASA° toes, or 665 per cent. Vast as has been the in-
IPPON la the shipping of America, the increase in the ship-
ping Om salon* has been still greater. Finally, I w
=ere the ismer* of British colonial shipping before 182
we were comparatively under a system of re-
sftlstion, with what it was subsequently when that
ligtrwas altered. In the 34 years, fins 1790 to
a,
British colonial shipping according to Mr. Rich-
mond's tables. increased from 96,000 tone to 211,000, or at
the rate of 3300 tons per annum ; and sines 1824, to 1847,
when the relaxation of our laws caused competition to in-
ileseue, British colonial chip piag advanced from 211,000 toes
M 644,000, or at the rate of 18,000 toes per annum. So far,
I my, disregarding all circumstances of • purely scientific or
abstract character, dwelling only upon the results of experi-
ence, which has been by no means I riot or narrow in its
8 and following the changes made by Mr. Huskies:in
and socceiscies, Imy that the results of that experience
prove that we ought to go inward,
and with increased courage, in the path which our
have marked out. (Cheers.). Neither shall
frerftwellu r
upong the argument that the present is not the fitting
time. Look to the met stimulus which has recently been
gives to our import trade by the altstations in our customs
laws. Considering that we have lately repealed the duty on
con, reduced the duty on sugar, and removed the duties qn
cotton, wool, bides, el, silk, and every bulky commodity we
import, I may that this and no other than this is the
period at which we ought to consider whether the naviga-
tion laws ought to be repealed, and, if so, upon what basis.
(Hear, hear.) The consideration of the state of foreign
powers and the excitement which is beginning to prevail
our colonies, which have been urged as ressons.for
postponement, I look upon es enhancing miry much the
argument in favour of the present movement, althoueh the
commercial grounds alone are, in my opinion, sufficient to
justify us in regarding this as the proper season to approach
and definitively settle the question. If a change to to be
made' I now cue to the manner in which it ought to be
dem. I differ entirely from those who are friendly to the
pass system, sad am without the least hope of conciliating
MIEN Memo my destrine is, that we should walk in the
lima se supnimme, end that adhering to those rules of action
which Mr. Huskimos and others have adopted, we may
safely part with the navigation laws upon the grounds, and
in the manner which they have indicated. There are two
demands which the shipowner may make upon the British
legislature. In the first place, I think he is entitled to the
removal of every peculiar burden that now presses upon
him. (Hear, hear.) I find in the report of the e =mitts'
of the General Shipowners Society, a remarkable passage
which I wish to read to the house. I must not be supposed
se implying thereby that that society admit that protection
ought to be departed from. They on the contrary consider
that there is something about protection in the nature of a
charm, that it is a mine of national wealth, and that they
ought to cherish it as their life. (Laughter.) I speak of
the ground on which they claim special protection. As
long as others were protected, the shipowner were enabled
to flourish under the shadow of that wide-spread
tree, bat now that its extent hu been limited
they claim special protection. The report says, " the
shipowner must not expect on abstract grounds exemp-
tics from any competition to which other interests are sub-
ject, or the continuance of any immunity from which they
are excluded, but must rest his ease on the inseparable con-
nexion existing, on every principle of justice, between his
epeeist burdens and his special and particular protection." I
am free to believe that ft the sbipowaer were left with his
special burdens, be still would not be crushed, because him
command of capital and superior energy and enterprise, to-
gether with his commercial connexion, would enable
him to bear up against great disadvantages. But view-
ing the connexion between our mercantile marine
and our naval ascendancy, and therefore our mari-
time superiority, I am not prepared to drive •
hard bargain with the shipowner, and would prefer taking
from his shoulders on national grounds everything that can
be judged to be in the nature of a peculiar burden. Although
much bee been done respecting the duty upon timber, still
I am net willing that he should-consider himself ill-used, and
should readily grant him a remission of that duty. I think
that duty ought to be removed on other grounds. I have
never urged that, yielding &large revenue, it ought to be sub-
ject to • constant tax, but have ever advocated large diminu-
tions of it. I now think that the moment such a
measure sees be adopted the timber duties ought
to be repealed (hear, hear) and that giving a
remission to the shipowners will be a pledge that we
intend so to deal with them at a future time. With regard to
the manning of ships, I think it would be at variance with a
primary sense of justice to strip the shipowner of all protec-
tion and continue to impose restraints upon him as to the
manning of his ships. If the national policy requires the
adoption of a certain system, you must be prepared to com-
pensate the shipowner, not because the burdens, whether of
a fiscal or political nature, are likely to injure or to ruin him,
but because it is right that the utmost teesib`e development
and aid should be given to our commercial marine, as inter-
woven without navalpower and national protection and pros-
perity. I do not participate in the extreme viewwhich has been
taken of the consequences that would follow an unrestricted
repeal of the navigation laws. It has been pointed out that the
shipping in the direct trade between this country and Nor-
way, is almost wholly carried on by Norwegian ships, and I
eaa gonesive nothing more rash than to attempt to found
upon that fact the inference that if the navigation laws were
repealed, the Norwegians would drive us from the shipping
trade altogether. The limited extent of their capacity con-
stitutes • self-regulating principle, which would suffice to
prevent the possibility of such a result. You may compare
it with domestic employments. Out of the hundreds of
bedlam employed in Liverpool, I believe that there is not a
single Englishman to be found. and what does that
prove ? That Irishmen are adapted to that peculiar kind of
trade. (Loud li:tighter.) lam far from saying or mean-
ing that Irahmen, from amongst the ranks of whom have
proceeded many of our most brilliant ornaments whether in
the higher or lower ranks of life, are not adapted equally
with Englishmen for higher efforts. lam speaking of a
clais who monopolise • particular occupation, and I am con-
tending that it would be just as right to suppose that they
will monopolise every other, or to say that because the ships
of Norway are more suited for the rude work of the timber
trade, therefore, they are able for the long voyage to the
East ladies or Chine, and therefore they will drive our
trade away. (Hear, hear.) We must anticipate that the
British shipowner will have to undergo a competition from
the Baltic nations, which will be sharp as far as it goes, and
from the United States, which will 'be sharp all over the
world. He will be in this situation : at present the em-
ployment of shipping is not free over the globe, but divided
into separate fields, and within these, limited to one or more
particular nations. He at present likeable full share of those
limited and guarded fields of employment. Others have
their full share also. America, for instance, retaliates her
own shipping upon us, and I apprehend there is no doubt
that the restraint upon navigation tells much more severely
against England than America. (Hear, bear.) We me
preparing to lay open those fields which the British ship-
owner holds for himself exclusively • or open them to more
than one where there is only one foreign competitor. Now I
think that admitting foreigners into competition with him
gives us atrffect right to secure if we can the entrance for
him into fields of employment from which he is ex-
cluded. op not now allude to the question of ear.
corny. I this% raise a doubt that if you adept
the principle of pursuing the augmentation of the national
wealth, my argument falls to the ground. But it has never
been the habit of parliament to view questions upon that
principle exclusively. I ask the house to proceed upon
past experience and in pursuance of its results to adopt a
conditional, and not absolute, or unconditional, relaxation of
the nevigatioa laws. It is material I should explain what I
mean by a conditional relaxation. America, in that
respect, hest°
comesat
"aluml
a ygasoodpouexibalmeptole,hearnd
modell ahasonlfdarbs
disposed as
it goes--I mean es to the form of proceeding. I was never of
opinion that we ought to proofed by treaties of reciprocity
with foreign power, but on the contrary; and I object to
the' bill before us that it fe likely to entangle us in the
meshes of such treaties. Here we are with a dozen or half a
deem of initiated negotiations alreasand I am afraid
of your being led into some declaration which may
give rise to mach misconstruction, and that you may
fetter your hands hereafter. In the correspondence
on the subject there seems a disposition to take much and
give little. I think you may emit the difficulty by condi-
tional legislation• either that her. Majesty shall have the
power by order in; council, or by enactment still more direct,
by the immediate effuse of law, to declare that the vessels
of foreign states who grant privileges to our navigation
shall enjoy . a reciprocity; so that if state A. were dis-
posed to give to British vessel, the power of bringing
cargoes from all parts of the world hmspectim of the
origin of the goods or of the pat of shipping, the same pri-
vilege should be extended by this country to A, or if B
should grant to us the power of entering her colonial parts, a
similar power should be granted by us to B. If Prussia,
who has no colonies, were to give the whole privilege of its
navigation, then I my, let that state be entitled
to the undisputed right of navigation to all our
own porssuons. The hon. Secretory of the Board
of T e contended that reciprocity was something contrary
to principle and policy, and would be found impracticable to
execute. I, on the other hand, contend that it is according
to all precedent and experience—that it is demanded by jus-
tice and that it is far more easy to be carried out than the
plan of her Majesty's ministers. I say, legislate conditionally.
They my we ought to repeal the restrictions of the navigation
laws, reserving the power to re-enact them as against yrbwen
who will not reciprocate. Now, I must observe that every
word uttered by the hon. gentleman against reciprocity tel
with augmented force against retaliation. (Hear, hear.) It
is infinitely easier to stand upon the system which exisb,
which is embodied in our laws and associated with our habits,
and make it a question of time and circumstance, than it is
to sweep that system away, allowing new inter. ate to come
forward, and sowing the red of • new crop of claims against
us. Depend upon it, your clause of retaliation will remain
• dead letter, and never be put into execution. (Hear, hear.)
will join in getting rid of it, for if you will not !misfits
conditionally I think it would be much better to legislate
unconditionally, and then come to parliament whenever
extraordinary cases arose. (Hear, hear.) I think it a great
objection to the clause giving retaliatory powers, that
in the negotiations that have been commenced yon plane
yourselves in a position that is scarcely an honest one. If
you don't really intend that this clause shoulibe acted on your
proceeding is not altogether direct or creditable to • country
like this; and all such oreceedings invalidate themselves,
and only create • general distrust in your statements and
policy. Let us °Guider if it be fair to the shipowner to
adopt, audit then are other reason for adopting, conditional
legislation. It may humid that it is novel, that it ie an
American and not an English system. But it is the eery
system on which we mmetieally stand as regards nearly every
country in the world. In the first instance we bound our-