The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-17 00:00:00

COASTING TRADE BILL.

- - -
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the second
reading of this bill. Noble lords opposite who had an-
ticipated so much evil from the passing of the measure
for the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, would,
with his noble friends on that side of the house, be pleased
to learn that it had proved to be a great boon to the
shipping trade. The shipping showed an increase of
700,000 tons, and the additional seamen employed
amounted to 20,000. If any portion of the shipping
trade had not partaken of this prosperity it was the coast-
ing trade, which, so far from having increased, had re-
mained stationary. (Hear.) He was aware that the
conveyance of coal by railways and the employment of
steamboats had diminished the number of ships employed
in the coasting trade. One objection which had been
urged to extending the measure of 1849 to the coasting
trade had been, that it would afford facilities for carrying
on a contraband trade, to allow foreign ships to be em-
ployed in our coasting trade. That objection, however,
he thought was of little weight, when it was remembered
that the fact of the persons employed speaking a foreign
tongue would render it difficult for them to evade the re-
venue officers. The whole trade of the country had suf-
fered from the want of shipping—freights had risen up-
wards of 50 per cent., and in the trade between New-
castle and London, the wages of seamen had risen from
31. and 41. per month to 71. and 81. The consequence
of this had been a great increase in the price of coal
to the consumer in this town. As an instance of the
injury which had been inflicted on trade by the want
of shipping, he might state the fact, that there was a
large company in Newcastle employed in the manufac-
ture of alkali, and which required upwards of 100,000
tons of shipping during the last year, but they were
greatly impeded in their operations from the want of
vessels, although there were many Norwegian ships
lying in the port which had brought over cargoes of
timber. He hoped their lordships would see the policy
of relaxing the law which gave rise to so much inconve-
nience and loss. There was no fear of foreigners being
able advantageously to compete with Englishmen when
it was considered that the latter would have a perfect
knowledge of the coast and the ports ; but many foreign
vessels which now came from the Batic and elsewhere
with cargoes were often obliged to go in ballast to some
other port to obtain a cargo, and no less than 415,000
tons of foreign shipping sailed from one port in England
to another during the last year in ballast. Another im-
portant consideration was, that if they kept up the price
of freights by the continuance of the present law, the
result would be to throw a large portion of the trade into
the hands of the railway companies, who were now most
formidable competitors ; and if they once got the greater
part of the trade into their bands it would be difficult
to restore it back to its former channel. With regard
to a suggestion made in the other house, that measures
should be taken to secure reciprocity, and that no country
should be admitted to the advantage of our coasting
trade which refused to permit British ships to partici-
pate in their coasting trade, he was of a different opinion.
He thought we should rather prove our confidence in
the correctness of the principles we were adopting by
allowing them to work their own way, and that foreign
Governments should be induced to follow our example,
not by any bargain compelling them to concede equal
advantages to us, but by the success attending their '
adoption by us. (Hear, hear.) And in the case of the
United States of America, the effect of throwing open
our coasting trade to American vessels would be to a
great extent to remove the constitutional objection urged
by the United States Government against admitting
British vessels to participate in their Californian trade.
He believed it would be found that foreign countries
would meet us in a fair and honourable spirit, as Holland
and other maritime states had done in reference to the
concessions previously made. A clause had, however,
been introduced, enabling the Crown to exclude from
participation in the coasting trade of this country any
foreign nation, should circumstances arise with regard
to it rendering such exclusion advisable. On the ground
that the measure was one calculated to extend the trade
and commerce, and consequently the material prosperity
of the country, he hoped there would be no objection to
its second reading.
Lord COLCHESTER admitted that there had been
an increase in our foreign trade since the passing of the
bill of 1849, but he attributed it rather to the gold dis-
coveries in California and Australia, the emgration which
had followed, and the necessity of supplying the emi-
grants with necessaries, rather than to that measure.
The objection, however, that had been urged against that
measure, on the part of its opponents, was not on the
ground of free trade, but that it would tend to interfere
with the supply of British seamen to the British navy.
He did not intend to propose any amendment to the
present bill.

Earl WALDEGRAVE suggested that national danger
might arise from the knowledge which foreign sailors
would obtain of the navigation of our coasts and rivers
by being permitted to participate in the coasting trade.
The Earl of DERBY believed it had been stated, in
reference to the measure of 1849, that by the law of the
United States, any nation relaxing their navigation laws
in favour of American ships would obtain the same re-
lax.ations of the navigation laws of that country in
return. The coasting trade was not included in that
measure, and as the trade from New York to California
was claimed by America as coasting trade, our ships
were excluded from participating in it. He wished to
know whether the necessary effect of passing this bill
would be to throw open the Californian trade to British
vessels ?

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY did not think tie
passing of the bill would necessarily remove the existing
restrictions in the American Navigation Laws as to the
coasting trade ; but it would constitute an equitable
claim on the part of this country for their abolition, and
would remove the constitutional objection of that Go-
vernment that no advantage could be given by one state
in the Union over any other.
Lord DERBY—That was to say, its effect would not
be to place the trade as between New York and Cali-
fornia on a different footing from that between New
York and Boston. (Hear, hear.) It was obvious this
change would give us a strong claim in equity upon the
Government of the United States in regard to the whole
of their coasting trade.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—In equity we
certainly shall be entitled to the concession.
Earl GREY was glad to find that this measure, which
went to remove the last of these absurd restrictions
which had so long encumbered our navigation laws, met
with general concurrence. With regard to the remark
of the noble earl (Waldegrave), he seemed to forget that
already charts were published by the Admiralty of our
For
and rivers, -which any foreigner might purchase.
Eel. himself, he saw no danger in permitting foreigners
to acquire such information, believing as he did
that this country was too great and too powerful
to carel,-u__r‘ who knew the navigation of its coasts.
g"'ov'earn./hieUpon the point. of reciprocity, he hoped the
would abstain from pressing the power they
had (under
f the clause his noble friend had referred to)
in order toexperience
theyorce concessions from them, for the more
had of the progress of free commercial
principles withforeign
he that th nations the more convinced was
the better. ce less diplomacy' interfered in such matters
that this country h.ear.) it was only a few years ago
without reference to decided upon adopting such principles
whatr course might be taken by
andptloier
some
had been precisely what he
other nations,
had anticipated.
supposed that
our example was not
upon
followed, it being
had
arrivedeat that state of commercial
prosperity to which we
was the consequence
of the system of restrictions
which we had so long
acted. But within the last yea 40
two foreign countries,
seeing the extraordinary effeetrr
the relaxation of those
our own commer•
absurd restrictions had produced upon
gradually begun to
mercial and industrial prosperity, 'hail
those
sense of
adopt the same course. He hoPedthe good
ministers would induce them still to leave
coun-
tries to act for themselves, abstaining from advice or and it would speedily be founpdurtphoastewolfiaituee.voerr
restriction they might maintain for the
ing our trade would injure their own ten times mjourer-
He was satisfied, if the Government adopted this policy.
not many years would elape before all countries, even
the most bigoted, such as Spain, would, by the success
of our example, be compelled to abolish all restrictions
on trade. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM had, with other Free-traders, op.
posed the measure of 1849, on the ground stated by the
most venerable authority on free trade, though he did
not go with him to the full extent—Dr. Adam Smith ;
whose doctrine was that while he had no doubt of the
soundness of free trade as applied to the wealth of a coun-
try, he considered that the defences of a country must
always form an exception. His view had always been,
When things were well to leave them so, and not to apply
change where change was unnecessary, especially in so
important a matter as the national defences. The mea-
sure of 1849, however, having passed, he thought the

I present measure a necessary consequence, and one which
the Legislature could not stop short of.
The bill was then read a second time.
HIGHWAYS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.
This bill was, on the motion of Earl CAWDOR, read a
s,,!cond time.
The Mutiny Bill and the Commons Inclosure Bill were
read a second time.
The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The select committee on the Testamentary Jurisdiction
Bill was nominated, and
Their lordships adjourned.

EIOUSE OP COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Stafford New Gas Bill was read a third time and
passed ; also the East London Waterworks Bill.
The Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill was brought up
and read a first time.
PETITIONS.
Mr. WICKHAM presented four petitions—viz., one
from Bradford, one from Clackheaton, one from Horton,
praying that no more money be granted to Maynooth ;
one from Pudney, West Riding of Yorkshire, praying
that the said College be at once dissolved, and that no
money be granted in future for a purely Roman Catholic
education; also, two petitions—viz., one from Horton, and
one from Pudney, both in the West Riding of York-
shire, praying that some effectual steps may be taken to
put down the illegal practices of the Roman Catholics
in this country.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER presented a petition from
the mayor and burgesses of the borough of Newbury,
against the consolidation of the rural police force.
Mr. HORSFALL presented a petition from the ship-
owners of Liverpool complaining of the repeal of the
Navigation Laws having prevented an efficient number
of apprentices being bound to the merchant service.