The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-25 00:00:00

that desires a clear stage and no favour, is now

garded as the rule by which our dealings should
regulated, and we will abide by that just and equ

able principle, and act fairly and honestly towards

entire world.

Sir JAMES GEAHAM, in his lucid and powerful
address, placed the question in the clearest light, Ind
distinctly exhibited the injurious results of the navi-
gation code, under the various Acts (more than 140
in number) that had from time to time been passed
since the introduction of the more stringent enact-
ments during the Protectorate. On each of the
grounds argued by Mr. WALPOLE—" the historic4l,"
" the economical," and " the national"—the Right
1
Hon. Baronet proved that these laws bad not ben
productive of those beneficial results erroneou ly
ascribed to them—that England had flourished desp te,
and not in consequence thereof. The almost c n-
temporaneous authorities of ROHEBa. COKE and it
Josi[Au CHILD, who wrote shortly after the e-

riod when these restrictive laws were enact
showed that their immediate effect was "to dr
British shipping out of the trade both of Russia a
Greenland"—" to destroy our Baltic trade and great

to diminish our general trade ;" while Sir MATT/I
DECKER, with half a century's additional experiel

of their working, said that, " although the objec

the law was to increase the number of our seal

and to add to our shipping, it produced exactly olio-
site effects"—" that it had greatly diminished the
tonnage of our shipping, as well as the number of qur
seamen, while at the same time, through advan9ed
rates, great injury had been done to the interests, of
the country ;" while the authority of ADAM Sm7u
—so happily termed by the Right Hon. Gentleman
" the NEWTON of political economists"—is no
less decisive. Although that profound reasoner (as
we have already repeatedly pointed out) was induced,
in one part of his great work, to support the ex-
clusive system on the principle " that defence is of
much greater importance than opulence"—an opinion
that has been so triumphantly adduced by the Pro-
tectionists—he, at the same time, and almost in the
same paragraph, showed that he was fully alive to
their injurious effects to trade and commerce, and
their deteriorating influences upon the national
wealth, and that "we sold less dearly and bought
more dearly" in consequence. But, even on the point
of " national defence," the great economist does not
at all times maintain the same opinion ; and in a
subsequent part of his work he more than doubts
whether these laws had really the effect of " strength-
ening our national defences." He says—
" England, it must be observed, was a great trading
country—her mercantile capital was very great, and
likely to become still greater and greater every day,
not only before the Act of Navigation had established
the monopoly of the colony trade, but before that trade
was very considerable. In the Dutch war, during the
government of Cromwell, her navy was superior to that
of Holland; and in that which broke out in the begin-
ning of the reign of Charles IL, it was at least equal, if
not superior, to the united navies of France and Hol-
land. Its superiority, perhaps, would scarce appear
greater in the present times, at least, if the Dutch navy
was to bear the same proportion to the Dutch com-
merce now which it did then. But this great
naval power, could not in either of these wars be owing to
the Act of Navigation. During the first of them the plan
of that Act had been but just formed, and, though before
the breaking out of the second it had been enacted by
legal authority, yet no part of it could have had time to
produce any considerable effect; and, least of all, Mat
part of it which established the exclusive trade to the co-
lonies."

It cannot surely be asserted that the writer of the
opinions above cited considered the maintenance of
these laws essential to the safety of the country.
While, however, we would abolish every exclusive
privilege, we agree most fully with the Hon. Member
for Glasgow, that every restriction and impediment
that now injuriously affect the shipping interests,
should be also removed. Every owner should, as Mr.
MACGREGOR truly remarked,- " be at liberty to man
his ship in whatever way he thought most advan-
tageous to himself. The stamp duties on insurances,
bills of lading, and charter parties, ought to be abo-
lished ; all interference with the victualling of British
ships should cease ; and the light-house dues should
be put on the same footing with the United
States of America." The timber duties, that act so
prejudicially to the British shipbuilder, should be
either wholly or partially repealed, and then, indeed,
we should have no cause to shrink from a fair and
open competition with other nations. If the Protec-