The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-14 00:00:00

he bad no hesitation in saying were incompatible with
the connexion that subsisted between the most impor-
tant of our colonies and the mother country.
These were the arguments which he last ses-
sion advanced in favour of the proposition then before
the House, but more in detail than he intended to sub-
mit them on the present occasion. He had produced
numerous communications from Canada and the West
Indies, all complaining of the injustice of the
present laws. Lord Harris had detailed the ad-
vantages which would be derived by the im-
portant colony of Trinidad, if it were allowed to
carry on an interrupted trade with Spain and France.
He begged to remind the House of the arguments
heretofore advanced by him. As Australia, Canada,
and their other colonies developed themselves, com-
posed of Englishmen, was it to be supposed that
they would rest satisfied with restrictions of this de-
scription?—(Hear.) Was it not the part of true wisdom
to take the step proposed by this Bill, rather than com-
ply with it when irritation and agitation compelled
ahem to accede to it. The interval that had
elepsed had only brought additional proof of the senti-
ments of the colonists, and he would fain hope that the
attention of the House had during it been
called to the papers which were last ses-
sion laid before the House. The Honourable Member
then referred to a dispatch of Lord Elgin, setting
forth the views of the inhabitants of Montreal,
New York, and Quebec, and the evils which
the manufacturers and producers of the far west expe-
rienced in consequence of the existence of those laws—
since they prevented them from obtaining the true
advantage of all those internal means of com-
munication which had been constructed at such
an' enermous outlay.—(Hear, hear.) The patience
which Canada had evinced pending the repeal of
these laws deserved their utmost gratitude, and
they would show but an ill sense of it if they
did not early accede to their wishes. One docu-
ment had been furnished to Lord Elgin by
two p?rsons of high respntsbility and influence,
to which he had called the particular attention
Of the Home Government, stating that they were unable
to execute an order for 250 tons of Scotch pig iron, in
consequence of the oppressive nature of these laws.
The third of those main and fundamental principles, on
which the system of the navigation-laws rest, consisted
in those restrictions which attempted to secure to this
country its own carrying trade. With regard to the
operation of those restrictions he thought it right to re-
mind: the House that this was a policy that could be only
successful so long as it was confined to ourselves, and
so long as foreign nations acquiesced in it. If every
nation attempted to insist on that indirect navigation,
we should gain nothing, but should infallibly be
'timers. In a gain in-which all would lose something,
we should assuredly lose the most.—(Hear, hear.)
Foreign nations were altogether agreed, that if we meant
to keep this carrying trade to ourselves they would re-
taliate upon us. During the last session of Parliament
tie stated the situation in which• we stand in regard to
Prussia in this respect. He knew Hon. Gentlemen
treated with great levity any menaces from Prussia;
but, in his opinion, it was not wise so to treat them.
But was Prussia the only country which was expected
to speak similar language to us if we insisted on this
Policy ?, He ventured to call the attention of the
House to the trade with Russia; there were few
trades of more importance to this country than that
which we conduct with Russia. Abounding in raw pro-
ducts as Russia did, and England being eminently a
manufacturing country, two such countries were formed
by nature to have commerce with each other. How did we
stand with Russia in respect to this indirect trade? We
made a treaty with Russia in 1843, which was to last for
ten' years, and which would, therefore, expire in 1853.
By that treaty Russia engaged to admit British ships
into Russian ports upon equal terms with her own
ships. Was it likely, when that treaty expired, that
Russia would not retaliate upon us, by putting the same
restrictions on our carrying trade as we did upon hers?
(Hear, hear.) At this moment au English ship might
take a cargo of sugar from Cuba to Russia,
but a Russian ship could not take a cargo from Cuba to
London. Now could we believe that Russia, when this
treaty expired, would allow this state of things to con-
tinue?—(Hear, hear) But what had Russia done? In
1845, two years after the signing of this treaty the Emperor
of Russia published an ukase against all nations that did
not treat Russian.ships in the same way they did ships of
their own nation. Was it not much better, when we had
to discuss this question without the exasperation which
at a future moment would render its discussion incon-
venient—was it not much wiser, and had it not more of
true dignity—by a timely concession, not to the de-
mands of Russia, but to the demands of equity—(Hear)—
and a true and enlarged policy, to put those laws on a
consistent and sound footing, and so to prevent the evils
that, by a postponement of the question, must inevitably
be ours? These were, as he bad stated, the three main
principles on which our system of navigation-
laws was founded ; and he proposed in the course
of the last session, and he should now propose to the
House, to deal with these restrictions in • such a
way as that the Privy Council should have the power
of re enacting them wholly or in part, with regard to
any Government with respect to whom it may be for
English interests that they should be so re-enacted. Ile
would remind the House that the main alteration with
respect to the manning and building of ships was to
admit foreign ships to British ports, if British owned
and British manned ; he therefore proposed to break
down the monopoly which at present existed. With-
out anticipating the discussion on this point, he must
say that subsequent experience had only confirmed the
conviction he then expressed, that that most important
trade, he meant the trade of ship- building in Eng-
land had nothing to fear from this competition.
Since the House had discussed this question additional
information had been afforded by the evidence
taken before the House of Lords. He had looked
narrowly into that evidence, and he thought Honour-
able Gentlemen could not look into the statements
made before the House of Lords without coming
to the conclusion that, of all the trades in the world,
there was nothing in which we could more successfully
compete with foreign nations than that of ship-building.
—(Hear.) To compare this country with the United
States of America, what did be find? He found that all
the main articles of iron, copper, sail-cleth, and
many others, were immeasurably cheaper in En-
gland than in America. Ho found with regard
to cordage we had the same advantage over
America in that respet; with regard to timber we were
.ar an (quality; with regard to labour we were also upon
an equality, so far as wages were concerned. But he
must allow that there was one point on which
we were not upon an equality with the United States,
and he feared the statements put forth on that point,
before the House of Lords, were perfectly correct. Mr.
Murray Wigram stated before the House of Lords that
the wages of shipwrights, in New York were about the
same as the labour in London ; but there was this
difference, the shipwright in the United States gave
his whole day's work for his wages, and the
shipwright in London worked as a combination man.—
(Hear, hear.) Did the House mean to state that the
trade of this country was to be burdened by mer-
cantile difficulties, or to grow up, in order to
protect a combination of shipwrights?—(Hear.) Was
that a point to be pressed upon him in legislating
on a question of such importance? The remedy for this
was to expose those who resorted to such unfair means
to render their labour dear to their employers, to the
competition of others, and so prevent that combing
tion, by giving to the employer the fair labour
of the employed.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the
duties imposed on timber used in ship-building
in this country, he would again appeal to the evi-
dence of a gentleman who altogether disagreed with
him (Mr. Labouchere) on the subject of the navigation-
laws ; he appealed to the gentleman to whom he had
already adverted, viz., Mr. Murray Wigram,
who was one of the largest shipowners in
the world. It would be impossible for any
man to give his evidence before the House of Lords
in a more frank, candid, and truthful manner. He said,
with respect to those duties on timber in raising the
price of ship-building in England, " the amount of
timber duty payable upon foreign timber is
trifling—it was but 3s. 6d. a ton in the
case of a merchant ship of 690 tons." On
the other hand, mahogany_ was admitted duty free;
it was the same with other valuable foreign woods, and,
therefore, it was quite a mistake that those duties on
foreign timber impose any material charge on the Bri-
tish ship builder. He would quote now the name of
another gentleman who wasmost strenuously opposed
to any change in the navigation-laws. He referred to
Mr. George Frederick Young. That gentleman stated
in 1847, before a Committee of the House of Commons,
that " the quantity of foreign timber used in the con-
struction of ships in this country bore but a small pro-
portion to the whole quantity employed." The next
alteration to which he (Mr. Labouchere) would advert,
and which he proposed last year, was with respect to the
number of apprentices which shipowners were obliged
to take. They had constantly complained of this obliga-
tion, and be thought it was highly proper that
they should be relieved from it at a time
when the House was making the proposed
change in the navigation-laws. Those therefore were
the principles of the measure which he proposed in the
last session. He proposed absolutely to repeal
those three principles of the navigation-laws,
viz., the restrictions on the carrying trade,
the restrictions on the colonial trade and the restrictions
on the " long-voyage trade ;" and also to modify the
laws which regulated the registration of ships and sea-
men so as to allow the British shipowner to purchase his
ships from foreign ship-builders, and also to abolish
the obligation to have a certain number of
apprentices. He had during the interval of the recess,
in eonnexion with her Majesty's Government, carefully '
considered the objections made to this Bill, with the
earnest desire to adept any suggestion which ap-
peared
the
edo
gm
Member
arrobi
dgeoirn
tVf schemeogithhxt
or
frei
dso psowet
ach
tt
ec
dhot
bt t
yhe heemw caaooya
to them to be an improvement in the
o
oa
forfl ly
thisth eporooupoo Universityturny d
teh de.
of objection, that by diminish•
ing, or continuing unimpaired, the restrictions on that
trade we were placing ourselves at great die-
advantage. in trading with foreign countries.—(Hear.)
He adverted especially to the case of the United States
of America, and he asked what could be more unequal
and unfair than that, while we allowed the Americans
to engage in our foreign and colonial trade, by retaining
those restrictions, and by preventing them from sharing
OUT coasting trade, we debarred ourselves from sharing
that important trade along the coasts of America, which
partook more of the nature of a foreign trade than of a
mere coasting trade. He (Mr. Labouchere) felt it very
difficult to meet that argument. He certainly thought if
we bad made! no change in our: coasting trade we could
have no claim in equity or justice to ask the United States trade. to admit our ships to their coasting Nevertheless
he had thought it better to consider this part of the sub-
ject with a view to sec whether he could not meet the
difficulties he felt ttt the time to opening the