The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-24 00:00:00

arises from the consciousness that the whole argument
in favour of the Bill now before the House has been
exhausted by the masterly speech of the Right lion.
Baronet the Member for Ripon.--(Hear, hear.) He
wen so ccmple!ely through the argument., aid touched
on all parts of it in so convincing a manner, and he has
keen w little answered by the Hon. Gentleman who last
spoke, that I feel great difficulty in addressing the
House on this subject. Nevertheless, having a deep
sense of the importance of this question, and feeling
that, after a year of delay, after an inquiry by a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and by a Committee
of the House of Lords, and after the measure has been
twice recommended in the speech from the throne, it is
high time that our deliberations on this subject should
end in a settlement of this question, I em induced to
address the House before it goes to a division on the
su'ject. I was glal to hear the Honourable Gentleman
who spoke last admit in a somewhat different spirit
from that evinced by the Honourable and Learned
Member for Midhurst that all restrictions of themselves
required defence; that there must be a strong case made
out for them; and that consequently the burden of proof
lies on those v..ho attempt to support them. Every one,
I think, must admit that it is no crime for a person to
wish to bring wool from Australia
.to supply our manu-
facturers in a Bremen ship, and that there is no moral
guilt in attempting to bring hides from Holland, and na-
turally no sin in attempting to introduce Americaa cotton
from Havre. The only crime, tten, must consist in the
violation of your prohibitory law, and that prohibitory
law must require strong grounds for its defence.—
(flear, hear.) This question has been treated by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst in a speech of

great ability as one to be divided historically, economi-
cally, and nationally ; but I do not think that on any of
these grounds there is a sufficient defence for the present
state of the law. lam aware that the law has been al-
most worshipped as the charta maritime of this country
and that much of its prosperity and commerce has
been attributed to the law, and •that it bas been
thought profanation to alter it. But in my judgment
that opinion is founded in error, and at no time has this
law been essentially advantageous to this country.—
(Hear, hear.) Let us look to its origin. Did it arise
from any views of commercial wisdom, or from any of
these views of protection which are now said to be so
conducive to our prosperity? It arose from a wish on
the part.of the Protector Cromwell, inspired on the occa-
sion by the enmity and indignation of St. John against
the Dutch, to cripple and destroy the commercial marine
of Holland; and so little did the law answer in any other
view that the Right Hon. Member for Ripon quoted
correctly Roger, Coke, and various other writers who
followed in the course of a century, showing that the na-
vigation laws, in a commercial point of consideration,
were most injurious to this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Whether it was our interest to destroy the navigation of
Holland at that time we need not now much discuss; but
we do know that 40 years afterwards it was the chief ob-

ject of our policy to maintain the power of Holland, and
effect with that country the most close and intimate
alliance.—(Hear, hear.) What was the next effect which
we find produced historically by the navigation-laws
and the restrictions connected with them. We find that
the vexatious and intolerable nature of these restrictions

provoked the loyal and attached triends of the British
connexion in America to resistance.—(Hear, hear.)
What next was the effect of regulations of a similar
kind? You prohibited Ireland from trading with any of
your colonies. You fettered her by the most severe re-
strictive regulations; you produced resistance in Ireland;
and it was only by abandoning those regulations that
you succeeded in pacifying Ireland. I say, therefore,
that in a historical point of view the provisions of the
navigation laws have been mischievous, and not condu-
cive to her welfare. Then, Sir, in an economical view,
I think there is almost a confession—a Confession by the
Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, a confession by the
chief of those authors who have defended the system
—that, economically, the regulations must be injurious,
that these restrictions must tend to diminish the
wealth of the country, and that no other defence can be
found for them but their tendency to promote our naval
power. I need not, therefore, go into the various matters
in which the present laws are injurious. These have
been shown in evidence, before the Committee. They

have been shown, in various instances, to have delayed
and obstructed the commerce of this country. But then
it is said, that whatever may be the injury which our
commerce has suffered,`; however unwise those restric-
tions may be in a commercial point of view, they have
tended to keep up a commercial marine, from which the
navy of this country has derived its resources and its
strength. Now, I think there are many reasons for
doubting that assertion; and I call it an assertion be-
cause, after all the argument and all the evidence from
men of high naval authority, or from persons of high
Economical authority—from Adam Smith—from those
who have taken part in this debate, I see nothing like
regulations; I see nothing
proof that our navy derimveodreittshasntreanngathssfe'rrotimonththosaet
here are regulations which tend to monopoly, and,
b._e
(bLeonoefidcoirailestoof the,‘Hecaortr
hear.")
Let us see what, on the other hand, are the reasons for
marine therefore,
of
doubting the truth of this assertion. In the first
in-
stance, there is the character of our people, eminently
attached to naval pursuits, readily embracing the marine
tthhiesyc o must
country.—(Loud
as a profession distinguished among the nations of the
world as a naval people. I own I was astonished to hear
the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last, complain
that if wo pass this Bill, we oblige the shipowners of this
country to employ inferior workmen.—(Hear, hear.) I
ask him, why inferior workmen ?—(Hear, hear.) lam
told that a great portion of the commercial marine of
the United States, of which many are so jealous, con-
sists of those very -British seamen whom you now call
inferior workmen.—(Hear, hear.) What, is it, then,
that has made the meaters and the seamen of our British
commercial marine in any way inferior ? What is it
that has tended to cripple their energies, or to diminish
their skill ? What can it be but the coastant invariable
effect of protective laws—(Hear, hear)—and of telling
men " Do not trust to your own energies, do not trust
to your own powers, because, in default of industry—in
default of skill—we will give you a law which will
protect you against all competition ?" (Hear, hear.)
And yet, in spite of these "inferior workmen," we know,
that in 1848 236,000 men belonged to the commercial
marine of England—(Elear, hear)—we know—we must
know that that is not a number which could be produced
( hear.) But what is the
among a nation that was not essentially a nation loving
the marine as a profession, and eminent among the na-
tions in that respect.—Hear,
next reason? We were told, I remember, about 1824
and 1826, that Mr. Huskisson had introduced measures
which would totally ruin the commercial marine of this
country—(Hear, hear)—that the shipping must be ut-
terly destroyed—(Hear, hear)—that the state of distress
was something which had scarcely ever been paralleled,
and that it was
Owing to his measures. Now those
measures did,
to a very great degree, introduce com-
petition with other nations; they gave reciprocity
in some instances—they did away with restrictions
without reciprocity in others; and what has been the
consequence? I have here the tonnage of the Bri-
tish empire as it stood in 1823, in 1840, and in
1849 —I will trouble the House with only those num-
bers; our tonnage in 1823 was 2,506,760, in 1840
3,226,684, in 1849 4,052,160, That is the mode in which
the tonnage of this empire has increased under this sys-
tem of modified competition. In the same period the
number
of men employed has risen from 165,000 to
236,000. I say this is a reason for believing that we
can stand competition' and that we may go further in
that course.—(llear, hear.) The Honourable Member
for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole)
admitted that the plans of
Mr. Huskisson were successful, that there had been a
great increase in the amount of tonnage and number of
men, but he said—" As you have been so successful,
stand where you are; you have succeeded, you are going
on well, and therefore be contented -with the position
which you have reached." Now that is not my mode
e of
considering questions of this kind.—(Hear, hear.)
consider that if you have made an experiment in one
successful, direction, and it has been eminently
and at
the same time has been a cautious experiment,
that is
a reason for going further in the
same direction—
(Hear, hear)—a reason for greater progress— (Hear,
hear)—to be attended, as I trust,
with still greater
that we have already
success than the measures
for confidence that our commercial marine will not be
taken.—(Hear, hear.)
of the navigation laws.
injured by the proposed repeal
I have mentione.d two grounds
I go to another ground, to which I do not see that there
can be an answer. It is, that not only is this amount
of tonnage employed and this number of men in the
trade of the United Kingdom, but a great portion of it
is employed in a trade in which we have no protection
whatever—in the carrying trade to Russia, to Trieste,
and to parts of Austria, where we meet the other
nations of the globe, and where those nations, be they,
Swedes or be they Americans, if they have such an ad-
vantage as is said, would drive us out of the trade and
disable us from such competition.—(Hear, hear.) I do
not really see what answer there can be to this state-
ment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Hew is it that some
say that the Swedes and Norwegians navigate so
cheaply and are paid such very low wages, and the
same gentleman, or others, say that the Americans
receive such .high wages, and their ships are manned so
pnotwhnee other hand, that, with
rl the British master,
is to
well, that they-ehe
IB must beat us? Whatever the case is, we
arutobled
the energies of. this country left completely free, you
have not to dr end the competition of any nation upon the
htehaatten.. rhietilsiehves,hoi
globe.—(Heat; hear.) I believe—and I by no means
regret—that foreign shipping will increase, as it
has increissed in past years ; but _ I believe
that British shipping will increase in a manner com-
mensurate, or probably in a greater proportion, and that
the only result will be a general increase in the com-
merce of thins country and of the world.—(Hear, hear.)
We are told that the manner in which we have proposed
this Bill is a conclusive argument against our suc-
ceeding; b'ut I was happy that the Honourable Gen-
tleman who spoke last, who no doubt, with his expe-
rience, has considered the measure in all its details,
fully col warred in the opinion we entertain, that a
Bill fr smed on strict grounds of reciprocity—
a Bill e .eclaring that you must follow other nations in
every pa rticular—would lead into inextricable difficul-
ties, and. that it would not have been wise to propose it.
—(les r.) If that is the case, what other course could
we tak a, with our opinions, than proposing a total repeal
of thes lasis, leaving it to the Queen in Council to exer-
cise a power, if it shall be thought fit, of imposing upon
other nations restrictions which they impose upon us.—
(Flere.e) In retaining that power, which we have by
our present law, I quite agree with the Right Hon.
Gentlemen (Sir J. Graham), that in ordinary cases
when you. attempt to impose a restriction, because a re-
striction is imposed upon you, you are injuring yourselves
more than,obtaining any benefit; but there are cases where
the restrict ion may be put on from national rivalry and
national an imosity, cases in which in former instances
we have s ucceeded by putting similar restrictions on
other natiot is; and therefore I think the Crown should
not be deprived of that power. But in many cases, such
as the instre ice which has often been referred to, of the
colony of TI eiuidad, I believe you might very safely give