The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

Peers on the Ministerial side.) The best proof of it was
an anecdote vehich arose on art occasion which he was old
enough to I,:co:hec—the occasion of a festival et Guild-
hall, at v, hich he was present, end at which Mr. Pitt
gave its a twist, " The Ships, Coloeics, and Commerce of
England:'—(llcar, hear.) That was a most able retort
un Napoleon, but would Lave been pointless if al
that Napoleon wished wasiships, and colonies, and com-
merce. True, he had no mercantile navy—no commerce,
no colonies—and the reason was because England had
ships, colonies, and commerce, because she bad fostered
the growth of that magnificent mercantile marine—be-
cause she had encouraged that 'without whi she never
would have had a navy at all, because she bad for the
ch
last 150 years abided by that policy without deviation,
except to adopt successive change* to keep that policy
intact, for the purpose of promoting not merely the
commerce of the country, but the growth•of a mercen
tile navy arid the butldtng of ships and the raising of
toeu.—(Hear.) He was stating now Whit be had stated
in a publication on this subject so long ago as the year
1802. Ile had in that work attempted to show the bear-
ing of the principles of his great master, Adam Smith,
and had maintained the great ad% tuitage of colonies to
the mother country. 'I hose zealous individuals who
'were ‘N hat wet e called f= ee-traders !lever ceased quoting
Adam Smith as a great authority, although they wished
us to have no calottics hstover.—(licar, hear) They
considered the colonial trade as a foreign trade, only
returning ore capital, hut it was art abuse of terms to
call our. colonial trade a foreign trade. It replaced two
capitals, and was in all essentials a home trade. To
trade with Jamaica instead of Brazd was to replace two
capitals, the E'tglish capital and the J.ernaica capital.
If any pet son would look to the valleys of We stmorc-
land or Lancashire; or going further north examine the
counties of Inverness and Russ, he would see a proof of
the soundness of this doctrine its the.very names of the
villas—names suggestive of Jamaica, Barbadoes, Trini-
dad, and Demerara, and showing that the owners had
built their houses, had cultivated their grounds, and ha 4
made the barren heath smile, by the fortunes accumu-
lated in Jamaica, Barbadoes,lnd our other West
Indian possessions.—(Hear, hear.) It became, there-
fore, not merely our national glory, but our commercial
proqn:rity, to have these magnificent colonial estabdsh.
ments. They were, in fact,
but extensions of the terri-
tory of our usitive land.. Providence had bountifully cast
our lot in an island fertile in agricultural resources, and
under a climate well calculated to produce habits
of daring and industry in our population. In one
respect, however, our country was limited—it was
limited in variety of production. The produce was not
that on which a tropical sun had shone. But the wis•
dam and gallantry of our ancestors had carticd across,
the seas--

"The flag which -.braved a thousand years
The battle and the breeze."
They had planted it in the Antilles—in South America
—in the Cape—in India—and even in China itself ; and
had conquered for us the advantages of other suns and
other climates.—(Hear, hear) Should we then aban-
don this empire ?—(No.) No, said his Noble Friend
opposite. He perfectly agreed with his Noble Friend in
the cosmopolitan principle of 'wishin, well to every
country ; but then he could not go quite so far as his
Noble Friend, and allow foreigners to share in that
magnificent colonial empire, the outlines of which he
had feebly attempted to sketch. He could never con-
sent that America should have all the benefits, and
be left to its Own good pleasure to reciprocate:—
(Hoar, hear.) Upun that question the Government of
the United States had been sounded, and something
like a disavowal had been put forth of the concessions
promised by Mr. Bancroft. Now this Bill proposed to
give an American or any other foreign ship, in
a commercial point of 'view, the same benefit in the trade
of this country as a British ship. It might bring home
our colonist produce and take out our exports to our
colonies, without any equivalent advantage to us, the
foreigner not contributing one shilling to the expense of
our colonial government. So much with regard to the
colonial teethe With respect to the building of ships
and the breeding of sailors, his Noble Friend opposite
had said that no danger was to be apprehended.. If so,
whence the petitions on the subject? How came the
Liverpool petitions to be signed by as many as 47,000
persons?
The Earl of H ARROWB"rt—And by the corporation.
Lord BROUG HAM :—And, SS his Noble Friend, who
once represented Liverpool, suggested, " and by the
corporation." Sir James Graham might flatter himself
that Liverpool was in favour of the Bill because its two
Members supported it, if he could only explain away the
"
petition from that town against the Bill, with.its 47,000
signatures. In the very Bill itself he found an ally. It
began by repealing a number of Acts, but the first section
stated that it was also intended to " protect strictly and
closely "—what?—the whole coasting trade of the court-
try.—(Hear, hear.) Why this distrust of the principle
of free trade in navigation? Upon what principle was
the 1 •1? (FI )
withdraw protection from co ouut ear.
Nut surely because the coasting trade was the nursery
it proposed to continue to protect the home trade, sled
of our best seamen, fur that was the principle upon
which the whole of the navigation-laws rested. "Oh,"
said leis Noble Friend, " everybody should be allowed
to carry his produce to market as cheaply as he could."
Why, then, continue the restriction on the bringing of
coals from Newcastle, or on the shipment of wheat
from the corn- growing districts to the market of the
metropolis?—eklear.) Why aas the agriculturist not
to have the same benefit as the merchant in the cheap
conveyance of his produce? Why was it that all traflic
on our rivers and canals and along our coasts should
be by British born subjects alone? But why not do it
as well for the internal as the coasting trade? For the
obvious reason, that they entertained no strong desire to•
encourage the class of drovers and waggoners. Evidence
had been adduced to show why the proposed change
should take place. Now, some of the evidence adduced
was most asoonishing.' For instance, Mr. Mitchell stated
that two Englishmen would do as much work as twelve
Russians. But his evidence went on to show that a great
mass of the masters were so ignorant as to be unable to
read or write. Now he (Lord Brougham) well knew
men who had had ten times the experience of Mr. Mit-
chell, who had been three times as long employed in the
shipping trade, and w hose respectability efts beyond all
question—some of them being as good Whigs as his
Noble Friends oppOsite—
(Leugh ter)—and as zealous for
the doctrine of free trade—ani these men had given him
their distii.ct assurance that such had not been the case
within their experience, and that Mr. Mitchell must
have been unfortunate if he bad employed captains, 50
per cent. of whom could not read or write.—(Hear.)
He now came to the marrow and pith of the whole
question. Could the foreigner, after this sweeping
measure Should become law, undersell us in our two
great articles of building ships and of navigating
ships?—(Hear, hear.) Upon that question issue was
joined. tie was about to prove that this would be the
case. The first witness examined was a shipowner of
the port of Leith and his evidence was confirmed
by other persons. He stated that he bad tried to
build a ship of 500 tons in the most economical man-
ner,
possible before- this question arose, and without
regard to it. The vessel cost him 201. per ton. Now,
deducting the 21. per ton for the duty on timber, which
might be abolished, that would leave the cost of the
vessel 181. per ton. What would have been the cost of
building the same ship at Dantzic? Why, 12/. per ton.
—(Hear, hear.) But even supposing the charges to be
spoke of an immense interest. 141. or 151., arid 124, that would be tatal.—(Bear, hear.)
When they they
16,000,000/. was embarked. The sum annually spent
in the building of ships was 3.000,0001. The outfit
building in
hontgnloanleds,s than
and repairs amounted to 8,000,000/.—(Hear, hear.)
The number of shipwrights employed was about
80,000 at 4s. per day—a set of men as industrious, as
sober, as skilful, as any men of which the country could
boast.—(Hear.) This was an immense interest, a great
and magnificent branch of business with which Par-
liament was making free, and upon
he r
warned
them riot unduly to lay a rude hand.—
(and' after
Mr. Minton, an American, was examined,ea
wards some Russians and Prussians, and all gave evi-
Now with respect to
dence, every man for himself.
n the Baltic 31.
were
wages. The wages of the master
per month, and five per cent. upon the tonnage, making
altogether about 5/. per month. In
Belgium and
Holland the master received only about 41, But
what did he receive in England? 81. 10s.—(Hear, hear)
—Bl. 10s., according to Mr. Mitchell, for a man who
could neither read nor write, and 51. for a Prussian,
who could do both.—(A laugh.) The men in the Baltic
and. the other countries to .which he had referred re-
ceived from 305. to 355. per month ; in England, 31.
(Hear, hear.) The price of food here was ls. 3d. per
day; in those Other countries, 81.---(Hear, hear.) This
was the result of the compai icon of English shipbuild-
ing and English navigation between this, country and
foreign ports; and if anybody would look at the relative
numbers and sums, arid observe the foundation in the
distance of material and the different habits of the
people in the one case, and, in the other, the nearness '
of the material and the other habits of the people—if
any one would.look at those two points, the reason of
the thing going along with the facts and figures—they
would come to this conclusion, that it is impossible,
without protection, for this country to enter into suc-
cessful competition with the United States and the
Baltic, t ither in the building of ships or the sailing of
them.—(Cheers.) Now; what did this Bill do ? It
strengthened the monopoly of the coasting trade, and it
coetinued the must oppressive of all the Navigation Act
regulations, the provision that every British ship shall
be manned by an English master, and that three-fourths
of the crew shall be Englishmen.—(Bear, hear.) But
why did the Bill retain the three fourths? For this
reason :—They dared not give it up—they knew how
much they depended upon these seamen.—(Hear, hear.)
They knew what the consequences of not having them
would be; and that all they could do and preach to these
men about free trade—about the navigation-laws and the
fragmentsof the system; or tell them from "Pepy'e Diary"
down to this day, would never preserve to them or create
for them that most invaluable be.dy of British seamen.—
(Chet rs ) But bow important was it to maintain them.
It was said, " you may have one-fourth foreigners;" but
he (Lord Brougham) thought they could not mix one-
fourth foreigners with three-fourths English. That
would be impossible. They might pass the Bill, but they
would never be able to place one-fourth foreigners
among three-fourths British seamen. And why ? Be-
cause they must have the same wages, they must
eat the same food, and could not speak the
gime language.—(Cheers.) But this would happen.
Pass this Bill, inconsistent in itself, suicidal in respect to
the coasting trade, and what would be the consequence?
The English trader, or shipowner, or merchant would
employ a foreign ship—(Hear, hear)—and not one-
fourth, but four- tourthr.—(ilear.) That would be the
inevitable result. He would beseech their Lordships to
pause before placing so great an inte rest in jeopardy-
-4,009,000 of tons of shipping, navigated by 230,000
men, tht so men being the nursery for our navy. What
was the consequence of having the se men? A navy,
which rides triumphantly upon every sea. What would
be the other consequence? That war breaks onl--owiog