The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ihan just and equitable, in the event of this measure be-
ing passed, that a compensation should be made by
foreign countries for this law.
Mr. MITCHELL said that the free•traders were for
reciprecity, for they had severally stated on his side of
the House, that if foreign countries did not comply with
this measure, that they would act towards them as they
deserved. He had listeeed to the debate attentively. and
had hoped that the fallacy of supposing that a diminu-
tion in the freight did not produce a diminution in the
price to the consumer, would be exposed, but was grieved
to find an Hon. Member, representing a large commer-
cial community, not only stating so erroneous a proposi-
tion, but endeavouring to affirm it by many arguments.
To come now to the arguments of the Right Hon.,Gentle-
man the Member for the University of Oxford, he was
surprised to hear it advanced against this measure
that it would injuriously affect their system of ship
duties, and be an injury to the shipowners. His first
experience of the shipping interest was formed many
years ago, and he remembered that when a predecessor
'ln the Board of Trade of the Right Hon. Gentleman near
him (Mr. Labouchere), he meant Lord Sidmouth, pro.
posed a reduction in the timber duties fur ship -building,
the shipowners were up in arms against him, complain-
ing that they had immense numbers of ships built of
Baltic timber, and that if that wood came in cheaper
their property would be depreciated to an enormous ex-
tent. That objection had proved to be groundless, and
so also would many others of a similar nature. The
competition to which English shipowners would be ex
posed would do them more good than all the reciprocity
treaties or general legislative measures they could enact,
because it would enable them to discover the points in
which they were superior to their rivals, and those in
which they were inferior. The real competition, how-
ever, would be with the shipping of the United States,
and even in that limit of their rivalry, he believed that
five years hence, so far from the repeal of the navigation
law injuring them, the shipowners of this country would
thank them for the change.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAWN said that since the reciprocity treaties
had been entered upon, so far from English tonnage
having increased, the foreign had increased, as compared
With it, as much as 100 per cent. The corn grower in
this country had the protection of freight, of which he
could not be deprived, and that protection acted on the
shipowner, who had not only his freight and charges,
but his timber duties. He could find no clause in the
Bill to relieve the English shipowner of the burden he
had to contend against. It seemed to him to be a studied
attempt to advantage the foreigner at his expense, and
to deny to him all the useful alterations of the law that
were virtually patronised by Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. C. BRUCE said he rose as a member of the agri-
cultural party, who did not participate in the desire to
see another great interest of this country involved in
difficulties which it bad itself experienced. The
navigation-laws certainly contained several matters of in-
convenience and even of hardship; but viewing them as a
general line of policy, he thought that the arguments ad-
duced in support of them had not been answered. He
would not extend the system of reciprocity if he thought
that by so doing he should endanger the chance of suffici-
ently manning the navy of this country in the time of
War.—(Hear.) He entreated the Government, and
especially the Right Hon. Gentlemen on that (the Op-
position) side, who gave their support to the measure, to
pause before they repealed those laws under which the
shipping interest of the country had prospered, and
which secured the services of a large body of seamen.
Mr. WILCOX suggested that that clause should be
retained which made it imperative that three-fourths of
the seamen should be British subjects. From the first
enactment of the navigation laws, power was given that
one-fourth of the seamen might be foreigners ; but
although the number of seamen in the mercantile marine
• Was estimated at 130,000, yet there were not, in reality,
4,000 foreign subjects employed.—(Hear, hear.) In an
evil hour for herself, Spain took up the English
navigation laws in all their integrity, and the conse-
quence was, that gradually her mercantile navy had
dwindled away. Let the House look at the South
Sea trade, which had been loaded with protection and
overwhelmed with bounties, and what had been the
result ? Had it not been ruined by the system of pro•
tection ?—(Hear, hear.) They had heard a great deal
last year about their national defences, and about the
necessity of taking care of their wooden walls, but be
Would remind Hon. Members who so clamoured for the
Maintenance of monopolies, and who argued in favour
of protective laws, that the public had a great suspicion
and distrust of those effusions of patriotism, which
might have a latent regard to the pockets of the par-
ties.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. HILDYARD said they had been told that the
navigation-laws were the last remnant of an exploded
Vetene. In what sense of the word, he would ask, could
the shipping interest of this country be called a mono-
Poly ? What obstruction was thrown in the way of
any man who chose to compete with that interest. It
!night be said that they wanted competition with foreign
shipowners, but he contended that there was nothing to
prevent an American ship clearing out of the port of
Liverpool to any port in their colonies. Let him ask,
therefore, whether competition had not produced
its effect ?—(Hear.) Tne Honourable Member here
referred to the evidence given before the Committee of
the House of Lords by a gentleman who was, he
said, a strong advocate of free trade, Mr. Wilson, of
Sunderland, and who proved that competition was doing
all that could be usefully expected, and that every im-
provement in ship-building was readily adopted. Ile
(Alr. Hildyard) would contend that competition should
never be carried beyond that point where it operated as
a healthy stimulus to trade, for if carried further it must
prove to be injurious.—(Hear, hear.) He had yet to
learn that the great interests of the empire were to de-
Pend on the view which the legislatare of Canada might
take of the navigation-laws.—(Hear, hear.) They were
not to prostrate the whole of the system of the naviga-
tion-laws in obedience to such reasoning as that employed
by the legislature of Canada. The Honourable Member
for Liverpool complained of the grievance that corn
could not be brought from Canada except in a British
hottoen, and he spoke of the hardship of a case of a
Cargo having arrived at Liverpool in an Ame-
rican vessel, and which could not be sold in
consequence. But what did that case in fact amount
to but simply this, that the whole was the result of a
blunder in not bringing the cargo in a British ship instead
of an American one.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," on both
aides.) The Hon. Member then referred to the argu-
Ments which had been used as to the effect of the repeal
of these laws upon the West India colonies, and con-
tended that these colonies would be seriously injured by
the repeal. They had spoken of the imitation of Ame-
rica; but the principle adopted in that country was not
that of free trade, but of protection; and they would take
all that we were willing to give them without giving us
anything in return. With regard to the Northern
Mates, the threats that had emanated from those
Rates had been paraded before them with great em•
Phasis ; but there was not one single state of them
that would give them the slightest benefit, unless they
Fot great advantage in return. It was said that Russia
'led entered into a system of reciprocal duties ; but that
Was net a case in point, because the Russian noblemen
derived their incomes from the export of their produce
lilt° this country, such as tallow ; and any retaliation
°An their part would be their ruin. And as to the
,neericans, were they to do all that they promised—
'eat was to say, to give to us equivalent advantages to
!„11°8e which we had given to them—that was not enough;
" was necessary that they should go farther, and make
us
alterations in their coasting trade as would give to
• m 4 a fair advantage in our trading intercourse with them.
Whe Hen. Member thanked the House for the attention
h which it had heard him, and concluded by impress-
,eing upon the House the seriousness of the subject, and
""e necessity of dealing with it with the utmost caution.
Mr. RICARDO said there were various kinds of re-
l'Procity, but the reciprocity of the Hon. Gentleman
b.whe had just sat down was of a piece with that of the
:4012. Member for Stamford, namely, "hold what you
)11 n, and concede what you must."—(Laughter.) The
iehte
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University
(fir, Gladstone) had also indulged in that argument, to his
(Ur. Ricardo's) astonishment ; and the more so when he
recollected that that Right Hon. Gentleman had supported
the policy of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
eaniworth. He (Mr. Ricardo) had watched this debate
Very closely ; and he must confess that not one single
hew argument had been introduced into it. Hon. Gen-
tlemen had stated over and over again, that in America
ships could be built much cheaper than in this
Country ; but what was the fact ? Why, that in
Ibis country, they had almost every material required
11 ship-building much cheaper than it was to be
ho
in America, and, in addition to those ad-
nVantages, wages in this country were also one-third
4eaper,—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member here al-
iled to the evidence of several witnesses respecting the
12Peration of the navigation-laws, and cited several pas-
sages from it in support of his view of a necessity for
°itch a change in the system as would lend to a better
ngement of the subject. With respect to the mono-
Ces connected with the operation of the navigation-
is's, he might say that there never yet was a monopoly
tat was not most sturdily defended—as in the case of
e corn-laws. • He could assure Hon. Gentlemen on the
tlPosite side of the House, who were opposed to any
tice %age in the nvigatio-laws, that the mercatile ma-
of this countary was not dependent on anyn such re-
hgulations as they stood up to uphold; and with respect
the opinions of officers of the Royal Navy, which
ksd been referred to by those Honourable Members
111 so much in favour of a maintenance of those laws
4,
must say that there was no class of persons less
ji„.llaPetent to give a sound opinion on the sub-
Othan naval officers. With respect to the argument,
kilt it was necessary to resort to " impressment" to
than the royal navy from the mercantile marine, he held
etst nothing could be more unjust or rotten than that
tr,stena, and thit if they did not fairly pay for the men,
ti.eY had no right to them. With respect to the assertion
Othe Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford
has Herries), and other Hon. Gentlemen, that there
th: neither feeling nor excitement in this country on
~subject of the navigation-laws, he must say that such
tllltereent came with a very bad grace from that side
op hC House. He was averse to any organised agitation
'ge subject; but it they had chosen to impress upon
e
Poor'' of the country that the operation of those
iettlenhanced the price of every necessary imported
thm" for their consumption, he did not hesitate to say
tatit.they would have thousands and tens of thousands of
IveuiTlis in favour of such an alteration in those laws as
a.et,'' remove those great and inconvenient restrictions.
threar, hear.) He agreed that there were many
Certi''Rs in the Bill which he should wish to see altered in
thomnaittee, and he would give his assistance to make
alterations at the proper moment.
te..uoliral BOWLES said he had watched with great
eiet
fer,e Y the operations of the Act passed in 1846, in re-
tes4"lte; to the West India colonies, and what was the
re-
the Why the ruin of our West India coloniee. He
hew° "I therefore, they ought to pause in their free•
kiteiP°licY. They had ruined the West Indies by ad-
tiettn, g
tt slave-grown sugar, and we had obtained no na-
." elrantage. ,He had, therefore, a right to draw an

analogy between the Act of 1846 and the measures be-
fore the House. We were always proud of our ships,
colonies, and commerce. Now it was felt that our ships
were useless, that our colonies were cumbrous, and that
our trade ought to be left open to competition with the
trade of all the world. Our commercial marine and our
navy were inseparably united. They must stand or fall
together, and he contended that this measure was calcu-
lated to injure both one and the other. Honourable
Gentlemen depended very much last year upon the eve
dente given by Sir James Stirling, but they did not do
so now. He would, in answer to these arguments, how-
ever, refer to the evidence of Sir Byam Martin, who had
expressed a strong opinion against the policy of inter-
fering with our navigation-laws.
Mr. DRUMMOND promised the Hon. Member for
Stoke that in the remarks he was about to make he
would not make use of any of those arguments which
he had described as having been long interred in past
debates; but he would take the liberty of examining
into the truth of the position whether the naval and mi-
litary officers of the country were men whose opinions
were not to be attended to when the honour and safety
of the country were concerned.—(Hear.) But, before
he proceeded to that part of the subject, he must say
that when the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
the University of Oxford complained of the. vivant of
unanimity among the members of the Government, he
might have afforded them a better example than by
giving an argument on one side of the question and a
vote on the other.—(Hear, hear.) He must agree that
much of the debate on this question had been not so
much on the principle as on the details of the Bill; but
at the same time he must say there was this excuse for
lion. Members—that the principle of the Bill was no-
where to be found in it.—(Laughter.) The Bill in its
first words said that it was a Bill to amend certain
things; and the way in which it proposed to amend them
was by abrogating them. Now, he must say that was
the most extraordinary way of mending he had
ever heard of.—(Hear, hear.) It might be all very
right and proper to alter eighteen statutes of Parlia-
ment, but he could not consider that question in the
present stage of the Bill. To find out what was the prin-
ciple of the Bill they must look to the speeches which
had been delivered not only in the legitimate assembly,
but in many assemblies of an illegitimate character. In
all past times the object of every statesman, whatever his
political opinions might have been, was to prevent capi-
tal going out of this country, because if it did our la-
bourers could not be employed. Now, the object of this
Bill—and most ingeniously contrived it had been—was
to keep capital in the country, but still not to employ
our labourers.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The promoters of
it did not send capital away, but they kept it here for the
purpose of employing foreign labourers. They had all
heard of the Satanic school of poetry in literature. If
there was such a thing as a Satanic school in politics,
the authors of this Bill certainly belonged to it.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) It was a very remarkable pheno-
menon that at the present day it seemed the fate of
every statesman, no matter to what party he belonged,
or on what side of the House he sat, to be doomed to
eat every word he had ever uttered on any one occasion
—(A laugh)—and to go against every principle which
he had ever endeavoured to establish. If, therefore, any
Honourable Gentlemen were at a loss to meet the ar-
guments of the Government and its supporters, they
had only to go back to the speeches of those very gen-
tlemen, and to appeal from the drunken Philips of the
day to the sober Philips of ten years ago.—(Hear, hear.)
In fact, the best speech against the measure of Earl
Grey was the speech delivered not long ago by Lord
Howick.—(A laugh.) For years past the country had
been under an evil genius. It had been well described
by the Hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Disraeli) as
a fate from which no Minister could liberate himself—it
seemed, as it were, a sort of myth of a force which
bound them down, while Chancellors of the Exchequer
pecked at their livers ad libitum.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The alterations in former days made by Ministers in
our system had not been carried to any dangerous ex-
tent. The changes introduced by Lord Wallace and
Mr. Huskisson had been wise and prudent. Not so the
conduct of Ministers now. He spoke not of any parti-
cular Government, but of all those who had sat on the
Treasury benches for many years back. It might be
apparent presumption in him to say so, but one ex-
pression in the Right Hon. Member's (Mr. Glad-
stone's) speech had been worth attending to—that in
which the Right Hon. Member said the evil to
our school ' was that we did not attend to les-
sons of experience, but dashed boldly into
ways unknewn on the faith of theories untried.—(Hear,
hear.) lie called on them not altogether to disregard
the teaching of the past and the lessons of experience.
The most celebrated statesman of antiquity declared
that " there is in maritime states a corruption and in-
stability of morals, for they import not only merchan-
dise, but morals—so that nothing can remain entire in
the institutions of their couutry—(Hear, hear)—for they
who inhabit those states do not remain quiet in their
places, but are hurried away from their homes by an
ever-winged hope of thought; and, even if they remain
bodily, they still run about and wander in spirit; nor
did anything tend more to the destruction of Corinth or
Carthage, long in a declining state, than the vagrancy
and dissipation of their citizens, who, through their
greediness of trade and navigation, relinquished the cul-
ture of their lands and their training to arms."—(Hear,
hear.) He might quote the opinions of Lord Chatham
and of Mr. Canning to a similar effect, and of late days
they had an eminent writer who, in his work on Germany,
speaking of Frankfort, said, that "in consequence of her
commercial relations, she was so thoroughly under fo-
reign influence, and so polluted by a mixture of all foreign
manners, that her population could be hardly said to
have a character of their own." What had fitted them to
be citizens of the world had unfitted them to be citizens
of the country to which they belonged, for " they judged
of the happiness of mankind by the rate of exchange."--
(Cheers and laughter.) Now, all that was applicable to
the Manchester school. The grand fault of these gentle-
men was that they could not form a conception how any-
thing which was not good for cotton-spinning could be
good for anything else.—(Renewed laughter.) " But, '
said the same writer, " let no one blame them for for-
getting, in the pursuits of the money speculator and
merchant, the interest of their country, or at least before
doing so let him visit the ports of London, Liverpool, or
Bristol, and discover—if he can—a purer foundation for
English patriotism."—(Hear, hear.) But he had one
more authority for Hon. Gentlemen opposite—their
darling Adam Smith. The only quarrel he (Mr. Drum-
mond) had with Hon. Gentlemen with respect to Adam
Smith was that they never would read beyond one page
of him.—(A laugh.) Let them attend to this:—" As
their (the manufacturers') thoughts, however, are com-
monly exercised rather about the interests of their parti-
cular branch of business than about that of society, their
judgment, even when given with the greatest candour
(which it has not been on every occasion), is much more
to be depended upon on the former than on the latter. The
interest of the dealers' in any particular branch of trade
or manufacture is always in some respects diffetent from
or even opposite to that of the public."—(Hear, hear.)
Yet it was for such men as these that the Legislature
had acted for many years back, and acted still. The
manufacturer sent to Africa for his cotton, grown by the
African labourer ; having employed the African la-
bourer and shipowner, he would take it home and spin
it into cotton—then it was put on board a French vessel
and exchanged for French silks or wines, to that from
beginning to end not one English labourer would be em-
ployed.—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches,)
When the poet, glowing with a fine enthusiasm, ex-
claims :
"Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself bath said,
* * * •
This is my own, my native land 2"
" Oh, yes," says the Hon. Gentleman opposite, "at
Manchester there are a thousand of them."—(Cheers
and laughter.) Not content (continued the Hon.
Gentleman) with resorting to bribery to get up accu-
sations against your sailors—not satisfied with assailing
them and your naval officers with taunts, you noway we
have a " superstitious reverence" for the navy. It may be
true we have a supertitious reverence for that gallant ser-
vice. It may remain among us yet. Time was when we had
a veneration for it. There was indeed a time when we
had a national faith—when we venerated, ay, ;wor-
shipped, if you like, the statesmen who guided the des-
tinies of this country—when we respected the magis-
trates who administered her laws, and admired the sea-
men and soldiers who devoted their lives to her service
—a time when our national creed was "Rule Britannia,"
and the finest anthem in our ritual was " God save the
Queen."—(Cheers.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE could assure the Hon. Gentle-
man, that if he was not firmly persuaded British in-
terests, and especially the British mercantile marine,
would be promoted by this measure, and that it could
not be supported on British grounds, he (Mr. Labou-
chere) would not be found amongst its advocates. The
only question before the House at present was the
principle of the measure. He had never attempted to
conceal its magnitude, or to disguise that it was, in fact,
the virtual abandonment of the system of restrictions on
the navigation of this country, and he would not ask for
the vote of any Hon. Gentleman who was not prepared
to consider the propriety of that course.—(Hear, hear.)
There were undoubtedly details of the utmost conse-
quence, such as the manning and registry of vessels,
connected with this principle, but they should be reserved
for the House in Committee, when he hoped they would
receive the most attentive consideration. He had paid
the greatest attention to those details, however; but,
nevertheless, would repeat the assurances he had already
given, that he had not the presumption to suppose im-
portant suggestions might not be made by individual
Members el the House with respect to those details,
and while he would adhere rigidly to the principle of
the Bill, he would be perfectly ready to receive any sug-
gestions. The restrictions which had been imposed for
the advantage of our shipping were of three kinds—on
the colonial trade, on the carrying trade, and on the
long voyage trade. From the best consideration he
could give the subject, he was satisfied the time had ar-
rived when it was necessary, for the sake of our com-
mercial interests, to examine those restrictions—not
merely to modify them, but to see if they had not been
fraught with the greatest possible amount of evil. He
had been greatly surprised at the way in which the
Right Hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had
treated the demands of the colonies fora relaxation of those
laws. Those demands were not a priori surprising, for the
restrictions had been reluctantly submitted to at a time
when differential duties and protective principles in
favour of colonial produce were in operation. The
Right Honourable Gentleman dealt very lightly with
the case of Canada, whilst he had relied very much
on the solitary instance in which any body of the in-
habitants had opposed the repeal of the navigation-laws;
for in all the other instances to which he had referred,
the petitions had been to restore protection. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said nothing of the sentiments of the
Canadian Legislature, who had urged on this country
the necessity of departing from the navigation-laws by a
majority of 49 to 19. As to Lord Elgin's statement,
that making Montreal a free port would meet the com-
plaints of the Canadians, it was made at a time when the