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

I

Mr. ROBINSON agreed with his Right lion. Friend,
that the answers from foreign nati,n.,:, in reply to the
invitations addressed to iht in, ameuntud to this, that ii
We repealed the navigation-laws, then W 9 should see
What they would do.—(li'ar.) Ho could not sue what
commensurate advantage any foreign countries could
give this country. The letter of Mr. Bancroft in the
ease of America might serre as a comment; that gsntle-
man stated that America would reciprocate t.l i t h this
country, but it was well known thst America never
meant to give up their coasting trade. With
regard to the application of the principle of free-
trade to agriculture, it was said that the depression
of that interest was not owing to free-trade, but to
other disturbing causes, such as the failure of the
Potato crop, which he allowed to a certain extent
operated in that direction ; but he felt satiefi, d that
When these disturbing causes ceased they would still
experience depression. There could be no doubt that if ;
these laws passed, although ship building would not stop
altogether in this country, still it would be gr..atly di-
minished. No one except Captain Stirling would hold
the opinion that a mercantile navy was not essential to a
military navy. The plan of Captain Stirling was to have
voluntary enlistment in the navy, and a shorter term of
service—of three years. New, that was altogether im •
practicable. His objection to the Bill was that it would
throw open to foreigners the direct colonial trade, which
he would no more allow them to participate in than he
would suffer them in the coasting trade Mr. lluskis- '
son and Lord Cornwallis held the inter•colonial and fish-
ing trade to be essential to the maritime pre-eminence of
this country. Much had been said by gentlemen oppo-
site of retaliation. He should like to know what country
could retaliate upon this country without injuring itself.
There was not one of them which was not more depen-
dent on our markets than we were on theirs. Take I
the case of America, the most formidable rival we had. !
It appeared that more than half of the entire exports of
that country were made to the markets of this country. ;
In fact, we had nothing to fear from the retaliation of ;
other countries. lie wished to do away with monopolies, 1
if other countries would imitate their example ; but
since the time of Mr. Huskissou, now twenty-seven
Years, nothing of that kind had taken place. On looking ,
over the evidence before the Committee, he found that
seventeen of the principal merchants, connected with the ;
East and West Indies, Australia, and other parts of the 1
World, one and all declared, that they never found the
least difficulty in obtaining freights at mo 'crate prices.
Re was fur forty years a merchant in the city of London, I
pretty actively engaged, and he could also testify to
that fact, notwithstanding the new-tangled notions which
had sprung up in this country of late years on that and
other portions of their commercial system. The
Manchester gentlemen thought every thing was
to be sacrificed in order to set them and
their spinning jennies at work—(A. laugh)—but he
Could tell them that every year the great commercial
States of America were rivalling them more and more,
either by drawing away their best artisans, or copying
their works, and even France and Italy were not only
supplying themselves with articles independently of Eng-
land, bat determined to keep up a system of protection.
Re should give the measure every opposition in his
power, and ardently hoped that it would be rejected by
the Legislature.
Mr. M'GREGOR would not have obtruded himself
upon the House on the present occasion were it not that
he represented one of the greatest shipbuilding towns in
the empire, and one of those most interested in com-
merce. In entering upon the discussion of this measure
he must begin by saying that he did not complain of
what the measure did for foreign ships, so much
as of what it left undone for foreign ships. He was far
from entertaining the opinion which others did, that dis-
astrous consequences would ensue from the passing of
this Bill. At the same time he wished that every re-
striction and burden which it imposed upon British ship-
owners should be removed, and he alluded to that clause
especially which restricted British shipowners from man-
ning their ships is any way they thought best for their
°via convenience and advantage. He believed that was
the only clause in the Bill which he would like to' see
altered. But there were other burdens upon the ship-
owners of this country—he meant the stamps upon ma-
rine insurances on bills of lading, and on other docu-
ments and instruments connected with the shipping
interest, lle should also wish to see that law abolished
Which interfered with the victualling of British ships.
Re should also wish to see the lighthouses of this try coun •
Q put upon the same footing with those in the Unto
l'tstess wleer• the whole were in the hands of the Go- I
',eminent and where their expense did not exceed half
their amount in this country. If these restrictions were
removed he feared ne competition with other countries.
lie would go further, and say he could not discover that
the navigation-laws had at any one period been of ad-
vantage to the British shipowner and British shipbuilder.
Mere than that, from their establishment up to 1815,
this country had during the greater part of the time
been engaged in war with other countries, and dur-
ing that whole period they were actually break-
ing the navigation-laws, for they captured ships
from the enemy, and then it was considered that
they strengthened the power of this country by regis-
tering them as British ships. Now he could not see
that there was the least difference between the British
shipowner being allowed to buy a foreign ship and regis•
ter her as a British vessel, and the British navy captur-
ing a foreign ship in war, and then having her registered
With regard to our Norh American colonies, it was re-
markable that every subject of discontent between these
colonies and 'this country had reference to the restric-
tions on trade, which lasted up to the period of the de•
claration of war. He saw nu reason now why they should
dread competition with foreigners. In the case of neu-
tral ports, such as Porto Rico, Cuba, and the Brazils', he
found that British ships contended successfully with the
Ships of every other country except those of Spain in the
Spanish colonies, which gave a preference to Spanish
ships, by allowing a drawback of 33 1-3 upon the duties
on goods imported in Spanish vessels. But on the
other hand, England had her revenge with respect to
Spain; for he found that those high duties were nut
equal'to the advantages we possessed, in being able to
!end goodi into Spain by way of Gibraltar.
With •
regard to competition whh the different countries
of Europe, he would begin with Sweden and Nor-
way- Comparing their ships with British ships, ho found
that every article which entered into the constitution of
tt British ship, paid no duty except on the little foreign
timber that entered into her construction, while the
Swedish ships paid duty upon their cannon, their anchors,
their cordage, their copper sheathing, and often came
over to this country very slenderly equipped, in ordereto
Obtain the principal part of their rigging and stores here.
It so happened that we had full and entire reciprocity
with Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, before the nevi-
gatiou-laws existed. It was true that there were more
Swedish than British ships employed in the trade, but
that was because our importations consisted of manufac-
tured goods, which required small tonnage, while the
return cargoes were of great bulk, which made it not
worth the while of British vessels to engage in the trade.
But their ships had not greatly increased over ours, for
he found that nearly the same proportions existed
in 1702 as now. With regard to the Harm
Towns, they had always allowed the ships of
every country in the worli to come into their har-
bours with any cargo, not even imposing light-house
duties upon them. And how del British ships
stand at Hamburg!)? Lie found that there had been
a gradual increase of British shipping, and that, taking
one year with another, they amounted to ene-third of
the whole tonnage in that part. Then with regard to
Prussia. Their ships were much on the same footing
with Sweden. Their exportations also consisted of
cargoes of heavy bulk, which made it not worth the
While of British ships to engage in the trade. But he
did not find that Prussian ships entered largely into
conspetition with British ships where there were no nevi.
gation•laws, such as Cuba and Porto Rico. By a refer-
euce to the trade returns for the past quarter, ho found
that the departures of British ships for various ports not
British were constant and frequent. In Holland, British
!hips were subjected to no higher port charges than
Dutch vessels. Freedom of trade and from the re-
striction of navigation-laws had been the rule in the
Lew Countries from the establishment of their power
to the present time ; and if Holland prospered and grew
great under a system of perfect free trade, he could not
conceive why any other country, with equal energy.
equal enterprise, equal advantages, and positive and
equal economy, might not defy competition with
every country on earth.—(Hear.) In the Dutch settle-
ments in Java and Batavia the English had not the same
advantages as the Hollanders; but the reason was that
We subjected the produce of our Indian possessions to
double duties. Let England remove the restrictions
Upon the trade of Holland with British India, and he
Was certain the Dutch would permit English vessels to
trade with Java and Batavia upon equal terms with them-
selves. •In Belgium there was the same desire to reci-
procate. As to Franco, he should say that the present
commercial and maritime policy of the country was
extremely illiberal. The arrangements entered into
M in
1793, r. Pitt and the then French Ministry, n
1793, were the most liberal ever known. But the
breaking out of the war put an end to that state of
things, and it had never since been thoroughly restored.
i
`n Genoa the most liberal maritime policy prevailed.
With Rome and Tuscany nothing could be more
toleral- The kingdom of the Two Sicilies al-
Wed British ships to trade on exactly the
same
terms as their own. In the ports belonging
s° Austria on the Adriatic our vessels were allowed
r enter on the same terms as Austrian. If he went
ettirther, be should point to Turkey, where no restric-
.:nna Whatever existed. And as to Russia, there our
ti,essels were allowed to enter their ports from all coun-
tea ikle the world exactly on the same footing as Rus-
en-sesuips- He had thus gone through all the countries
infire continent of Europe, and shown that in every
tr. !nee they treated the British much better than the
couittish treat them; whilst, with regard to their power of
the ending with us in shipbuilding, they might do so if
outyn Possessed people more skilful and more economical
Chen People of England. For they had labour
beeolll'ebri whilst our only advantage lay in having a
less Abetterquality of timber than they had, and at a
say that he Upon the subject of timber, he shonid only
oak. At the il' and to see the duty entirely removed from
risk of tiring the House, ho could not
clogs his observations without alluding to the United
of America. Lie took a much higher view of
thetasgr
Re eat republic than as a mere opponent of England.
wished to see established between the United States
and
England all the bonds of social and material alli-
ee tb• Re wished them to be considered as a people of
tsame origin as the English, a people to a great ex-
eenntt professing the same religion, and up to a very re.
3 ooperiod possessing a common history. In their
Oftit Is nearly the same lessons were taught as in those
ngland; and by their fire sides mothers instilled into
their children's minds the same moral instruction. An
unrestricted maritime and commercial alliance between
the English and the United States was of far more im-
-I,oa as considered
than it would be with any other. When it
.e considered that in the year 1759 there was not a
"agl British merchant who possessed an acre of

land in Haiifsx or Nova Scotia, nor up the
River St. Lawraec-a t.) the All'ghany mountains, ncr
south cif Georgia, and that no bat que except the Indian
canoe navigate d tho:e iremcnse tracts of waters, and
that at present a population of 25 000,000, speaking the
English langna-i;e, iehah:ted those territories, there
surely con es be no doubt of the advantages that must at-
tend an unrestricted itaterceurse between the people of
the two countries. The condition of the people of the
United States was said to be physically and morally be-
yond that of the pe 'plc of the United Kinedorn. Why
was it so ? Hai the people of the United Kingdom de-
generated ? Ile could not conceive that they had. And
when they knew that labour was dearer in the United
States than here, and that every article used in ship-
building, except timber and sheathing copper, was dearer
also—when it was notorious that their crews were, at all
events, as well fed and as well paid as eke crews of Eng-
lish ships, he thought that they need apprehend no-
thine. whatev, r from the competition with the Americans
thein ' navigation of the world.—(H ar, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said that, looking at these naviga-
tion-laws historically, they might be divided into four
periods—frem 1815 to 1825, from 1825 to 1835, and from
1835 to 1842. Comparing the tonnage ef British vessels
and the number of men with the tonnage rind number of
men in foreign vessels, they had inereased in an equal
ratio during the first period.—(Hear.) The next
chnnee brought on the reciprocity system of
Mr. Huskisson, and again comparing the relative
progress of British and foreign shipping, the, 'con-
elusion was, that th,se reciprocity treaties of Mr. Iles-
kissers had been beneficial, and if so,- why alter the
system, and do away with the navigation-laws?—(Hear,
hear.) There was a difference between alteration and
abolition, and considering the vast amount of capital
depending upon these laws, and considering the small
fractional benefit which would result to consumers of
sugar, cotton, and wool, they were not justified, econo-
mically, in abolishing these laws. Whether they would
bymaterially profit this proposed experiment was
doubtful. There was a tonnage of four millions, an
employment of men and boys to the number of 240,000,
and freights amounting to between twenty-five and thirty
millions a year, dependent upon the success of this
measure. The magnitude of the interests affected should
induce caution, and he would rather recommend altera-
tion than abolition.---(Hear.) If the effect of free trade
was not applicable to international carriage, although
it might be to internal barter, the responsibility which
the promoters of this measure took upon themselves was
great. lle now came to that part of the question which
was most important. Last year Government brought on
the measure upon evidence which was most important,
and, as regarded the national defences, they reded solely
upon one witness, Sir James Stirling. Was that the
way to deal with a law which had been in existence for
150 years? The proposed measure would endanger
their national marine, and a national marine was the
foundation of national greatness.—(Hear.) According
to the evidence of Sir By am Martin, the dockyards could
not supply a sufficient number of shipwrights, and upon
an emergency they were obliged to have recourse to
private dockyards. Skilful shipwrights were absolutely
necessary, if they meant to keep their navy in a state of
efficiency. He then referred to the manning of the fleets,
and to the evidence of naval officers, to prove that the
victory of the Ist of June could not have been gained
had it not been for the drafts of seamen from the mer-
chant service. It was asked, however, by Gentleman on
the other side, " Well, but will you keep your laws as
they are I" His answer would be that if there were de-
fects in the existing navigation-laws, let them apply a
remedy, which could be done without destroying the
law. They were about to repeal the navigation-laws
altogether, and allow the ships of foreign states to trade
with British ports. Now, instead of doing so, he would
retain the laws, and, under the power of relaxation,
would enter into treaties with favoured nations, to give
them certain advantages. He could not consent, by his
vote, to hazard an empire which ha I been gained by so
much valour, and preserved by so much wisdom, which
was more extensive hen both the Americas, which had
been cradled in its infancy by the genius of Blake, and
consecrated in its culminatory point by the blood of
Nelson—the empire of the sea.—(Cheers.)

SirJ. GR All AM said, when it was remembered that he
had had the honour of presiding at the head of the Admi-
ralty, and that certain Acts were brought forward by
him while in that capacity, it would not be matter of
surprise that he should be desirous of expressing his
sentiments on the question before the House, especially
as he had never ceased to take an interest in maritime
affairs. Desirous as he (Sir J. Graham) was that this
measure should pass into law, he could not but regard it
as an auspicious omen that it should be brought in by
the First Minister of the Crown, and the Member for
the City of London.—(Hear, hear.) Reference had been
made to petitions on the subject, and the name of Baring
had been mentioned. He looked on the opposite side of
the House, and he saw on the Treasury Bench the head
of the Borings, and who had had the honour of being
appointed by her Majesty to preside over the navy
of England—s Hear, hear)—a man of forethought,
of extended views tied of determination, and he could
not think that gentleman would give his assent
to a measure which would have the effect, as some
anticipated, of injuring the commerce and the naval
power of this country.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Ho then looked to the feeling exhibited in the outports,
and how did the Members for Liverpool vote, and also
the Members for Glasgow? Why they voted for the
Bill. —(Hear, hear.) When a wish was expressed that
commerce would speak, he would remark that the opinion
of the trade and commerce of the country was to be
taken from the representatives. He would now turn to
the speech of his Hononrable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Walpole), who ha 1 treated the subject under three ge-
neral heads, namely, historical, economical, and national.
Ire (Sir James Graham) would follow his example, and
first as to the historical part of the question. On that
point he thought it was sufficient for him to go back to
the period of the consolidation of the laws in the reign
of Charles the Second. He looked to the origin of the
law in that narrow mercantile system which proceeded
on the principle, that what one nation gained must be
gained at the expense of another. That was a principle
which he thought was exploded, but it would seem from
the course now pursued, that there was some attempt to
renew it.—(Hear, hear.) It had been alleged that the
effect of the Act of Charles the Second was to revive
commerce. Now, he believed, that almost immediately
after the passing of the Act in 1670, Roger Cook pub-
lished a tract for the purpose of proving that the passing
of the navigation laws had operated to drive the trade
to Russia and Finland, and greatly to diminish the trade
of the country. Another writer (Child) wrote a treatise,
showing that these laws had the effect of destroying the
Baltic trade. Another writer on the subject, in 1750,
said that the intention of the navigation-laws was to add
to the number of seamen and to increase tho tonnage of
the shipping, but the reverse had been the fact.—(Hear.)
Ile would How refer to the great authority, on which so
much reliance was placed—Adam Smith, speaking from
memory, and taking the whole of the passage to which
his Lsarned Friend (Mr. Walpole) had referred, he be-
lieved he was right in saying that Adam Smith was
of opinion that the navigation-laws were inimical to
commerce.—(Hear, hear.) He laid down the doctrine
that the gi eater the number of sellers, the greater
would be the number of buyers ; but the effect of
the navigation-laws was to do the reverse. Under their
operation they bought in foreign markets dearly, and
sold cheaply. On the economical part of the question,
the Newton of politics, as Adam Smith had been called,
was against his Hon. and Learned Friend (NIL. Walpole).
He would now come down to the period of the relaxation
of these laws. Towards the period of 1824 and 1825 the
pressure upon the commerce of the country became ex-
cessive, and it was therefore a question whether Govern-
ment should relax the operation of these laws, or whether
they would permit the country to be excluded from the
markets of Europe. Ira such a state of things the relax•
alien was forced upon them; it was not a matter of choice,
and although the shipping interest was oppos, d to it, the
measure was carried. But still in the abstract he could
not attach much importance to this system of recipro-
city, because it made the interest of others the measure
of their own. He had another objection to a clause
which it contained. If reciprocity or retaliation
were to bo the general rule, he for one
should say it was much better to leave
the navigation-laws as they were, and not act on any
such principle. Retaliation appeared to him to be this,
that because some foreign nation did that which was
more injurious to herself than to them, in a spirit of
blind passion they proceeded to do that which was more
injurious to themselves than to others.—(Bear, hear.)
To retaliation, as a rule, he was opposed, but he was
prepared to give his assent to this Bill, because, upon
the whole, he was of opinion that, considering the large
amount of capital which this country could engage in
maritime speculations—considering also its advantages
and superiority on the sea, he was satisfied that any mea-
sure which added generally to the commerce of the world
would have the effect of enlarging greatly the commerce
of this country, and that the lion's share would fall to
their lot. In other respects the measure would be advan-
tageous, for the number of seamen would be increased, and
commerce, in its numerous branches,increased. Every rea-
son that existed in 1825 for the repeal of these laws ex-
isted at the present time with at least equal force.
He could not regard with indifference the invitations
they had received from foreign Powers.—(Hear,) He
would not again trouble the House with the passage from
the Prussian Minister's letter of 1847, but he considered
that unless they proceeded to make furthets relaxations,
the exact type of their measures would be adopted by
Prussia, and all their restrictions ba returned by retalia-
tion. They treated America with greater severity than
she treated them. Their treaty with Russia would
expire in 1851, and if they had any desire to continue
their terms of friendship tshteairtesc,ointdiwtiaosnsnomt
nuestubsesarre
viewed. As to the United y
to have any treaty with t-
he
mThe United States had
withnot
eto G
trieoant Britain,a th e but
coasting h e
"el) hgranted
atr
worlda lawd e,
ataver was
wath withii
ac
hr gr
wee:saptshenac ott now
a most important view
by anotherhocsiemenotaryntsriheosu.ldlnbethgeraenvti at issue, weddenaeteognicvee,naluadstayseaor
hslore the Committee, there was f
right, to t
presented by a witness with referencewasn to the statesand
of the Zo!lverein. There
certainlydher ed
twoell-tfhouendreigdonre
apprehension,fthe
natvhiatoifn-ltahwesy
a ,
it would become part of its policy tos extendTgatihere
wasitselaf
to Hamburgh, Bremen, and other place.
I which
passage
eiene
contained
istpi
eetel
,c hi
n brief,deliveredal
all
by
thatA l Mr. .
he if u
couldsk alyn 1826,np0n
this subject, and which appeared to him to contain the
fate of this argument. Every impediment which these
laws offered to the free course of trade was a check
upon its growth, anti the magnitude of that power on
which their naval magnitude depended. The real ques-
tion was this—would the repeal of the navigation-laws
injure their commercial marine, which was the mainstay
of the Royal Navy.? If he thought there were any
serious apprehensions arising on that point he should not
vete for this Bill, but not entertaining a doubt upon it
he had made up his mind to support it.—(Hear, hear.)
11:5 Right lion, Friend the Member for Oxford bad laid

d pen two principles, both of which he maintained
with consummate ability—first, that commerce WAS the
foundation of the commercial marine; and, secondly,
that ships did not create commerce, but followed
it. When they gave facility to the free importation of
corn in 1847, a difficulty aroseoipon the operation ot the
navigation-laws, but theY'rnere ultimately suspended
with regard to cora. The suspension produced the effect
which was intended, by diminishing the price of all the
corn incident- upon a large importation. And were
Prusein, Russia, and America the carriers? So far from
their being so, the ships of Great Britain imported it in
a much larger ratio than those of any other countries;
and as to the number of British seamen, returns showed
that they had increased during the interval. The ab-
surdities which prevailed in these laws with respect to
the prohibitions of importations from certain ports
abroad constituted seam of the principal objections to
them. Thus, a merchant could not bring a cargo of
cochineal from the Canary Islands, because they were
deemed, for all the purposes of the Act, to be a part of
Africa. So with regard to an importation of Ma-
deira wine from Lisbon. Then, again, Bordeaux
was the greatest emporium of dyes and gums, the
produce ot the French territory of Senegal; yet the
merchant could not bring over the smallest quantity of
them.— (Hear, hear.) The same rule applied also to
Antwerp, Amsterdam, Holland, and all the Orientaland
Dutch goods; and he was satisfied that the impediments
to the free course of trade, as experienced by the mer-
chants of this country under the navigation laws, con-
stituted a loss to them which must be compensated for
by charging extra prices to the consumer.—(Elear,
hear.) So that the indirect effect of these restrictions it
was impossible to estimate.—(Hear, hear.) Passing
from merchants to manufacturers, the lion. Member for
Manchester was anxious, on behalf of his constituents,
for the growth of cotton in India. The native Indians
fought their battles in the field, with a heroism which
rendered them not unworthy of an alliance with British
soldiers. • Hindoo seamen and lascars, when a full com-
plement of men could not be obtained, helped to man
their ships, but had to be sent back to India at the ex-
pense of the consignee, because the laws did not recog-
nise them as British seamen.—(Hear, hear.) Let them
take the instances of wool and copper from Australia, or
of cotton from New Orleans. It frequently happened
that when the demand in Great Britain for these com-
modities was intense, the navigation-laws stepped in and
offered an impediment, while the importation was most
desirable. Their manufacturers were in this way placed
under great disadvantages, but the law did not stop
there. It imposed still greater ones. It allowed fre-
quently an importation of the manufactured, but not of
the raw material. Thus, they would not allow the im-
portation of foreign woods from Europe, though they
allowed it when made into furniture, very mischievously
to the interests of the manufacturer in this country.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the effect on the colo •
nies, the Honourable Member for Stamford had objected
that the colonies had not remonstrated generally. He
thought that Australia had remonstrate Ceylon cer-
tainly had, and Trinidad for very cogent reasons. Ja-
maica, a year or two ago, was well known to have
done so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And from what
had since taken place, there seemed to be no reason to
doubt that it intended to do so.—(Hear.) It appeared
to him that no time should be lost in passing the Bill;
because as it was not possible to retain the Canadas, for
instance, by unnecessary restraint, having placed their
produce in the market on terms of equality with that of
America, if they did not put their means of importation
on the same equality, they must not be surprised to find
them availing themselves of any means of resistance
they had. Mr. Bancroft, in his history of the American
States, said that the navigation laws contained the seeds
of American independence. Mr. Huskisson confirmed
that opinion, and illustrated it by another topic, viz., the
resistance made by the Irish to the attempt to put Ireland
under this navigation law; so odious and degrading did
they consider the exemption in reference to themselves.
that was a warning which they would do well to keep
in mind. He would now briefly inquire whether
these laws were favourable to shipping. First, the
shipowner was prevented from making repairs at a
foreign port beyond the rate of 20s. per ton ; and there
were several enactments, vexatious in their operation,
with respect to operatives. The British sailor did not
derive benefit from them, on the contrary, he would im-
prove his condition by that repeal. He was convinced
that seamen would receive higher wages after the repeal,
and that in other respects his situation would be more
tolerable. There remained now only the British con-
sumer to consider, in speaking of the probable results of
this measure. As a consumer of luxuries, the price to
him of tobacco, spirit, &e., was enhanced. Upon the
whole, looking at the great classes of this community,
he was convinced that these navigation-laws were not
conducive to their interest.—(Hear.) At one time it
appeared desirable that British shipping should be built
at Bombay, in relation to:economy, the:rate of wages being
extremely low there ; and when he had the honour
of being connected with the Admiralty, he recollected
the question arose, whether it would be cheaper to build
ships in England or at Bombay; and it was resolved, all
things considered, that it was cheaper to build them in
England. In the carrying trade their shipping was all
over the world, and in flainburgh, in 1847, the number
of British ships was double those of Hamburgh and Bre-
men. In 1624 the British shipping in foreign ports was
64 per cent., and by a recent return it increased from 64
to 83 per cent. He did not agree with an Hon. Friend
of his in the views which he took of this subject in rela-
tion to considerations of economy, holding as he (Sir
James Graham) did, that monopoly in shipbuilding was
as oljectionable as any other description of monopoly
(Hear.) He could not but refer to the opinions of Mr.
George Young on this subject. That gentleman had
said that he felt convinced that the capital employed in
shipping had produced a smaller amount of return for the
last 25 years, than in any other branch of industry
in this country; and his Right Honourable Friend,
the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), had
said, if ever a change were to be made, that the present
was the time to make it. Now, coals were imported
into this country duty free; c Aeon was imported into it
duty free; wool was imported into it duty free; every
article of first necessity was 'levered into it duty free;
the trade with China was extended; and, if wages were
diminished, it should not be forgotten that, coincidently
with those things, the price of every article of food was
diminished. Ile (Sir James Gallant) therefore said,
there never was a time when a change could be made
with less injury to the shipping interest. In the whale
fishery, it appeared that they had exhausted the Arctic
seas, and a gentleman who had been engaged largely in
that trade—Mr. Enderby—was about to betake himself,
on considerations of saving, to the Antarctic regions, and
to locate himself there, and to strike and ply his har-
poon in the frozen seas. So much for the state of the
shipping interests. Hon. Gentlemen, and more par-
ticularly the Member for Stamford, had stated that
the proposed measure would prove fatal to agri-
cultural and commercial interests, and one Hon. Gentle•
man had said that the working classes would suffer ex-
tremely by it. Now, if that was the opinion of those
Gentlemen, he could not for a moment account why they
did not at once bring the question before the House.—
(Hear,hear.) If it was necessary to retrace their steps,
why such delay? The Right Hon. Baronet having re-
ferred to opinions delivered by Lord Stanley on the first
evening of the session, in opposition to the doctrines and
measures of free trade—doctrines against which the
Noble Lord protested—and against which he called upon
those who thought with him to make their election, re-
marking, that he was the uncompromising supporter of
protection, proceeded to say, that the measure which
the House was now discussing was the necessary
column to the capital of the measure of free trade; here
issue was joined, and here the struggle must take place,
between reaction on the one hand and free trade on
the other. He was now dealing with the political views
of the question, and all those historical and economical
views of it were, in his mind, as light as dust in compa-
rison; and so tar from regretting the part which ho had
taken in the matter and advancement of free trade, he
most firmly believed that the peace and tranquillity of
this country and the safety of their institutions, in the
year just past, were attributable to the measure to which
he had just alluded.—(Hear, hear.) He was satisfied
that the idea of going back to protection would, if at-
tempted to be put into practice, prove a dangerous expe-
riment, leading to inevitable convulsion and its conse-
quences. At all events, his part was taken; he was
opposed to reaction and favourable to progress, and on
those grounds it was that he should give his most un-
qualified support to the measure now before the House,
and expressed a hope that it would be successful.—(Hear,
hear, and enthusiastic cheers, amidst which the Eight
Hon. Baronet resumed his seat.)

Mr. T. BARING agreed that it was necessary to
apply practical remedies to practical grievances. As
one of the mercantile classes, he felt that restrictions
were injurious to trade, and that it was a desirable object
that the importing merchants should have the liberty of
importing what they thought proper. The difficulties
of the question were very great. The Hon. Member
referred to a treaty which we entered into with Austria,
the operation of which was much to the disadvantage of
the shipping interest of this country, and said the ques-
tion now was, whether the repeal of the navigation-laws
was desirable and necessary. It had been said that the
colonies had memorialised in favour of repeal; but he
aenied that—he denied that the Mauritius and several
other colonies had memorialised for it; and with respect
to what had been said in relation to the feeling
of the West Indies on the subject, he was glad t')
say that a change had taken place in the state lof opi-
nion there.—(Hear, bear.) With respect to Portugal,
Prussia, and Russia, he must say that he did not regard
their threats in relation to the maintenance of the navi-
gation-laws; and what guarantee, he would ask, had the
Government, in the event of a repeal of those laws, that
those powers would not put their threats into execution?
Was there anything in the Bill now before the House
that would give them a guarantee against those threats?
What were the principles of the Bill? The removal of
all restrictions from foreigners, and the maintenance
of all restrictions affecting English shipping interests
—the taking from British shipowners what they pos-
sessed of advantage, and the granting unto those
who had nothing to lose and nothing to give, facilities
in carrying on trade in a spirit of competition against
them. Sweden, for instance, was one of those powers.
Let us take Holland next. What does she give? The
trade with Java is in the hands of a commercial com-
pany, and they might decline agreeing with the propo-
sition
of this Government—yet England could not
refuse
Sweden or Holland the terms of this Bill. lie
free to admit that much benefit would accrue to
this countrypro-
positionstovv
placed beyond His opinion, and he believed the
doubt. ,'
was if United States would coincide, accord-
o f l‘ Ir.
butthe
Bancroft,
contrary with thei s now
placed against this measure, and he,
therefore, hoped that
the mercantiie marine, the great
opinion of the counraying to t
h e o
f repress
the Government;lttln
were
third reading of this Bill .
I feel any difficulty in
naval bulwark of the nation, wdto,urmldinneodt beto totallysuppor over-
lookedthe by those who
Lord J. RUSSELL said—lf
present occasion, it
addressing the House upon the