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

land in Halifax or Nova Scotia, nor up the
River St. Lawrence to the Allegheny mountains, nor
south of Georgia, and that no barque except the Indian
1 canoe navigat• d those immense tracts of waters, and
that at preseet a population of 25 000,000, speaking the
English language, inhabited those territories, there
surely could be no doubt of the adv ►ntages that must at-
tend an unrestricted intercourse 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 Tle of the United Kingdom. Why
was it so ? llad the people of the United Kingdom de-
generated ? lie 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 iu 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 wk 11 paid as the crews of Eng-
lish ships, he thought that they need apprehend no-
thing whatever from the competition with the Americans
in the navigation of the world.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALL'OLE said that, looking at these naviga-
tion-laws historic:l,ly, they might be divided into four
periods—from 1815 to 1825, from 1825 to 1835, and from
1835 to 1842. Comparing the tonnage of British vessels
and the number of men a ith the tonnage and number of
men in foreign vessels, th' y had increased in an equal
ratio during the first period.—(llear.) The next
change brought on the recirecity system of
Mr. Huskisson, and again comparing the relative
progress of British awl foreign shipping, the con-
clusion was, that these reciprocity treaties of Mr. Bus-
kisser, 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
materially profit by 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. Ile 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 relied 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 Byam Martin, the dockyards could
not supply a sufficient number of shipwrights, and upo❑
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 ?" Hit answer would be that if there were de-
fects in the existing navigation-laws, lot 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. lie could not consent, by his
vote, to hazard an empire which ha 1 been gained by so
much valour, and preserved by so much wisdom, which
was more extensive than 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 AHAM 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. Ha looked on the opposite side of
the House, and he saw on the Treasury Bench the head
of the Baring,s, and who had had the honour of being
appointed by her Majesty to preside over the navy
of England—(hear, hear)—a man of forethought,
of extended views and 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.)
He 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. Ile would now turn to
the speech of his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Walpole), who bad treated the subject under three ge-
neral heads, namely, historical, economical, and national.
He (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 Sec md. He looked to the origin of the
law in that narrow mercantile system which proceeded
on the principle, that what one nation gained most 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.—(llesr, 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 the tonnage of
the shippiug, but the reverse had been the fact.—(Hear.)
He would now 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 Learned 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 greater the number of sellers, the greater
would be the ',umber 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 (Mr. 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. In such a state of things the relax-
ation was forced upon them; it was not a m otter of choice,
and although the shipping interest was opposed to it, the
measure was carried. But still in the abstract he could
not attach much importance to this sy-tetra 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 be 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.—( !leer, 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 he 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 further relaxations,
the exact type of their measures would be adopted by
Prussia, and all their restrictions be 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 their conditions must be re-
viewed. As to the United States, it was not necessary
to have any
The United States had
fri
given
naes
lcagosratesynt coasting
inth.otthoenly. to Great Britain, but the
world at large, that,
a law with rtreesapte)c.tw,
trade, which was not ‘‘n'oltwh athmt. isseuxec,ewpdthioalltevoe
br
i);
ha another etrh
those
euntry countries.shou should be
In the
grantedhe ev
i e
evidence
once,g and as of
to t importanthe s view
presenteds
t a te
before the Committee, there was a
by a witness with referencemost
Z o!
el vi rein. T
certainly
h
te
w founded apprehension,
waser
titl
adhered to the rigour of thetr navigation-law's,
to I
it
wL'mdl
u rbgehc, B o niree Brart
emen, aoniCl iottsh policyother places.to k extend.
Teeer atBss2e6la:
passage in a speech delivered by Mr. Husoil s
ine
which contained, in brief, all that he could ay. upon
this subject, and which appeared to him to contain the
these
fate of this argument. Every impediment which
lawsnpen
its offered
growth,
to the
and
n courselagnitoefdetreafdethwaats
peawecrheeckn
which their naval magnitudetefrleie depended. The real ques-
tion was this—woulsi the repeal of the narigation-laws
injure their commercial mat ine, which was the mainstay
of the Royal Navy? If he thought there were any
serious apprehensions arising on that point he should not
vote for this Bill, but not entertaining a doubt upon it
he had made up his mind to support it.—(Hear, hear.)
His Right Hon. Friend the Umber for Oxford had laid