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

Peers on the Ministerial side.) The best prof of it was
an anecdote which arose on an occasion which he was old
enough to rscollcct—the occasion of a festival at Guild-
hall, at ei hich he was present, and at which Mr. Pitt
gave as a toast, " The Ships, Colonies, and Commerce of
England."—(Bear, hear.) That was a most able retort
on Napoleon, but would have been pointless if ail
that Napoleon wished was ships, and colonies, and com-
met es-. 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 114(1 encouraged that without which she never
would have had a nary at all, because she had for the
last 150 years abided by that policy without deviation,
except to adopt successive changes to keep that policy
intact, for the purpose of promoting not merely the
commerce of the country, but the growth of a mere In-
gle nary and the building of ships and the raising of
men.—(Hear.) He was stating now what he had stated
in a publication on this subject so long ago as the year
1802. He had in that work attempted to show the bear-
ing of the principles of his great master, Adam Smith,
and had maintained the great advantage of colonies to
the mother country. Those zealous individuals who
were what were called free-traders never cessal cpoting
Adam Smith as a great authority, although they wished
as to have no colonies whatever.—(Hcar, bear.) They
considered the colonial trade as a foreign trade, only
returning one capital, but it was an 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 Brsz:l was to replace two
capitals, the English capital and the Jamaica capital.
If any person would look to the valleys of Westmore-
land or Lancashire, or going further north examine the
counties of Inverness and Itess, ho would see a
proof of
the soundness of this doctrine in the very names of the
villas—names suggestive oP Jamaica,
dad, and Demerara, and showing that the owners had
built their houses, had cultivated their grounds, and ha;
made the barren heath smile, by the fortunes accumu-
lated
Barbedoes, 'Trini-
dad,
in Jamaica, Barbadoes, and our other West
possessions.—(l4ear hear.) It became, there-
fore, not merely
our national glory, but our commercial
prosperity, to have these magnificent colonial estubiish-
ments. They were, in fact, but extensions of the terri-
tory of cur native land. Providence had bountifully cast
our lot in an island fertile ireagricultural resources, and
under a climate well calculated to produce habits
of daring and industry in cur population. Iu one
respect, however, cur 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-
dom and gallantry of our ancestors had carried 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 stills 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 wishing
well to every
country ; but than ho could not go quite so far as his
Noble Friend, and allow foreigners to share ie that
magnificent colonial empire, the outlines of which he
had feebly attempted,,.n to sketch,
skeptcleba.sulriee
tcoourledeinpervoecratcel-
sent that America should have all the benefits, and
(blelelaerf,t hear.) that nUp, n goodbat question the Government of
the United Sta•es had been sounded, and something
like a disavowal had been put forth of the concessions
promised by Mr. Baucroft. Now this Bill proposed to
give an American or any other foreign ship, in
a commercial point of view, the same hem fit in the trade
of this country as a British ship. It might bring home
our colonial produce and take out our experts to our
colonies, without any equivalent advantage to us, the
foreigner not contributing one shilling to the expense of
ourSomttlechthe"ibthuilrdeigngardef totbe
colonial ships
and the breeding of sailors, his Noble Friend opposite
colonialtrtt d„. government.
ivith respect
had said that no danger was to be appreheede,e. 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 HARROWBY:—And by the corporation.
Lord BROUG H AM :—And, as 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
signatures. In the very Bill itself he found an ally. It
began by repealing a number of Acts, but the first section
petition front that town against the Bill, with its 47,000
of h
closely"—what?—the whole coastin tradedistrustet.thet ecoun-
try.—(llear, hear.) Why this principle
stated that it was also intended to. protect strictly and
e to protect the home trade, acd
it proposed to continue
.the colonial?—(Hear.)
t) withdraw protection from e
or free trade in navigation? Upon what principle was
Not surely because the coasting trade was the nursery
our best seamen, for that was the principle upon
ofw hich the whole of the navigation-laws rested. " Oh,' ,
said his 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?—(llear.) Why s, as the agriculturist not
to have the same benefit as the merchant in the cheap
conveyance of his produce? Why was it that all traffic
on our rivers and canals and along our coasts should
bo by British born subjects alone? But why not do it
as well for the internal us 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 astonishing. 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 groat
mass of the masters were so ignorant as to be usable 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 n hose respectability was beyond all
question—some of them being as good Whigs as his
Noble Friends opposite-- (Laughter) —and as zealous for
the doctrine of free trade—ani these men had given him
their distinct assurance that such had not been the case
wiehin their experience, and that Mr. Mitchell must
have been unfortunate if he bud 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
was a shipowner of
ships?—(Hear, hear.) Upon that question issue was
joined. lie was about to prove that this would be the
case. The first witness examined
the port of Leitb, 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
141. or 151, and 121., that would be fatal.—([leer, hear.)
When they spoke of ship building in England, they
spoke of an immense interest. A capital of no less than
16,000,000/. was embarked. The sum annually spent
in the building of ships was 3,000.000/. The outfit
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 which ho warned
them not unduly to lay a rude band.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Minton, an American, was examined, and after-
wards
some Russians and Prussians, and all gave evi-
dence, every man for himself. Now with respect to
wages. The wages of the master in the Baltic were 31.
per month, and five per cent. upon the tonnage, making
altogether about 51. per month
In Belgium and
Holland the master received only about 41. But
what did he receive in England? 8/:loS.—:(Hear, hear)
—Bl. 10s., according to Mr. Mitchell, for a man who
could neither read nor write, and Si. 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 30s. to 355. For month ; in England, 31.
(Hear, hear.) The price of food here was Is. 3d. per
day; in those other countries, Bd.—Cflear, hear.) This
was the result of the comparison of English shipbuild-
ing and English navigation between this country and
foreign ports; and if anybody would ltfek at the relative
numbers and sums, and 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, either 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
continued the most 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.—(Hear, 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 seatuen.—(Bear, hear.)
They knew what the consequences of not having them
Seould be; and that all they could do and preach to these
men about free trade—about the navigation-laws and the
fragments of the system s or tell t hem from "Pepy's Diary"
down to this day, would never preserve to them or create
(Ch.)
wh eeeer
said,
d ,uytehuo
ym phoarytea note
en:faeseirtt
ht o
femraeii
gn teaeirns
;t,h,
for them that must invaluable body of British seamen.—
ma
elemut.
he (Lord Brougham) thought they could not mix one-
fourth foreigners with three-fourths English. That
would bo 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
same language.—(Checrs.) 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-fourths.—(Hear,) That would be the
inevitable result. He would beseech their Lordships to
pause before placing So great an interest in jeopardy-
-4,000,000 of tons of shipping, navigated by
0:30,000
wee, these men being the nursery for our navy. What
was the consequence of having these men? A navy,
which rides triumphantly upon every sea. What would
be the other consequence? What war breaks out—owing