The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

policystthatconvincehp eeyspeaking,
ki
Hnogro
mightut
crhsooeemb,mb:::
robbing
commercial
oacoti
definedta
hag.
advised
vrvwi
peoplensi
wisdom.
dnd
ol
ms
t.hh.
tefsoo
p seao6pyndl
Protection
fy.
rwt
ooi aft ss
tamaewki
maintenance,
eihsne,e
tmrae nb soundstrictlyaew nr
icf
e oef:
" Whose wife shall I take?"—(Loud laughter.)
The free-traders were charged with encouraging foreign
labour at the expense of the British labourer. He de-
nied it. He for one would never support the measure
if he thought it would diminish the work of the English
labourer.—(Opposition cheers.) He hoped Honour-
able Gentlemen on the other side would not go
away with the conviction that free trade was
calculated to diminish the work of the English labourer.
It was a delusion and mistake; but if they thought so
they forget the fact that if they increased English labour
in one direction they diminished it in another.—(Rear.)
But if the Protectionists grounded their opposition upon
that principle the much maligned free-traders were quite
ready to meet them upon it. But it was urged as a
necessity for keeping up the navigation-laws that they
served to defend the country against the foreigner.
But that was a principle not worth maintaining. It
was hardly worth while to give a shilling for only
sixpence in return, and that was what they
really did in keeping up navigation-laws for the purpose
of securing an efficient service for the navy. If Hon.
Gentlemen opposite would close with the free-traders
on that point, the ground of debate would be con-
siderably diminished. He admitted the importance
of maintaining an efficient naval service, but
the navy was not manned entirely from the
mercantile service. That was not everything to be con-
considered in manning the navy. The manning of the
navy depended more upon the wealth of the country ;
and if they persisted in giving a shilling for sixpence the
country would soon be su impoverished as to be unable to
meet the expenditure which was always necessary for car-
rying out any great naval or military operations. He would
conclude by craving of the protectionists not to be so
ready, with their attacks upon the free-traders for at-
tending public meetings. Honourable Gentlemen,
who advocoted Protectionist principles, could attend
meetings, too, if they liked ; but this he was
confident they could not do, they could not
get (the support of the majority of the people
like the free-trader, which no doubt was the real
cause of their being so much annoyed at the holding of
these free-trade meetings.— (Hear.)
Mr. HILDYARD did not rise to advocate the policy
of paying is. to gain 6d., nor did ho intend to
go into the details of this question, but he rose
simply to correct a misapprehension into which the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had fallen.
The Hon. Gentleman commented with great triumph
upon an extract which his Right Hon. Friend, the Mena-
ber for Stamford, read from a consul's communication, in
which it was stated that a good deal of English capital
had been embarked in foreign shipping. The Hon.
Gentleman the) Member for Montrose attributed that
to the existence of these absurd navigation-laws. Now,
what was the extract which his Right Honorable
Friend read to the Hope ? It did not state
that British capital was embarked generally
in foreign shipping, but it was embarked
largely in foreign shipping of a country where recipro-
city treaties existed, that was to say, that in those coun-
tries where they had relaxed the navigation-laws,
the consequence which the Protectionists said
was likely to result had already resulted to
a great extent, and still the Honourable Member
for Montrose gets up and says, it is all the consequence
of the navigation-laws. The Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down asked them to explain how it was that
they supported these laws. He could/not tell him. It
was a remarkable fact, that in all countries where
reciprocity existed British shipping had de-
clined ; and how was it so ? Why, simply
because there the British shipowner could not compete
with the foreigners, and he sought a more profitable
occupation for bis vessels elsewhere. Now that was
precisely the reason why he opposed these resolutions.
Pass them and they would at once shut out the British
trader from ports and seas where the foreigner had a
greater advantage.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICARDO believed it was understood at the
commencement of the debate that these resolutions were
to pass without a division, and the discussion was to
be reserved for the second reading. Under these cir-
cumstances he would abstain from entering into
the details of the question then, but he could not help
rising to say, that from all he had heard from Honour-
able Gentlemen opposite he could not collect what prin-
ciple they were going upon in opposing this measure.—
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Stamford had already declared if they ob-
tained reciprocal concessions from foreign coun-
tries he would have no objection whatever
to the measure. The Right Hon. Gentleman declared
that if the coasting trade of this country could be re-
laxed, he, at least, would not object to it, if the United
States did the same. The Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Westmoreland, upon the last occasion when this
question was debated, declared himself in fa-
vour of some relaxation in favour of what was
called the long voyage, and the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Sunderland bad declared that he was quite
willing that the crews of ,British ships should be com-
posed of the sailors of any country. Now, with all these
relaxations, what became of the fundamental principle
of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite? If
it meant anything it meant this, "so long as
you make conditions, by which foreign ships and foreign
sailors are enabled to sail upon equal, and no better,
terms than the British ship, I don't care what becomes
of the navigation-laws." It meant that certainly, and
I hence the fundamental principle fell to the ground.—
: (Hear, hear.) Well, then, it was admitting that the
the navigation-laws were the bane of commerce ;
but then it was staid, if you relax them
you destroy the royal navy, and the service would be
less able to defend the country against the foreigner.
That argument came with au ill grace from the ship-
owners, who were constantly complaining of the system
of apprenticeship and of the light dues. But if the
protectionists rested their opposition upon that
ground, he must be allowed to say that the
navigation laws afforded too mush or too little restric-
tion. The nary, it was admitted, was in a less
efficient state now than it had ever been before,
and, therefore, the navigation-laws did not pre-
serve the navy, or they did not sufficiently restrict
the shipping trade to secure such preservation.
But he would not detain the House by going into de-
tails. He must say, however, that it would be much
better for them if, instead of resting contented with an
inferior navy, and endeavouring to bring down other
countries to their level, to make an effort to
raise the position of their own country by
removing the restrictions which pressed so heavily upon
she shipping icterest. It was much better to depend
upon the energies of Englishmen in a time of trial, than
to wait till the foreigner went with them before they
' made an effort to extend the trade and commerce of their
own country.—(Hear, hear.)
Alderman THOMPSON said, agreeably to the un-
derstanding to which the Hon. Gentlemen who had just
sat down had referred, he should confine himself now
to only one or two passing observations. The Hon.
Gentleman had asked the opponents of this measure what
it was they wanted. He would tell the Hon. Gentleman
what it was in a few words. To 1130 a commercial
phrase, they wanted a valuable consideration for the
advantage they were going to surrender to the fo-
reigner. In fact, they wanted a reciprocal concession
made to them by all those nations in whose
' favour they relaxed those laws. (Hear, hear.)
As his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Stamford
(Mr. Herries) ha I clearly proved, this measure could
only be productive of advantage to other countries
and be of none at all to this. Then if they
looked at tho conduct of Spain and Sicily
with respect to their own colonies, they would see that
the measure of protection was precisely that afforded in
the mother country. Two ships were waiting for a lading
in a Spanish colony, and the Spanish ship readily ob-
tained a full cargo et the rate of 51. per ton, while
a fine English ship then lying alongside could obtain no
freightage whatever, although the master only asked 255.
, a ton, and this was owing to the fact that the dues pay-
able by the latter ship were so heavy that it was better to
export in the Spanish than in the British ship. Then,
• with regard to coal, of which a great quantity is seat to
• France, and upon which a very heavy duty was imposed
in French ports, we made such a difference in favour
of French vessels abroad, that coal absolutely taken
l to a British possession, Malta, was obliged te
• be imported in French bottoms to gain a cheap ad-
mittance for the use of our own steamers. Much in-

quirt' had been made by the Committee into
the respective duties levied upon ships trading
to Montreal and New York, and the amount of
expense for internal conveyance between the two places;
and such was the extent of that difference, that it was
found better to import at New York, and carry the
goods internally through the States than go direct
to Montreal. And the same thing held
with regard to that great depot Bermuda.
The Hon. Gentleman then read a private communication
from Mr. Wigram, whose eminence as a ship builder was
well known, to show that the duty paid upon oak
timber in British ports, when prepared for ship-
building, was such that although that kind
of timber was actually dearer in itself at New York than
in England, the duties were such that the whole of the
benefit for ship-building purposes was thrown into
the hands of the American builder. After all,
he then continued, this was no more the shipbuilders'
or shipowners' question. It was a great national question.
and he would cite the evidence of the most eminent
authorities in the navy to show the evil effect which
would certainly ensue if protection were to be done
away with. He then proceeded to read extracts
in support of his position from the evidence of
the Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Byam Martin, Sir James
Stirling, and other officers, and concluded by saying
that, on these several grounds, he should oppose to the
utmost the doing away with the protection to the ship-
ping interest.
Mr. MITCHELL said there had been two
such gross fallacies broached on the Opposition side
of the House, that he could not help noticing them, espe-
cially as they had been endorsed by the Hon. Alderman
opposite. The first of these fallacies was the over-
sight altogether of the advantages which accrued to the
consumer from the reduction of the duties. It had
been alleged that by the reduction of these duties
a difference of 25 per cent. had been made in the cost of
mercantile goods. Now this difference, he contended,
was a profit of itself which went altogether
into the pockets of the consumers. But there
was a further advan.age which never seemed to
have struck those Hon. Gentlemen but yet it was evi-
dent from what had recently taken place that the reduc-
tion acted very advantageously also in an indirect
manner. On a late'occasion it was shown, that in conse-
quence of this reduction there had been in one particular
article a glut of the goods in the market, and the price
had fallen immediately fully twenty per cent., that was
another gain to the consumer. If Belgium had been
so protected as it was represented, and that protection
was beneficial, how did it happen that nearly the whole -