The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-10 00:00:00

---_—_--,
of the petition. The fact was the petition proceeded
from the Protectionist section of the Montreal
Board of Trade, and a counter-petition against protec-
tion had been signed by the free-trade members of the
board. But the petition from the Protectionist section
of the hoard allude I to by the Right . Hon.
gentleman prayed, firstly, for a repeal of the navigation
laws, and the throwing open the navigation of the river
St. Lawrence; and secondly, for a ss. duty. Two other
petitions had prcceeded from Canada, one from the Board
of Trade of the city of Hamilton, in favour of the repeal
of the navigation laws, and a second from the citizens of
Montreal in public meeting assembled, also praying for
the repeal of the navigation laws. An address to the
Crown had also been received from the Legislative
Council and Commons of Canada, praying her Majesty
to use her influence with the _House of Commons to re-
peal the navigation laws. There was indeed every reason
why the population of Canada ,should be favourable to
the repeal of the navigation laws. It was well known
that the navigation of the St. Lawrence between Montreal
and Quebec was very difficult, and that the inland navi-
gation of the country was, generally, expensive and diffi-
cult. There was, therefore, the more reason why
the Imperial Parliament should not superadd
artificial impediments to the natural restrictions which
already existed in the way of the Canadian trade. The
Canadians had opened up ship canals in the interior and
bad borrowed 2,000,0001. from this country to enable
them to open a communication with the Western lakes
of America; but of what use was this outlay, or what
prospect was there that these 2,000,0001. would ever be
repaid, if the House imposed restrictions at the mouth
of the river St. Lawrence which prevented the Canadians
from entering upon a fair competition with the Ameri-
can shipowners? He would now follow the Right Hon.
Gentleman to the West Indies, and he regretted that
some very recent correspondence, which would be laid
before the House on Monday, was not already in the
hands of Honourable Members, because it would be
seen from the testimony of the highest autho-
;
ta
ties upon West Indian matters, that the ques-
ties' of the navigation-laws was increasing in
importusuce the more it was considered. In Jamaica
numerous public meetings had been held during the
laht six mca.sths' and the language held was that there
could be no ret:Wn' except for the navigation laws, why
Jamaica and Trin.qad should not become what they bad
been before, the cent.-1l emporia of trade for the Spanish
Main. Coming to the continent of Europe, the Right
Hon. Gentleman seemed be unaware that the greatest
portion of the continental po wars had a perfect freedom
of trade with regard to shippii:ge and all that the Go-
vernment had to fear was lest they should be reminded
t
that such or such a treaty was abou to expire, and that
a more liberal course was expected Com this country.
Austria had given us all she could, aut: had a right to
feel disappointed that we hail not given her similar and
reciprocal advantages by the rselastetion of our
ec nuaviglay
tion-laws.—(Hear, hear.) The presen: p
a time suitable to the introduction of aui: b.
because a sufficient period had witnesselapses
h
' to a measure,
was liar
the Effect of the great free.trade measures upoxantionse
shipping interest. Since 1842, when these reit.:
in our commercial code might be said to ha:ie cum"
menced, there bad been a great increase in the in.
Darts
of the more bulky articles of shipping. A few figtevell
Would show how much advantage the shipowner had de-
rived from the recent changes in our legislation. Look-
ing first at the continental trade previous to 1842, they
found that live stock were excluded, and that the ship-
ment' of grain was so seldom and so accidental in its oc-
currence as not materially to benefit the British ship-
owner. Flax, hemp, and timber were subject to duties
more or less high. In 1841 no live animals were im-
ported into this country ; in 1848 the number was
195,000. In 1841. 1,738,000 cwts. of flax and hemp
were imported ; in 1848, 2,300,000 cwts., an increase of
30 per cent. The average import of grain had been
2,000,000 quarters ; during the two last years it had
amounted to 12,030,000 and 7,000,000 quarters re-
spectively. The importation of currants in 1841 was
173,000 cwts.; in 1848 it was 400,000 cwts., an increase of
more than double. In 1841, 4,700 tuns of olive oil were
imported from the Levant; in 1848 10,000 tuns. In
1841 the imports of provisions of various kinds were
91,629 cwts.; in 1848 they were 600,000 cwts. The im-
ports of cotton wool in 1841 were 4,357,000 cwts:; in
1848, 6,362,000 cwts., an increase of 2,000,000 cwts. in
six years.—(Hear.) The imports of sugar had increased
'from 4,905,000 cwts. to 8,209,000 cwts. in 1847. Our
imports of coffee in 1841 were 43,317,7621 b.; in 1848,
57.000,0001 b. Of sheep's wool 56.170,0001 b. were im-
ported in 1841, in 1848, 70,521,0001 b. But the most
important change had taken place in the shipping of
timber. In 1841 there were imported 700,000 loads of
timber from British possessions; in 1848, 1,500,000
loads. In 1841 the total quantity of timber imported
from the whole world was 950,000 loads; is 1848 it
amounted to, 1,850,000 loads, or nearly double. Why
should the shipping interest not be called upon to enter
into competition with other countries when all other inte-
rests and classes had to sustain a competition with foreign
rivals?—(Hear.) The sugar refiners of this country very
naturally complained of being excluded from the privilege
of taking for consumption cargoes of foreign sugar when
they were exposed by the act of last session to the com-
petition of the continental refiners. A great number of
other trades were complaining in the same way. Two
great authorities among the shipping interest, Messrs.
Young and Richmond, stated before the Lords' com-
mittee, that they thought that all the mischief
• had been done already that could be done by
the repeal of the navigation-laws. He quite agreed
c with them, that the navigation-laws as they at present
t stood were of very little importance to the British ship-
owners. They had to compete with their American rival
in his own market, and where he had every advantage,
and they had none. They had to compete with Prussian
shipowners in like manner in the Prusian market, and
with the Spanish shipowner at Cuba ; and this resulted
purely from the policy of the navigation-laws, and
not in consequence of any measures of free trade.
Why should they be afraid of the British shipowners en-
tering into competition with the foreign shipowner in
neutral markets, when they were already compelled to
enter into competition with him in his own market? If
there were a country in the world where ships were built
cheaply it was here, if quality and every other circum-
stance were taken into the account. Since the discus-
sion on this subject last year, the Select Committee had
received most important testimony upon this point from
Mr. Minter, an American gentleman, a passage from
whose evidence the Hon. Member proceeded to read in
corroboration of his assertion. But, had they no other
evidence that British shipping fully possessed the power
of competing with the marine of other countries? that
evidence he contended might be derived from many
quarters, amongst others, from the state of the shipping
interest in the United States of America, and such evi-
dence was likewise to be found in the history of our own
shipping from 1827 to 1844. Of the American and Bri-
tish shipping entering American ports, as well as of other
tonnage entering the same ports, the account stood thus—
In 1827 the American tonnage was 918,000, the British
101,000, the other tonnage 36,000. In the year 1844 the
American tonnage was 1,977,438, the British 766.747,
the other tonnage 150,245; which showed an increase
in American tonnage of 100 per cent., and in British
tonnage of 650 per cent. He held in his hand another
statement which would show the increase that had taken
place in British tonnage between the years 1824 and
1846. There cleared inwards and outwards of British
shipping in 1824, 3,454,853 tons, and of foreign tonnage
1,506,148, while, in 1846, the British tonnage inwards
and outwards was 8,688,148, and the foreign tonnage
only 3.727,438; showing an increase on British tonnage
of 5,233,295. and on foreign of 2,221,290. If any
country could be considered more formidable than
another as a rival of England, that country was the
United States of America; and most assuredly the best
possible test of our ability to compete with all foreign
countries was to be found in the fact that American had
not surpassed British shipping—not only had not sur-
passed the shipping of this country, but still re-
mained far short of the point which the ship
owners of the United Kingdom had gained;
and, although our commercial marine had long
been subjected to that test, the progress of our shipping
interest still went on rapidly. For the purpose of sus-
taining this position he should beg the attention of the
House to a statement which he held in his hand, and which
contrasted American tonnage and British tonnage from
1827 to 1844, showing the progress made by each of
those countries respectively. In 1827 the American
tonnage was 747,170 ; in 1844 it was 1,068,764, being
an increase of 43 per cent. In the United Kingdom the
tonnage in 1827 was 2,460,500; in 1844, 3,637,231,
showing an increase of 48 per cent. ; the whole increase
in the American shipping being 321,594 and that in
British shipping 1,176,731. He should now come to
the question of the long voyage trade. In that trade we
found ourselves under the necessity of competing with
the shipowners of all nations, and of engaging with them
in that rivalry under circumstances most favourable to
their interests and most disadvantageous to ours. The
vessels of the world at large in competing with British
ships had, of course, the obvious advantage of trading to
the particular ports of the countries to which they be-
longed, whereas British ships were obliged to take the
outward voyage either in ballast or only partially laden,
while their foreign competitors came to this country al-
ways fully laden—full cargoes of timber, cotton, coffee,
and other bulky commodities. If we could stand such
competition as that, what could we have to fear ? The
House would of course recollect that, apparently for the
purpose of securing to this country the benefit of the
long-voyage trade, we had laid restrictions upon our
commercial intercourse with the Continent ; the effect
of this had been to protect foreign shipping to the mani-
fest injury of British interests. He would state a case
illustrative of this. A British ship not long since con-
veyed a cargo of cotton from America to Havre; at that
time the French revolution was in progress. The owners
of the cargo in Liverpool wished not to have it left in
Havre, but conveyed without delay to Liverpool; that how-
ever they could not accomplish:without transferring the
cargo to a Continental vessel. Surely that state of the law
operated as a protection to foreign shipping. In addition
to this case of a cargo of cotton, he might mention that
hides were subject to similar regulations. Now, those
were inconsistencies to which the trade of a great coun-
try ought not to be subjected. He was aware that Mr.
Grey had recommended a plan according to which all
goods brought into this country should be accompanied
by a certificate stating whether or not they were in-
tended for the British market. He apprehended that
that would be a mere clumsy evasion, and would never
work well in practice. The next subject to which he
thought it desirable to direct the attention of the House
was the cost of freight. Without hesitation he might
assert that freights were not raised by the navigation
laws. Bad harvests sometimes occurred, a deficiency
in the sugar crops occasionally took place, hence sudden
demands for shipping, which of course caused British
freight for the moment to rise, but it was only on those
accidental occasions that such advances took place,
.and
they were occurrences too rare and uncertain to produce
any substantial benefit to the ship-owner. It might
assist the view to be taken of this part of the subject
if he were for a moment new to call the attention
of Hon. Members to the tonnage built and registered