The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-25 00:00:00

FIRST LORD OF

MY LORD—The Public Journals of Tuesday
last represent your Lordship to have said, amongst other things,
in the House of Lords on bringing up the Bills for repealing
our venerable Navigation Laws and other Commercial Bills,
that " the result of the whole of the arrangements was that the
principle of the Navigation Laws had been adhered to as
closely as possible, keeping always in view the great object of
rendering this country the entrepot of the world and. extending
our own export trade."
Now I first wish to be informed of what injury our venerable
Navigation Laws have been productive to England, beyond
that of giving her the first navy in the world, and making her
mistress of the seas, to require in any shape their alteration
without due protection being given to our shipping interest in
some other way ? In the next place I contend, in opposition to
your Lordship's assertion, that your new laws will very mate-
rially tend to change the effects of our present Navigation Laws,
and in doing this will deprive of employment no less than
50,000 tons of British shipping, with a proportionate number
of seamen, shipwrights, and-tradesmen, &c. &c., that they will
increase by pauperism and criminal justice the already enor-
mous charge oh the landed interest, and lessen the revenue in
the like ratio. And as to your new laws making this country
an entrepot for the merchandize of the world, they will have a
contrary tendency by making foreign ports depots for articles
of British consumption.
With respect to what your Lordship says of extending our
, . ,
export trade, even aumitting for tne sake of argument that your
Lordship's measures should have this result, still such extension
of our exports is not always a proof of national prosperity, as
we may export all our wealth without receiving due returns.
Such indeed would appear to be the nature of our export trade
already, for the official returns which have been presented to
Parliament shew that we exported 55 millions worth of produce
in the course of last year, while our imports only amounted to
about 35 millions, and perhaps besides a few millions worth of
bullion. During the period alluded to therefore, our export
trade (the flour:oiling condition of which Ministers have made
a matter of public congratulation) instead of being beneficial
to the country, must have tended materially to increase our
national distress. Commerce in fact conducted on such a prin-
ciple as this is evidently a dead loss to the amount of the dif-
ference between our exports and imports, and it would be just
the same thing to the nation if we were to cast 20 millions
worth of our manufacture into the seas, as to export 55 millions
and only to receive 35 millions worth of produce in return,
even though we should receive some few millions of unwanted
bullion in addition.
In further corroboration of the correctness of this view of the
subject, in former years when our industry was better protected,
and our imports exceeded our exports, our people and shipping
were seldom deficient in profitable employment, nor were our
pauperism, whiteboyism, beggary, and starvation, one-tenth
as great as at present.
Your Lordship in another part of your speech is reported to
have said " With respect to exportation it might be truly said
to have no limits except the means of payment possessed by
foreigners." Now I not only contend without fear of contra-
diction that our exports have limits, and that our ability to
consume the return payments gives these limits, but that the
profitable employment of our people constitutes that ability,
and that which foreigners can pay for is but a secondary con-
sideration. In proof of which, with few exceptions, our manu-
facturers are selling for less money in most parts f the world
than their prime cost and charges; while foreign products (the
return payment of our exports) are selling cheaper in England
than at the place of their production. It follows therefore that
unless more profitable employment be given to our people of
we shall diminish our consumption, and with it our
exports in proportion as our people are deprived of such profit-
able employment, by substituting the use of foreign in lieu
of their own industry.
indeed your Lordship's speech, as renorted in the papers, is
full of contradictions in principle, and...the measures you pro-
pose will produce results in direct opposition to those they are
intended toproduce ; but should the public prints have mis-stated.
your Lordship's speech, that part of the East India Charter
which goes to protect foreign commerce from British competi-
tion, and limits the size of British ships, while the shipping of
foreign nations of all sizes is allowed to be free, the Ameri-
can treaties which give our carrying trade, fisheries, and terri-
tory to that nation, the alteration of the Timber Duties, which
transferred the wealth of our shipping interest and colonies to
foreigners, as well as many other commercial measures of your
Lordship and colleagues, tend at least to prove that the public
journals are correct in stating the principle, if not the words, of
your Lordship's speech. I rejoice to see your Lordship's opi-
nions of Commerce on record, at they may not only serve as a
future reference, but as a comparison between the effects of
those measures which you advocate and those which you
oppose.
I further contend, that it was the protecting laws given to
our industry by our forefathers, our valuable colonies, that
employed our excess of population, and consumed our super-
abundant native industry, added to good government, . and not
foreign trade, that elevated this country to its present pre-emi-
nent rank ; for our foreign trade, on the average of years, has
never exceeded 3 per cent. of our aggregate industry ; and
small as that trifle is, comparatively speaking, it would. have
been more beneficial to the state had one half of it been trans-
ferred to our colonies.
I airs also ready to prove, by facts and self-evident truths,
that your well-meant general commercial' measures have a ten-
dency to ruin our shipping and landed interest, to weaken our
naval defence, and ultimately to dry up the resources of our
revenue, as well as of British industry generally.
Nor should your Lordship and Colleagues have plumed your-
selves on an increasing revenue, until it was proved to be paid
from income, and not from the pecede's capital, nor until you
had accounted for that deficiency which ought to arise from an
increase of one-sixth of our population since 1815.
If the Governments of this world were in a natural state,
Commerce, being the mere exchange of the superabundance of
countries, would require no human laws to force it into action ;
and even in the unnatural state in which the governments of the
world are now placed, nothing more is requisite than that the
industry of the world should be protected from foreign compe-
tition, according to its value to the state to which it severally
belongs, and subject thereto, to let commerce have the freedom
of air; but if one did not know to the contrary, on reading
your Lordship's and Colleagues' speeches and commercial acts,
he would think you were a set of pedlars, and not even general
pedlars, but pedlars in cotton goods only, for there is hardly a
measure among all your commercial acts, but what has a ten-
dency to sacrifice every other British interest to this exotic
branch of industry, and to thrust it on foreigners, right or
wrong, whether they want it or not, although this interest does
not employ more than about two per cent. of our population,
and gives employment to two foreigners where it employs one
Englishman._
But I am happy to see that enlightened foreigners begin to
know that the profitable employment of their people consti-
tutes the wealth of their states, and in consequence throw back
on us with disdain our forced packs of manufactures. This
will not only ultimately increase their own wealth, prove the
greatness of theirs, and the littleness of the minds of our own
statesmen, make them against their inclination avail them-
selves of the mighty resources of our own unrivalled empire,
and thereby employ our own people, as far as we are able, to do
our own work, but to crown the whole, you, unasked for by
their example, throw our carrying trade intoahe laps of fo-
reigners, to soothe them for refusing your packs of cotton
goods.
It is with pain, my Lord, I say it, still, in judging of the
future by the past, I fear nothing will induce your Lordship
and colleagues to ascertain and apply the mighty resources of
the British Empire, to 'the giving our own people profitable
employment, but that of depriving you of the means of doing
otherwise; this should be borne in mind, when the supplies 9f
next year are granted, as this will tend to break up our worse
than useless West India establishments and trade,and reduce our
Army one half, the consequence of which will be that you will
not be able to govern the people without acquiring. a knowledge
of and applying the resources of the British Empire to the giv- '
ing them their legitimate natural profitable employment, which
is without receiving an equivalent now given to foreigners; and
although I often differ m opinion with Mr. Hume, still I
think his sound legitimate speech of Wednesday night on the
Irish Tithe question, should be recorded in letters of gold, and
his fame, by the Irish People, transmitted to posterity. I will
leave your Lordship and colleagues to guess at what spy opi-
nions are of those who opposed his motion, and which would,
if it had been adopted, have proved so beneficial to both the
Irish People and the Clergy.
In reply to Mr. Robinson's observations in the House of
Commons last night, on the Dutch Butter Duty question,
wherein he said (as stated in the public prints,) " that Butter
was the only article in which the Dutch could pay for our ma-
nufactures," I ask that Right Honourable Gentleman whe-
ther, if the Irish or English dairy-men had supplied us with an
equal quantity of butter, would they not have taken in pay-
ment an equal quantity of British industry, with tithe taxes and
poor-rates added thereto, and would they not, as a further ad-
dition, have defended our country, in lieu of offending it (as the
Foreigner will do when he has an opportunity) lessen pau-
perism, whiteboyism, and, through consumption, have increas-
ed our revenue ? and I also ask that Right Hon. Gentleman if
protecting
g eotreccat
ti ngr
than he demand,diautic(sarenotpa and when
the foreigner when the supply
paid by the consumer, if