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

laws?—(Hear,) The Canadians were decidedly opposed
to the principles which were being adopted by the present
Government. They had been treating the matter as if it
were only a mere item of commercial concern. This
was a great mistake.—(Hear, hear.) It was a matter
f la
he might say, of vitally national
in
This question was to be decided
uponter Large
the
( national,afundamentaler, h nay,
ear.)
principle of the navigation-laws;
o t
—H
that principle was the protection of the national mercan-
tile marine—(llear, hear)—and he should contend that
by the full exercise of that principle could they ever an-
ticipate retaining that superiority which is necessary to
us as a commercial nation. That great man whose high
merit every man of the commonest candour would allow
—that great man, General Washington, had taken this
matter into his deepest and most mature consideration,
and the deliberate result of that consideration was con-
tained in the recommendation which he had given to
Congress. (The Right Hon. Gentleman then read an
extract from one of the General's Messages to Congress,
in which ho stated that in his opinion it was a mistake to
suppose that the duties laid on for the protection of a
mercantile navy was any burden upon the people to
whom the shipping belonged. He also read an extract
from the report made by the last Committee which
sat upon the subject of the navigation-laws, in which Mr.
Gladstone appears to say, that, in his opinion, protec-
tion to British shipping ought to be retained, and
that the navy had derived its best and
most hardy seamen from the mercantile marine.)
He would not consent to any alteration of the law which
gave foreigners the same advantages that we
possessed ourselves. With respect to maritime
intercourse with the colonies, no other nation
could give us an equivalent for any advantages
the present measure proposed to give to them, and there-
fore he considered no other nation ought to thick of
interfering with us and our colonies. Instead of the
consumer obtaining any advantage by the passing
of the measure, he was of opinion that they would not
gain a single farthing. The poor consumer would get
nothing, but he was always put forward by the capitalist
and the great dealer when it suited their own pur-
poses to do so. H. o was not prepared to concede
the exclusive privilege which we now possessed
of naviga'ion to our colonies to foreigners.
He:came to the next head—the long-voyage trade—and
he had to express his decided objection to the surrender
of those privileges which this country now possessed.
The principle laid down by the present law was
to secure to this country the carriage of com-
modities from three parts of the world, viz., Asia,
Africa, and America, and with that foreigners could
have nothing to do. They might themselves forbid us
to partake in the long-voyage trade with their ports.
No country was so fitted tor a place of deposit for
commodities from all countries as England. With
respect to the commerce of Europe, the case was cer-
tainly more easy, and notwithstanding what bad been said
on the subject he still thought that the principle of
reciprocity was not only more applicable, but was capa-
ble of enlargement. He had hit upon a passage which
was applicable to the present question from Huskisson,
and in alluding to it he could not refrain from saying that
it would have been well if those who sometimes pro-
fessed to have so much respect for that authority had
advocated and abided by his policy.—(Hear.) Mr.
Huskisson said he could not, in alluding to the United
States its a British House of Commons, think it was
improper to say that in matters of navigation and mari-
time power there existed a spirit of rivalry—a spirit of
which he did not complain, but he doubted
the wisdom of any measure that was calculated
to give any advantage to the commercial resources of
America. lie (Mr. Herries) would ask the House if a
capitalist would employ an English ship when a foreign
vessel would answer all his purposes at a cheaper rate ?
It was for the defence of this country and the mainte-
nance of that without which it would cease to be what
it was, that protection had been afforded to our navy.
He could not but regret that, in collecting evidence upon
the subject of the navigation-laws, there had been an
evident desire to disparage the character of British
seamen.—(Hear, hear.) It was said they were
the worst seamen and the most difficult to
manage, but three parts of the assertions
which were made were wholly without foundation.—
(Hear, hear.) One of her Majesty's consuls had stated
that the effect of a repeal of these laws would be to in-
crease the investment of British capital in foreign
vessels, and thus lead to diminish the employ-
ment of shipwrights, rope makers, chain and
anchor makers, and every body of mechanics whose
occupation depended upon the construction and
building of vessels. There could be no doubt that if this
Bill passed the capital of British shipowners would be
transferred to other countries.—(Bear, hear.) He had
confined himself to the principles of the Bill,
not being desirous at present to enter into the
details, but could not allow the opportunity to pass
without declaring that the weal or woe of our mercan-
tile navy depended upon the decision which the House
might come to upon it. The Hon. Genleman concluded
by stating that be was compelled upon the grounds stated
to give to the proposition his determined and most
strenuous opposition.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said there was a great
deal of misapprehension out of doors as to the real na-
ture and object of the measure, and possibly that mis-
apprehension might be shared in by Honour-
able Members. To translate, however, official jargon
into plain honest English, he would simply say that this
was the last of a series of measures of the Manchester
school, the end and intention of which was to discharge
all British labour and employ for the future foreign
labour.—(Loud cheers.) They were to have foreign
timber for English timber, foreign shipwrights
instead of English ones, and he might go through the
whole catalogue of labour, and say the same of each
kind; and for what was all this done but fur the advan-
tage of mercantile men, and for the alvantage of Man-
chester cotton spinners.—(Cheers.) It should not b. his
fault if the country did not understand the true meaning
of the question from one end of it to the other. He
considered it was merely a question of trade and com-
merce connected with our marine, and it essentially and
much more clearly effected the condition of labourers
than any other question could do.
Mr. HUME said be had heard many statements
in that House with respect to the navigation-laws, but
what had fallen from the Hon. Member who had just
sat down had surprised him beyond measure. He
undertook to say that it was the last of a series of mea-
sures brought in by the Manchester school, and that
they all tended to the injury of labouring men.
But how could that be reconciled with the assertion of
those who said that the food of labouring men had been
reduced by the navigation-laws?—(Hear, hear.) What
was more important than that the labouring classes
should be able to get food of all kinds, and at a mode-
rate price?—(Hear, hear.)
An Hoes. MEIVBER—But the question of wages.—
(Laughter and cheers.)
Mr. HUME—WeII, he would come to the question of
wages. He had certain'y heard within these lust few
days, and it was with great regret, that in the south of
England the wages of labourers had been reduced from
93. to Bs. and 7s.—(Hear, hear.) But what was it
that increased wages but increased employment?—
(Hear, hear.) And the way to effect that object
was to bring the greatest amount possible of trade and
commerce to this country.—(gear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) had stated that no
place was so well calculated for a depot for the
trade of the world as England, but what had kept
it from being so but those laws?—(Hear, hear.)
If they wanted any preof, let them take the assertion of
that Hon. Gentleman, when he said that the capital of
the country was so restrained by the navigation-laws
that we were obliged to employ English capital
almost in every part of the world.—(Hear, hear.)
What was wanted was, that the English shipowner should
be permitted to carry. his goods in English as well as
foreign ships. The t acts stated by the Hon. Member for
Stamford (Mr.lHerries) had been repeated over and over
again, if they bad not been repeated by himself, which he
(Mr. Hume) believed they had. This country had too long
been a sufferer by these laws, as well as all other mono-
polies. But if they had been repealed the Amerie in
navy would not have been one-half its present extent.
Ho considered that their repeal would relieve and pro-
fitably employ capital, andelemand, as a natural conse-
quence, the increased employment of the people.—
(Hear, hear.) France was no argument in fa-
vour of the continuation of these laws, since
if she did not alter her policy she would lose
the little navy that she had. France was a beacon held
out to us as a guide. There was nothing in our mer-
chants or shipwrights that would prevent them from
freely competing with the whole world if
these laws were removed from the statute-book.
Ho denied the calumny cast upon his countrymen, that
they were not competent to compete in the way he had
mentioned. They had been informed, through
Mr. It =rat, that America would reciprocate any
course that this country might adopt with respect to
these laws. An Honourable Member had said
America had not repealed _ her navigation-laws. She
had not, because this country had not done so. Then
the course of misgovernment that had been pursued to-
wards the colonies had ruined thousands; it was due, there-
fore, to them to repeal those laws; and he thanked the
Government for coming forward with this Bill at an
early instead of a later period of the
session, and trusted
they would day by day push it on in order that it might
become law with the least possible delay. The abolition
of the lighthouse system he hoped would follow in their
wake.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES asked the Hon. Member for Montrose
this question—how were the labourers of this country
to obtain food, even at its low price, if they had no
wages wherewith to buy it ?-7(Protectionist cheers.)
The labourers of America were intelligent, but those of
this country were just the reverse ; and yet these were
the men whom he wished to supersede by superior
co:npetition, the incompetent labourers of this country.
He agreed with the Hon. Member for Surrey (Mr.
Drummond) that this measure was the " last of a
series" which had been directed against the la-
bouring classes ; for ho know of no other injury
they could inflict upon them- lle advised the co-
lonies to wait, since public opinion bad set in
against the free-trade policy; the time was not far distant
when he confidently believed the House] would retrace
its steps. He challenged any. Members connected with
the manufacturing districts to rise and say that the trader
was satisfied vvith;;the free-trade measures. Nay, he
would go further, and ask the Irish
nion that formerly prevailed with respect to free trade in
Ireland was the same now?
Colonel THOMPSON said, when two sides declared
two opposite opinions, and each with the strong belief
that they were enunciating the truth, it often happened
that there was something which had not up
to that time found its way into the arena of
discussion. In simple words, those on his side of the
House maintained that protection, prom whatever side
of the House it came, meant paying away one shil-
ling and getting sixpennyworth in return. The free-
traders had some credit in the country because they
had well indoctrinated the people with the truth of their
policy, Rua it would take some force of argument to