The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-24 00:00:00

down two principles, both of which he maintained
with consummate ability—first, that commerce was the
foundation of the commercial marine; and, secondly,
that ships did not create commerce, but followed
it. When they gave facility to the free importation of
navignation-laws,
in 1847,
gatitm-1 a
aw sdifficulty h
eyarose‘,,upone
eulitihmea
tely operation
suspended
thef
with regard to corn. The suspension produced the rffMct
which was intended, by diminishing the price of all the
corn incident upon a large importation. And were
Prussia, Russia, and America the carriers? So far from
their being so, the ships of Great Britain imported it in
a much larger ratio than those of any other countries;
and as to the number of British seamen, returns showed
that they had increased during the interval. The ab-
surdities which prevailed in these laws with respect to
the prohibitions of importations from certain ports
abroad constituted same cf the principal objections to
them. Thus, a merchant could not bring a cargo of
cochineal from the Canary Islands, because they were
deemed, for all the purposes of the Act, to be a part of
Africa. So with regard to an importation of Ma-
deira wino from Lisbon. Then, again, Bordeaux
was the greatest emporium of dyes and gums, the
produce of the French territory of Senegal; yet the
merchant could not bring over the smallest quantity of
them.— (Hear, hear.) The same rule applied also to
Antwerp, Amsterdam, llolland, and all the Orientaland
ikoch goods; and he was satisfied that the impediments
to the free course of trade, as experienced by the mer-
chants of this country under the navigation laws, con-
stituted a loss to them which must be compensated for
by charging extra prices to the consumer.—(Hear,
hear.) So that the indirect effect of these restrictions it
was impossible to estimate.—(Hear, hear.) Passing
from merchants to manufacturers, the Hoe. Member for
Manchester was anxious, on behalf of his constituents,
for the growth of cotton in India. The native Indians
fought their battles in the field, with a heroism which
rendered them not unworthy of an alliance with British
soldiers. Hindoo seamen and lascars, when a full com-
plement of men could not be obtained, helped to man
their ships, but had to be sent back to India at the ex-
pense of the consignee, because the laws did not recog-
nise them as British seamen.—(Hear, hear.) Let them
take the instances of wool and copper from Australia, or
of cotton from New Orleans. It frequently happened
that when the demand in Great Britain for these com-
modities was intense, the navigation-laws stepped in and
offered an impediment, while the importation was most
desirable. Their manufacturers were in this way placed
under great disadvantages, but the law did not stop
there. It imposed still greater ones. It allowed fre-
quently an importation of the manufactured, but not of
the raw material. Thus, they would not allow the im-
portation of foreign wools from Europe, though they
allowed it when made into furniture, very mischievously
to the interests of the manufacturer in this country.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the effect on the colo•
'nes, the Honourable Member for Stamford had objected
that the colonies had not remonstrated generally. He
thought that Australia had remonstrated, Ceylon cer-
tainly had, and Trinidad for very cogent reasons. Ja-
maica, a year or two ago, was well known to have
done so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And from what
had since taken place, there seemed to be no reason to
doubt that it intended to do so.—(Hear.) It appeared
to him that no time should be lost in passing the Bill;
because as it was not possible to retain the Canadas, for
instance, by unnecessary restraint, having placed their
produce in the market on terms of equality with that of
America, if they did not put their means of importation
on the same equality, they must not be surprised to find
them availing themselves of any means of resistance
they had. Mr. Bancroft, in his history of the American
States, said that the navigation laws contained the seeds
of American independence. Mr. Huskisson confirmed
that opinion, and illustrated it by another topic, viz., the
resistance made by the Irish to the attempt to put Ireland
under this navigation law; so odious and degrading did
they consider the exemption in reference to themselves.
That was a warning which they would do well to keep
in mind. He would now briefly inquire whether
these laws were favourable to shipping. First, the
shipowner was prevented from making repairs at a
foreign port beyond the rate of 20s. per ton ; and there
were several enactments, vexatious in their operation,
with respect to operatives. The British sailor did not
derive benefit from them, on the contrary, he would im-
prove his condition by that repeal. He was convinced
that seamen would receive higher wages after the repeal,
and that in other respects his situation would be more
tolerable. There remained now only the British con-
sumer to consider, is speaking of the probable results of
this measure. As a consumer of luxuries, the price to
him of tobacco, spirit, &c., was enhanced. Upon the
whole, looking at the great classes of this community,
he was convinced that these navigation-laws were not
conducive to their interest.—(Bear.) At one time it
appeared desirable that British shipping should be built
at Bombay, in relation to:economy, the: rate of wages being
extremely low there ; and when ho had the honour
of being connected with the Admiralty, he recollected
the question arose, whether it would be cheaper to build
ship. in England or at Bombay; and it was resolved, all
things considered, that it was cheaper to build them in
England. In the carrying trade their shipping was all
over the world, and in Hamburgh, in 1847, the number
of British ships was double those of Hamburgh and Bre-
men. In 1824 the British shipping in foreign ports was
64 per cent., and by a recent return it increased from 64
to 83 per cent. He did not agree with an Hon. Friend
of• his its the views which he took of this subject in rela-
tion to considerations of economy, holding as he (Sir
James Graham) did, that monopoly in shipbuilding was
as ot•jectionable as any other description of monopoly.—
Hear.) He could not but refer to the opinions of Mr.
George Young on this subject. That gentleman had
:aid that he felt clnvinced that the capital employed in
shipping had produced a smaller amount of return for the
last 25 years, than in any other branch of industry
in this country; and his Right lloaourable Friend,
the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), had
said, if ever a change were to be made, that the present
was the time to make it. Now, coals were imported
into this country duty free; cotton was imported into it
duty free; wool was imported into it duty free; every
article of first necessity was imported into it duty free;
the trade with China was extended; and, if wages were
diminished, it should not be forgotten that, coincidently
with those things, the price of every article of fool was
diminished. lle (Sir James Graham) therefore said,
there never was a time when a change could be made
with less injury to the shipping interest. In the whale
fishery, it appeared that they had exhausted the Arctic
se-,s, and a gentleman who bad been engaged largely in
that trade—Mr. Enderby—was about to betake himself,
on considerations of saving, to the Antarctic regions, and
to locate himself there, and to strike and ply his har-
poon in the frozen seas. So much for the state of the
shipping interests. lion. Gentlemen, and more par-
ticularly the Member for Stamford, had stated that
the proposed measure would prove fatal to agri-
cultural and commercial interests, and one Hon. Gentle
man had said that the working classes would suffer ex-
tremely by it. Now, if that was the opinion of those
Gentlemen, he could not for a moment account why they
did not at once bring the question before the House.—
(Hear,hear.) If it was necessary to retrace their steps,
why such delay? The Right Hon. Baronet having re-
ferred to opinions delivered ley Lord Stanley on the first
evening of the session, in opposition to the doctrines and
measures of free trade—doctrines against which the
Noble Lord protested—and against which he called upon
those who thought with him to make their election, re-
marking, that he was the uncompromising supporter of
protection, proceeded to say, that the measure which
the House was now discussing was the necessary
column to the capital of the measure of free trade; here
issue was joined, and here the struggle must take place,
between reaction on the one hand and free trade on
the other. He was now dealing with the political views
of the question, and all tho-e historical and economical
views of it were, in his mind, as light as dust in compa-
rison; and so tar from regretting the part which he had
taken in the matter and advancement of free trade, he
most firmly believed that the peace and tranquillity of
this country and the safety of their institutions, in the
year just past, were attributable to the measure to which
he had just alluded.—(Hear, hear.) Ile was satisfied
that the idea of going hack to protection would, if at-
tempted to be put into practice, prove a dangerous expe-
riment, leading to inevitable convulsion and its conse-
quences. At all events, his part was taken; he was
opposed to reaction and favourable to progress, and on
those grounds it was that he should give his most un-
qualified support to the measure now before the House,
and expressed a hope that it would be successful.—(Hear,
hear, and enthusiastic cheers, amidst which the Right
Hon. Baronet resumed his seat.)
Mr. T. BARING agreed that it was necessary to
apply practical remedies to practical grievances. As
one of the mercantile classes, he felt that restrictions
were injurious to trade, and that it was a desirable object
that the importing merchants should have the liberty of
importing what they thought proper. The difficulties
of the question were very great. The Hon. Member
referred to a treaty which we entered into with Austria,
the operation of which was much to the disadvantage of
the shipping interest of this country, and said the ques-
tion now was, whether the repeal of the navigation-laws
was desirable and necessary. It had been said that the
colonies had memorialised in favour of repeal; but he
denied that—he denied that the Mauritius and several
other colonies had memorialised for it; and with respect
to what had been said in relation to the feeling
of the West Indies on the subject, he was glad to
say
gtphlretuii
their threats
thsititih-haale,ratreaweaa change
n.
s_tds;
and iinnd.rawe a
Russia,there.—(Hear,
hadhe taken a
r.With) place
respecti n the
o
Portugal, opi-
nion
athetongut
oa mustrtahnsetaeye
hha
maintenance
e twhoeulddidaosnfko:t
hhearegarddnatyhie.
G
rh ooavisee rt
powershnemr eenatn, iyvnvt
oht
uhi
nledg envi
one
tn
the
huoet f t
Bill
repr
tnehaorlwo oa
bft
sethoseinto
et lhxacewc
uHs tiotouhnsa
e?t
that would give them a guarantee against those threats?
What were the principles of the Bill? The removal of
all restrictions from foreigners, and the maintenance
of all restrictions affecting English shipping intereats
—the taking from British shipowners what they pose
sessed of advantage, and the granting unto those
who had nothing to loco and nothing to give, facilities
in carrying on trade in a spirit of competition against
them. Sweden, for instance, was one of those powers.
IA us take Holland next. What does she give? The
trade with Java is in the hands of a commercial com-
pany, and they might decline agreeing with the propo-
sition of this Government—yet England could not
refuse Sweden or Holland the terms of this Bill. Re
was free to admit that much benefit would accrue to
this country if the United States would coincide, accord-
inee to the representation of Mr. Bancroft, with the pro-
posit o vernment; but the contrary is now
beyondplaceidonso f
His opinion, and he believed the
opinion of the country, was against this measure, and he,
that the mercantile marine, the
great
naval bulwark of the , nation would not be totally over-
therefore, hoped
the
doubt. Government;
looked by those w _
who were determined to support the
third reading of this Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said—lf
I feel any difficulty- in
addressing the Reuse upon the present occasion, xt