The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

lawswesrtenr
tinmehlaarwdssh
wipesrelVneorw the etoopearnattihoon
world,
theld
snalavdigthaatitonth
and the shipowners of the world had only to act in conformity
with those laws in order to prevent the recurrence of those
Lordships. The Hon. Member had said that the navigation
laws did not foster the commerce and shipping of the country,
and quoted as a proof the different prices paid for labour con-
nected with the shipping trade in various parts of the world.
Mr. Huskisson had said that the navigation law, were twofold,
first, to maintain a great commercial marine fcr the purpose
of national defence, and, secondly, to prevent ~ny other nation
from engrossing too much of the navigation of r e world. The
wasting and fishing trade were also materially affected by the
operation of those laws. Mr. Huskisson also said that the
altered condition of the world, referring to the period at the
close of the long war, when the British navy had swept all hos-
tile fleets from the face of the earth, demanded the existence of
these navigation laws, and that, so far as exclusion of other
nations was eonoerned, it was right to grant a perfect mono-
poly of the carrying trade to the shipping of England, not for
the purpose of affording advantages to the shipowners, but be-
cause the merchant service was always to be looked
upon as the nursery for the British navy. He
(Mr. Liddell) little thought that when the shipowners were
willing to give their sanction to a temporary suspension of the
navigation laws a short time since, that that would be made use
of as a peg upon which to hang the present Committee. The
present Parliament must be dissolved in a few months, and he
thought it was not wise on the part of the Government to
commence an inquiry of so complicated a nature as the present
would be. He was sure the Noble Lord had plenty of other
work to attend to than commence so protracted and lengthened
an inquiry, as an inquiry into the navigation laws would prove.
The wages of a shipwright in London was 6s. per day, while
at Toulon it was only one franc and a half per day. There was
no more certain indication of a prosperous country than that
of high wages and the high prices of food.—(Cheers and
counter cheers.) He should be glad to hear that fact con-
tradicted by Hen. Members, if they were able to do so. The
Hon. Geatlenaan then proceeded to read returns of British
and foreign ships that had passed the Sound in 1835, 1836,
1837, 1842, 1843, and in 1844, which showed the proportion
of British vessels to be comparatively on the decrease. In the
enormously increased trade which had sprung up he must say
that there would hove been ample means to give
employment to British shipping, had it not been
for the very great and the unequal competition
to which they were exposed. He would now take those
countriesin both of which the shipping interest had to contend
to show the effect in 1844 of that competition. He would take
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Prussia, to show the propor-
tion of ships belonging to those countries that entered the port
of Hall, as compared with British shipping. He would first ef
all compare with Swedes. There were of British ships 30,
' with a tonnage of 5,387 tons, and of Swedish ships 120, with
a tonnage of 1,400 tons. Of Norwegian vessels there were 29,
with a tonnage of 3,043 tons ; while of British vessels there
were only 2, with a tonnage of 160 tons. With Denmark the
proportion was still more unfavourable. The British ships
were 37, while of Danish ships there were 492, with a
tonnage of 34,445 tons. The proportion with Prussia
was 80 British ships, with a tonnage of 10,812 tons,
and 222 Prussian vessels, with a tonnage of 22,688 tons. He
would now ask why they. were told of the benefits and advan-
tages of free and unrestricted competition with the world. It
could surely not be evidenced by those returns. He hoped the
House would not be misled by clamour on this subject, and
would not take any steps that would be injurious to British
commerce, to the wealth of England, and the varied interests
supported by this protection. The Hon. Member then referred
to Mr. Hutchinson's returns of the shipping of the United
Kingdom during 1816 and 1826, which showed that there had
been an increase in the number of vessels. An argument
might be drawn from this, that if they could maintain sa large
an _mount of shipping, that they had not suffered much from
the competition to which they were subjected ; but it must be
remembered that there had been an immense increase in
the exports and imports. In the article of cotton there had
been, in 1816, sixty millions of pounds imported, while in
1846 there had been one hundred and fifty millions, and in
1843, six hundred and seventy three millions. In wood, wine,
tobacco, tea, wool, coffee, dry stuffs, alkali, arid manures of all
kinds, who could fail to perceive that there had been the most
incredible traffic, which must necessarily have given great
employment to the shipping interest of this country, had it not
been for the competition in the carrying trade, which they had
experienced ?—that competition, which was now sought to be
made more severe by the removal of the protection which it
possessed. Ile purp sely abstained from going into further
details. It was statcal that if the Committee sat upon these
laws, certain evidence might be given which would show that
the shipping i .tere.st were fettered with restrictions which
would not be known without that investigation. But if that
%ver_ the object of the Hon. Gentleman, why did he not state
that as a reason for his motion? Why did he confine himself
to the alleged injury which he said these laws did to the com-
merce of the country, and make statements of the most un-
founded nature v. ith reference to this subject—assuming that
they imposed an addition on freight of 10s, per ton, and were
a taxation on the commerce of the country to the amount of four
and a half millions. _ _ _

Mr. RICARDO begged to correct the Hon. Gentleman.
Ile only put an hypothetical case.
Mr. LIDDELL said that that was the reason why he
objected to the statemen's of the Hon. Member.—( Hear,
hear.) Passing over that, however, he would say, if the
Government would fuly take the question up, and appoint a
committee, he would have no objection to their doing so, pro-
vided they gave him an assurance that before they removed
protection they wou'd remove restriction.—( Hear, hear.)
That, however, was so much better stated by the Shipowners
Society that he would take the liberty of reading their senti-
ments on the subject. The Hon. Member here read extracts
' front a report of that society to the effect " that the shipowners
advanced no claim to exclusive protection, but if for the
purposes of the State, and for questions of public
prudence burdens had teen imposed upon them, they
did not think they should be placed on the same
footing with those who were free from them. "
Upon his honour and conscience, he considered, if they re-
moved that protection which the British shipping enjoyed at
present, that these important interests would decline, and they
should appear in the eyes of foreign nations in a ridiculous
:ight, if they carried out the principles of free trade with re-
spect to shipping to the extent proposed. Where gas this
to end? If we made this country one universal workshop,
where were we to reinforce our army or our navy? Was it
among the stunted inhabitants of our cities, or the wretches'
labourers of the factories?
Non his juventes or ta parentibas
It,fecit 2,!‘itior sanguine Portico ;
Pyrrhurnque, et iii entem cecidit
A ntiochum, fiannibalemque dirty!):
Sed rusticorum masculamilitum

1 Proles—.
He trusted, then, that regard would be had to the great in-
terests of the country, and that the House would not, in a
moment of delusion, grant the Committee now sought for.
Mr. HUME was not surprised that the lion. Gentleman
objected to an inquiry, seeing that it could not fail to afford
the House an opportunity of ascertaining how injurious the
navigation laws had proved. Undoubtedly the Hon Gentle-
man, as a protectioni.t, was bound to maintain the principle of
protection to the las) ; but he could not blame the Govern-
ment fur having carried out the principles of free trade, because
they had simply yielded to the wishes of the people. The
chipping interest was the only one that now looked for protec-
tion ; this was the more remarkable since treaties of recipro-
city had been entered into with other countries which offered
them advantages ; and by not availing themselves of
them they had committed a great mistake ; but now
that the House and the Government had admitted that
protection was unjust to the community, and advantageous
only to the few, he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman
could call upon the House to support him in maintaining the
last remnant of protection that remained.—( Hear, hear.)
He had referred so far back as 1816 to show that protection
ought not to be removed; but, after a great change had taken
place is the opinions of the people and of that House, and no
Government could now long continue which did not carry out
the principles of free trade to the utmost, for himself he
would say, " Do not stop with shipping; do not stop any-
where."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman
had talked of the disadvantages under which Englishmen would
labour if this protection was removed ; but he (Mr. Hume)
could not understand why they could not compete with the
people of other countries if they gave them the means of doing
so by freeing their labour from injurious restrictions. He had
never concealed his opinion that the shipowners carried on
their business under great disadvantages, but the fault rested
with those who favoured protection, as food had been kept at a
high price, and their expenses had been proportionably high.
They had a fleet of six hundred South Sea whalers, but pro-
tection had allowed the United States to construct seven
hundred ships for a similar purpose. (An Hon. Member
opposite called the Hon. Gentleman's attention to a Com-
mittee which had sat on the subject of the navigation laws.)
The object of that Committee was to obtain a greater degree
of protection than heretofore, but the evidence in favour of
it broke down, still he admitted that whenever taxes had been
imposed that the shipowners had more than their share of
them. The duties on timber were exceedingly heavy, on
foreign fir it was as much as 2.30/. per cent., but
if these restrictions had been removed, no doubt
the shipping would have increased. ( Hear, hear.)
But who was to blame? In 1833, when the Government
wished to remove the taxes upon timber, the protectionists
joined the corn protectors, if he might so speak, and threw out
the measure ; so that if the shipping interests had improved,
they had improved under great disadvantage ; but he appre-
hended that the time was not far distant when those who now
supported this protection would be anxious to have it removed,
because he was of opinion that the interests of the British
shipowner depended upon perfect freedom, but so long as the 1
Navigation Laws remained, his exertions would be crippled ;
and no doubt it would be incontestably proved, if the Committee
were appointed, that those laws were not only injurious to the
shipping interests at home, but in the colonies. With respect to
reciprocity, he might tell the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell)
that Mr. Huskisson found it necessary either to adopt that
principle or to have our ships shut out entirely from the nations
on the Continent, and he adopted the principle wisely. His
( Mr. Hume's) opinion was, that every man who was in favour
of protection carried in his mind a principle of injustice.—
( Ironical cheers.) That was his interpretation of the meaning
of protection.—( Hear.) But one material thing to be ascer-
tained by such a Committee was, how far the navigation laws
had been modified; fur he was correct in stating that modifi-
cations had taken place which might, on investigation, be
found to have destroyed those advantages which the Hon.
Gentleman was so desirous to have maintained. The colonies
had a right to he placed on an equal footing with this country
in respect to those laws, as he was at a loss to understand why
they should not participate in those reductions which had been
made in favour of similar interests at home. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then read a paper to show that the navigation laws
operated injuriously in this respect, perticularly in reference to
the conveyance of grain between Alontreal, New York, and
this country. The time was come when they could no
longee delay such an inquiry as was demanded. If, in that
inquiry, it could not be proved that the removal of these re-
strictions would tend to the advantage of the country, if it
could not be proved that they would promote an increase of
their seamen, he should not be the person to urge their
abandonment. He was glad that his lion. Friend had brought
forward the motion. He would say more, that the Hon.
Gentleman was not more anxious to forward the shipping
interest of tke country, than he was. If they would allow
the importation of timber and materials into the country,
without duty, their ports would not be overburdened with i
crionial shipping. They would establish England as the work-
shop of ships; and he knew no reason why they should not
manufacture ships mouth better and much cheaper than in any i
other country—it was the natural manufacture of the country
—whilst the Irishmen objected to the sea, the Scotehman and
the Englishmen had an affection for it, they had stopped the
natural bent of their inclinations by their course of legislation.
He would conclude by seconding the motion.
Srtiion WALTERto the
JAMES said he had paid the strictest at-
tens-t°l"'":43tuh-eTtrie'enet, cito(t)i wthhicetlit 'hue Gcoeunitdlerminatp nStehaek Itioeomhbiegriirlyor,
al:eden ‘myba'deeli Cowraessistwir,:i
He must say, that ie
been conceded by
by the parties themselves. ov.erntihneenitp.:::l",:e,d_o_h_f
tion on the part of some 1.7.3" a
no reason why they shouldrneTd.'
high-flying patriotism on
appeared to him, no fair ground has
deserving of the name he bore.
the Government,
anti that when such an inquiry had )
aigttrl a
:byucaie:no
uatsl ectissloasaruntmd
assump-
tion '
gtebraieets iosft i
willtt.h no
,:etH e could
permit
gentlemeni acet . " i
to come forward, and uponpart
silaty to say, " this shalt not be-own "I'n- ,
Why, what was asked? Nothing
gation. it looked ss if they had sornethin.g t inquiryo aen„ndeelaftiv:alild-

, that they were conscious of the debility of their case. The
motion appeared to him to bear a most remarkable analogy
to one made by Mr. Cobden, for an inquiry into the
effects of the Corn-law upon the agricultural classes.
That inquiry was denied, and at a late period it was
found that the agricultural interest suffered materially
from its refusal. The Noble Member for Newark went
out into the same lobby with Mr. Cobden ; he hoped that he
would, upon that occasion, follow his own example. Since the
alteration in the navigation laws by Mr. Huskisson, the Baltic
trade had greatly increased. Where formerly there were
thirty Swedish ships, there were now one hundred and twenty ;
and where there had been eighty Prussian ships, there
were now two hundred, and twenty-two. There was one ad-
ditional advantage in free trade, and that is, one nation does
not exclusively advance its own interest by it, but hasthe satis-
faction of seeing the whole European community prosper.
That portion of the British shipping from which restriction had
been removed had flourished in a much greater proportion than
the other.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that the gentlemen who
sought the inquiry had already made up their minds to an al-
teration, or, at least, a modification of the navigation laws.
The Hon. Member for Montrose expressed his opinion man-
fully, as he always did. He had told them that he wanted ne
inquiry whatever; that his mind was made up as to their in-
expediency. H slamented friend, Mr. Somes, in his evi-
dence, stated that in the last twenty years British tonnage in-
creased 42} per cent., while foreign tonnage increased
272 per cent (Hear, hear.) Now that was a fact
which proved the absolute necessity of protection.
The Hon. Member had said that the average amount of British
tonnage entered during the course of last year amounted to
eight millions of tons ; that of course including steam ships
engaged in the coasting trade. He had raised an hypothesis
to form an argument upon, that there must be a loss to the
merchants and commerce of this country of 10s. per ton.
What was the fact? If they took the average rate of the
freight of all the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, it did
not amount to 10s. per ton. The country could not, therefore,
sacrifice four millions per annum in its shipping. The Hon.
:Heather for Durham knew very well that on bringing coals
from Newcastle to London the freight was only 7s. ed. per
ton, and that was an advance upon the old rate of freight.
The Hon. Member for Montrose said that the system of the
navigation laws was injurious to the whole shipping interest,
and he in vain attempted to prove that assertion. His Hon.
Friend was quite aware that in Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and Prince Edward Island a vast amount of tonnage
was built every year, and every one of the ships so built was en-
titled to the benefit of these laws, and he conceived that a great
injustice would be done to the already much injured colonies
in North America, if they attempted to destroy the effect of
the laws. The same argument applied to the East Indies ;
and the only colony which he was aware of that had a right to
complain of these laws were the West India Islands, but they
carried on a beneficial trade with America, and took all their
timber in exchange for their sugar. With regard to the Com-
mittee of 1844, a gentleman, whose name had been men-
tioned by the Hon. Member for:Stoke (Mr. G. F. Young), who
when he was asked as to the state of navigation in this coun-
try, said that since the year 1840, British shipping had fallen
25 per cent. ; and that was in consequence of an efficient sys-
tem not having been carried out. If the Government was of
opinion that any alteration in the navigation laws was neces-
sary, why did they not come forward boldly at once, and not
keep this vast interest in a state of suspense.
Mr. BRIGHT said that great difference of opinion seemed
to exist on this subject, many Gentlemen confidently holding
the most opposite beliefs. The Hon. Member for Stoke said
that the navigation laws were only fair-weather laws, and
would not suit the country in times of difficulty and danger.
The Hon. Member for Westmoreland said that the Committee
appointed in 1544. was not a Committee to inquire into the
navigation laws. He (Mr. Bright) thought that it was not,
upon the reference ; but he appealed to any Member, on that
Committee, whether the principal bearing of the evidence,
brought forward on behalf of the shipowners, was not to show
that the depression existing in the shipping trade, was
to be attributed to the navigation laws, under the
Reciprocity Act ; and if the Honourable Member
!lad read further into the examination of Mr. G. F.
Young, he would have found that that gentleman stated that
a relaxation of the navigation laws caused the misfortune of
the fall in the shipping interest. As an instance, he would
state that a gentleman some time since purchased cotton in
Havre when the prices were rising in England, with a view of
bringing it into market, but the navigation laws prevented any
American cotton whatever being brought to this country, and
the parties were obliged to send it back to the United States,
and then bring it over into this country, thus leaving the
market unsupplied, and inflicting a serious evil on
the men:liants. Another instance was in the know-
ledge of the Hoe. Member for South Lancashire.
A ship arrived in Liverpool from the United States to take
in a cargo of British manufactures for Hong Kong. An
objection was raised by the collector, and after some discuasion,
i: was decided that the vessel could not go to Hong Kong, arid
A cargo worth 2.0,6001. or 30,0001. was obliged to be sent on
to Canton ; and, in these circumstances, he for one should vote,
for the inquiry proposed.
Lord SANDON said, that if a question of such moment
was to be brought forward at all, it ought to be brought for-
ward by ;he Government, instead of by a single Member of
'he House. He thought that an inquiry was necessary to be
made from time to time, to see how the laws were operating.
and to see if it was necessary to change their principle. He
did think it was not right of the Government to leave a ques-
tion of this magnitude without guidance or responsibility in
'he hands of a private Member of the House. He thought
that some inquiry was absolutely necessary, for the purpose of
protecting the shipowners in their present helpless state, and he
should therefore support the motion.
Mr. L ABOUC HERE thought it very unjust to say that
'his question ought to be in the hands of a private Member of
that House. He differed very much from his Noble Friend,
tor he thought this a very fit question for the House to deter-
mine. 'These laws should be the subject of cautious, deliberate,
and careful consideration, to see how far any modification of
them should extend. His Hon. Friend showed it was alto-
gether wrong to leave the question to be brought on in the
Rouse of Commons. When he remembered what subject had
been brought on in that House, he hoped he never should see
•hetime when any Government of this country should assume

iuch a control in the House of Commons, as -to reply to any
Nletub2r bringing forward a motion, that it was not
a tit subject for a Committee of the House to consider.
He could appeal to the recollection of that House, whether the
;rareFt and most important questions It ad not been dealt with
under all Governments in this manner ; questions affecting the
chipping interest, the timber duties, and other matters involv-
.ng the greatest eth,siderations had been brought forward on

'he mono-A
of the independent members, and referred to Corn-
(
:nittees There had been questions involving colonial interests
recently investigated by Select Committees. Undoubtedly it
was impossible to deny, that inquiries of this sort, might in a
certain degree, be thrown in doubt in the minds of persons
connected with the interests to which they referred.
He confessed he saw no objection whatever to the motion, nor
~ould he spec with the Noble Lord as to the course the Go-
vernment ought to have pursued. He did not think the Go-
vernment or the House ought to interfere with independent
bt i
eo neso
mo thisfm it t iknign dt
h,
enor s
edl ivde
shteocaon;
n:,ipidei encar thei
opinion erosnbtheriGovernmentngi ng
navigation
fforward
wrw arodluanlwd:
by assenting to the appointment
:if the Committee. There was no difficulty whatever in the
course. Thu Government and the House, he was persuaded,
in the altered circumstances of the country, the change which
had taken place in commercial policy, and in consideration of
the respect which was due to their great colonial interests,
whose prosperity was so materially affected, should consentto the
question being scrutinised. A Select Committee was the best
place for that inquiry to take place, as he believed the repre-
sentatives of the colonial interests would be then duly consi-
dered and reported. The colonial interests in the recent
changes which had taken place had complair.ed that they had
been badly used, and if such a Committee were appointed
they would have an opportunity of fairly stating , their case.
In the petitions which the representatives of those interests
had preferred to this House they asked an opportunity of
doing so; if so, there could be no better or fairer means than
a Committee fairly selected by the House.—( Hear.
bear.) He must protest against the doctrine laid
down by the Noble Lord, that it was the duty
of the Government to preclude independent Members
from bringing forward such motions as this. As a member of
the Government, he would never shrink from a fair degree of
responsibility for the measures submitted by them to the House,
but on the other hand, he would never question the right of
independent Members to bring before the House any question
which they considered to require investigation. He did not
think the House should refuse to accede to the present motion,
because it was not brought forward by a Minister of the Crown.
If the: Committee were appointed and submitted their re-
port, then it would be for the Government to con-
sider whether they should take its recommendations
in whole or in part, and act upon them. He did not
think, therefore, he would be acting right in opposing the
appointment of the present Select Committee.--( Hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCK differed altogether from the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and concurred with the Noble Lord the
Member for Liverpool. He did no, because he thought on
the present question, affecting so greatly their national policy,
her Majesty's Government should net permit it to be sent up
stairs to a Select Committee, especially when the proposer and
aceooa..- ~f the motion had compared the large and important
commercial interests or the tA.,...e..7 '^ P.Alars with packhorses,
and that trade in shipping should be as free as trade in shoes.
—( Hear, hear.) If that was the spirit in which a great in-
quiry was to be conducted, it must be clear to the Govern-
ment, to the House, and the shipping interest of the country,
that the animus of this inquiry would be different to that
which actuated the Committee of 1844. That Committee
did not inquire into the operation or policy of the navigation
laws, but merely the state of the commercial marine of the
country, with the view as to the best measures to
encourage the shipping interests. The object of the Yon.
Member for the Potteries, on the ether hand, was to weaken
the shipping interests of the country—to grind down the ship-
wrights of London from 6s. a-day to 3s. 6d. And in doing so
he would lead them to believe that the effect of repealing the
core-laws would be something in effect to the resolution of the
Irish soldier, who spent 2s. 6d. out of 6d a-day. They were
told that the effect would be to diminish the rate of freights
10s. a ton; whereas they were only 7s. 6d. at the
present time.—(Hear, hear.) These were the views
which the Honourable Member for the Potteries brought
to the inquiry. They had also been told that through the
operation of the navigation laws this country had lost the
British colonies. To that he (Lord Geo. l3entinck) would
answer, that history was mistaken if that event had not arisen
from the imposition of a tax on tea by the Parliament of this
country.—( Hear, hear.) They had likewise been informed
that Portugal had lost the Brazils through the operation of the
navigation laws.
Mr. RICARDO—No, no, I did not say so.
Lord GEO. BENTINCK—There was no doubt that the
I-ion. Member at all events attributed the loss of the Brazils
to the colonial system, by which she had not been allowed to
trsde with other countries than Portugal. That was a position
to which he ( Lord George Bentinck) could not accede. For
thesed
trheeas3oinesnb
reasons, he wfooruLldivtearpkeootlh,eansdamreesisctotuhrspeinasquitrhye. Noble
L
Lord SANDON said he did not intend to oppose the
, motion. _ _

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said, then he must have
m]staken the intention of the Noble Lord, for he believed he
had intimated that he would resist the motion altogether. The
Han. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt) had endeavoured to excite
the members on this (the protectionists) side of the House
against opposing the motion. There was no doubt that that
Hon Gentlemon had at one time or another turned his back on
every boat he had sailed in, but he (Lord George Bentinek)
could trust those friends by whom he was surrounded, and had
no doubt, that acting on the principles of consistency they had
hitherto pursued, they would resist the present inquiry.
Mr. MITCHELL said, it appeared the Noble Lord who
ha.i just sat down, and his friends supported the Committee
of 18.44, because they had agreed to it, and it proceeded from
themselves, while now they ppesed the present motion be-
cause the proposer and seconder were opposed to the prin-
ciple of the navigation laws. This seemed to be the only
reason. Now, the qeestion was ono which only could be
se' tied by an inquiry, and the present time was ore when they
could do so with perfect safety. A great deal had been said
abent freights, but his opinion was that they would not be
materialiy affected by a repeal of the navigaticn laws. The
principal benefit would be to check high freights when there
was a great demand for shipping as at present.—( Hear,
}Tar.) While on this subject he must remark,
success-
re
that the reason why our ships couldpeated
pnroootfi
fuiv
inefficiency of the captains. He hail compete with those of foreign countries, was the