The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-09 00:00:00

From the first introduction to Parliament of the principles of
freedom of Trade, the Ship Owners have felt that they have
had peculiar reason to complain of the severity with which
those principles have been applied to their injury, while other
interests, possessed of more powerful means of enforcing their
claims to exemption from the operation of the system, have
obtained the attention and relief they have sought.
The alteration in the Timber Duties, struck the first im-
portant blow at the principle of protection, on which the very
existence of British Shipping depends. The New Navigation
Act (3 Geo. IV. Cap. 43.) proceeded another step towards its
subversion ; the Warehousing Act (4 Geo. IV. Cap. 24.) fol-
lowed in the same track ; and the Reciprocity of Duties Act
appears to put the seal to the declaration, that in the future
policy of this country, Naval pre-eminence is to be consider-
ed subordinate to the encouragement of Foreign Commerce.
In the latter part of the year 1822, the Ship Owners re.
ceived the first intimation that it was in the contemplation of
his Majesty's Government to recommend to the Legislature,
the enactment of a law adopting the general principle, " That
" the vessels of foreign countries should be allowed to import
" into this country all articles whatever that may legally be
" imported, on payment of the same duties only as are paid
4' by British vessels importing similar articles, provided that
" British vessels are allowed to import goods into the poits of
" the country to which such foreign vessels may belong, on
" paynient of the same duties as are charged on similar im.
" portations by vessels of such countries."
Deeply impressed with the importance of such a measure ;
alarmed by a conviction of the injury that must result to every
interest dependent on the prosperity of British shipping, front
the admission of a principle involving a sudden and entire abro-
gation of that protection which It had been the policy of ages
to extend to those interests; and feelingly alive to the injustice ,
of exposing them, thus unprotected, to a competition, rendered
hopeless by the burthens anti • restrictions to which that same
policy continued to subject them. the Ship Owners urged on ,
his Majesty's Government the consideration of the principles on
which our Navigation System was founded : that the protection
it afforded to British shipping was only an equivalent for the
burthens and restrictions to which, for objects of great national
policy, it was subjected : that any measure therefore which
should withdraw that protection, ought to be accompanied by
a 'removal of all those burthens and restrictions from which the
foreigner is exempt ; for that, without such removal, it *ould •.
be obviously impossible for British shipping to sustain the ,
competition to which it would be exposed.
In thus confining their first remonstrance against the princi-
ple, to the consideration of its injustice alone, and waving alp
argument on the general policy of Its admission, the slap
Owners were neither insensible to its intimate connexion with •
the great question of National Security, nor ignorant of the ut-
ter impossibility of their being placed on a footing of real equa.
lity with Foreigners, by any remission of direct taxation, wile-,
ther on materials used in the building and equipment of Ships,
or in the shape of charges incident to their Navigation. Aware
that, by the effect of national restrictions, and the pressure of
indirect taxation, the expences of building, equipping, and
navigating British Ships, defied all possibility of succe,sful
competition with their Foreign Rivals, the British' Ship
Owners might have urged the impolicy of hazarding,..by the
ruin of our Commercial Marine, the future naval supremacy of
Britain ; but conceiving that by simply placing in the strongest
light, the intimate and inseparable connexion between restric-
tion for National objects, and proportionate protection for their
interests under that restriction, they were adducing an argu-
ment unanswerable, (and therefore, as they hoped, sufficient;)
and were at the same time pursuing a course the most decorous
and respectful to the Executive Government, they rested their
protest on this argument alone.
Nor indeed did they then conceive it possible, that on re-
consideration
of a question so important in all its bearings, the
illusions of theory could triumph over thepractical testimony borne
by experience to the soundness and wisdom of our Navigation
system they felt convinced that a sense of justice must continue
to them the protection of that System, so long as the restrictions
it imposes on building, equipping, manning, victualling, and
navigating their Ships were retained ; and they were satisfied
that prudence would forbid the abrogation of those restrictions :
how great then was their surprise at the introduction into Par-
liament of the Reciprocity of Ditties Bill; and how serious their
alarm at discovering, that while it proposed to abandon them at
once to Foreign competition, it contained no provision whatever
for that relief, by which even its supporters must admit, that coin.
petition can alone be maintained I—A General Meeting of Ship
Owners was convened, and some declaratory resolutions, anti
a petition against the bill were unanimously adopted.—(Vide
Appendix A and B.)
Notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of several enligh.
tened Members, to whose exertions the Ship Owners at large
are deeply indebted, the Bill passed the House of Commons on
the 4th of July 1823 ; and at the very close of the Session was
hurried through the House of Lords with a rapidity admitting
neither of opposition nor discussion, and which actually pre-
vented the presentation of several petitions against it. The Bill
consequently passed into a Law • but in the course of discussion
in the House of Commons, it did not escape notice, that state.
ments were .made of the comparative expences of building,
equipping, and navigating British and foreign ships a—of their
respective durability ;—their relative capacity; and other cir-
cumstances, on which the power of competition must obvineci,
depend ;—which were so utterly at variance with the experience
of' the Ship Owners themselves, as at once to excite surprise
that information so erroneous should have been adduced, and
mortification anti regret that no opportunity then remained for
disproving it in Parliament; since it could not be doubted that,
in sanctioning the Bill, the House had been influenced by those
statements, on which its policy and propriety had been defend.
ed. Sanguine however in the expectation that as the Law only
empowered, without rendering it obligatory on, the executive
government to act on its principle, a refutation of the statements
referred to might still prevent the actual infliction of tile evil,
the Ship Owners once more embraced the alternative of an ap-
peal to his Majesty's Government, entreating them " not to ex.
ercise the powers vested in them by the, Legislature under
" the Act in question, until opportunity had been afforded the
it Ship Owners of proving in what manner and degree the in-
" terests of British shipping would be thereby affected."
This appeal was contained in a petition to the Lords of his
Majesty's Most . Honourable Privy Council, dated the 4th of
August, 1823.—( Vide Appendix C.)
To this communication a Reply was received on the 14th of
August, intimating the readiness of their Lordships to receive
such further evidence as the Ship Owners might be prepared to
adduce, and containing an assurance that it should be brought
under the notice of his 31ajesty's Government, in reference to
the exercise of the discretion vested in the Crown under Act
referred to.—(Vide Appendix 1').)
From this period till December, the Ship Owners were en.
gaged in obtaining evidence to substatiate the allegations con-
tained in their Petitions, by reference to the most authentic
sources of information, British and Foreign. The result of
their labours is contained in the Report of. the Special Com
mittee, which, agreeably to the resolution of a General :Ileet-
ing) was forwarded without further comment, to the Lords of

But surely it must be obvious that the same arguments which
are now applied to his destruction, must recoil with unanswer-
able force on the other great sources of National Wealth, should
the principle of unrestricted Freedom of Trade be once gene.
rally established. .In vain will the Agriculturist then contend,
that as the expenses of cultivation are raised by political causes
over which he has no dontroul, to double the amount of those
which are incurred by his Foreign Rival, he is entitled to pro-
tdetion from their competition; (he will allege no more than
the Ship Owners have proved, although ineffectually.) In vain
will the Manufacturer urge the necessity for the like protection,
on the plea that he has embarked his capital on the faith of the
existing system, and that if it be abrogated, he is at least en-
titled to compensation : the property embarked in Shipping has
been vested on the same faith; yet the Ship Owner is condemn-
ed to hopeless competition, and his property to uncompensated
depreciation. Should the antiquity of the protective system, as
applied to the other sources of National importance, be pleaded,
the Ship Owner can adduce the most ancient Laws in his sup-
port. Should their association with national wealth be brought
forward, the Ship Owner in addition may plead his connexion
with national security as of much greater importance than' na-
tional opulence : in short, it is perfectly apparent, that if the
new principles be adopted, which' it is the avowed object of the
political Economists of the day to establish, and if consistency
be maintained, the consequences to all classes must, under the
existing circumstances of she country, .be as destructive to other
interests, as its first application bas been, and must prove to
British Shipping.
But if, relying on the influence by which the Corn Laws have
been retained • by which silks, and woollens, and gla,s, have
been exempted from the operation of the Warehousing Bill ;
and by which, even when admitted to competition, a protective
duty of 30 per cent. on foreign silks is to be continued ; the
agriculturist and the manufacturer imagine they shall be en-
abled to avert from themselves the injurious operation of the
principle of freedom of trade, thes4urely will admit that it
should not be applied to the ruin drone class, for
.the purpose
of favouring. another. If the soundness of the principle be such
as its advocates assert, it should surely in common justice
: be extended to all ; while if the theory be brand unsafe
for general application, those who are now selected us the
victims of- it, may reasonably expect that it should be aban-
doned.

Before closing these remarks, it is deemed proper to advert
to another more recent instance of inconsistency, in those who
advocate the principle of fair and equal competition in trade.
It is well known that the Coal Trade, as the most valuable
nursery for seamen, has always been cherished with peculiar
care, and accordingly, for its encouragement, coal (except in
very limited quantity), has been prohibited from being brought
by inland carriage, into the metropolis. That attempts would
be made to remove this prohibition, and to place inland and sea-
borne coal on the equal basis of open competition, was to be ex-
pected from the present disposition to under-rate the importance
of Naval Power, and to disregard the claim* of the proprietors
of Shipping ; but it was scarcely to be expected that, instead
of an equality of Duty, the Legislature should have been in-
duced to sanction the almost entire rembetion of Duty on In-
land Coal, leaving that which is brought Coastwise subject to
a Tax of six shilling per Chaldron ! To subject the Ship
Owner in one Session of Parliament by the Reciprocity of
Duties Act, to the injury resulting from the general principles
of Free Trade as regards Foreigners, and to enact a law to his
detriment in the succeeding one, founded in violation of the
most obvious of those principles as applied to the Home Trade,
forms at once an inconsistency and a hardship, to which it is
not easy to find a parallel.
In conclusion, the Committee would earnestly intreat the
particular attention of Ship Owners to the documents herewith
submitted to their consideration: to the uncontradicted state;
anent of facts therein exhibited : to tl proof they afford, that
most of the assertions by which the 'Reciprocity of Duties Act
was recommended to the support of the Legislature, were un-
founded ; that our Foreign rivale enter the lists of. competition
with an advantage of 40 per Cent, on their Capitals employed in
Shipping ; and that, whit the existing
their respective expences, all hope enormous disparity in
of successful competition is
vain, and must continue so, even under any remission ofdirect
Tuxation which It is in the power of the Legislature to
grant. And since it is plain that in sanctioning the measure in
question, the House of Common, were influenced by erroneous
representations on these subjects, it
must be obvious, that if
any hope exists of inducing the Legislature to retrace its steps,
it must be through the medium of decisive refutation of those
representations. That refutation the Committee conceive is now
offered ; and it must rest with those Ship Owners who have
weight in the Maritime Ports represented in Parliament, to urge
on their Representatives, a consideration of all the hearings of
this interesting question. Such a remonstrance cannot be made
put Members on their guard, in the event of further measures
in vain. It will at least induce:an inquiry,
oppressive which cannot fail to
to Shipping Property being proposed. It must
teach caution in admitting assertion as proof, „,4 the at.
cessity of inquiry iron' alleged facts, bvtbre they are allowed to
become the basis of LegiellitiOn.
Those effects be more ex-
tesubjectsatisfied,
y
will,
ti thee moreCmi
itself is in-
vestigated : it remains to be seen how far united exertions for
neesiprtxluced,iom minutelyttee are
th e
the theseinination of truth, may avert the further evils of a
course of policy which the Ship Owners believe to be founded
in error, and feel to be attended with injuetitte.
London 30th May, 1824.

APPENDIX.
(A.)

At a Special Meeting of Ship Owners of London, held at the
City of London Tavern, the Ifith June, 1823, confomiable
to public advertisenient, to consider of the hill proposed to
be introduced into Parliament, to authorise his Majesty in
Council to equalize the Duties on Goods Imported or rot-
ported in British and Foreign
Resolved—That The Bill which iv proposed to he introduced.
into the House of Commons, to authorise his Majesty's Go-
vernment to admit the Importation of Merchandise in Foreign
Ships at the same rates of Duty as Importations in British
Ships, from rountries m
`the Governents.whereof may think fit
to act upon riAimilerprinciple, appears to this Meeting to con.
template a departure from the British Navigation Code, fraught
with the mcst dangerous conSequent4:B to the British Shipping
Interest.

That the British Ship Owner is not in a situation to maintain
an open competition with the Ship Owners of those countries
which will be principally affected by the proposed measure.
That, for objects of great national policy, the British Ship
Owner is, by legislative enactment, subject the plait rigti
restrictions in the bilildirg, equipprz, and navigating, hi..

Sheweth—That your Petitioners have seen, with the utmost
alarm, that a Bill has been introduced into your llonourable
House, entitled a " Bill to authorise his Majesty, undo. cer-
tain circumstances, to regulate the Duties and Drawbacks on
Goods imported or exported in foreign vessels ;"'which declares
it to be expedient, " that his 'Majesty should be empowered to
allow the importation or exportation of any Goods, Wares, and
Merchandise, in foreign vessels, upon payment of the like
Duties, and with the like Drawbacks, Bounties, and Allow,
ances as are now by law paid or granted upon similar Goods,
Wares, and Merchandise, when imported or exported in Bri-
tish vessels, from or to those countries in which no other Duties
are charged, or other Drawbacks, Bounties, or. Allowances
granted, upon the importation or exportation of any Goods,
Wares, or Merchandise, into or from such country, in British
vessels, than are charged or granted upon such Goods when
imported or exported into or from such countries in foreign
vessels."

That as it cannot be doubted that a role by which the foreign
shipping interest will be greatly benefited ;—which subverts a
principle that has been acted upon by this country during the
last 200 years;--and which has so essentially conduced to the
establishment of her naval superiority, will he readily and
exultingly adopted by every nation that has the means, and is
desirous of possessing an extensive Marine, your Petitioners
are unable to contemplate the proposed alteration in the law,
in any other light than as a change of system, directly tending
to the exclusion of British ships from all participation in the
trade of those countries.
That your Petitioners trust that such also will be the convic-•
don of your Honourable House, when you take into your con-
sideration, the British Ship Owner is subject to heavy Duties
on some of the most important Articles used in the construction
and equipment of his Ships; and, that three fourths of the
crews must be British Seamen, whose wages are higher than
others ; whilst the Ship Owners of the Baltic and Norway, have
the means of building, equipping, and navigating their Ships
at an infinitely less cost, having all the materials at hand, free
of Duty ;—the expence of victualling their Seamen being much
less ;—and their wages not being one half the amount paid to
British Seamen on similar voyages.
That even the existing differences of Duties and Bounties on
particular articles, in favour of British Ships (the removal of
which is contemplated by the said Bill), are not found to be suf.
cient to enable them to sustain the competition to which they are
exposed in the Trade of the North of Europe, as will be seen
on a reference to the official Accounts ; by which it will appear,
that of the considerable increase in the tonnage entered from
Holland, Flanders, Norway, Prussia, and Sweden, in the last
three years, the largest proportion has been in the Ships of
those Countries, viz.

Tons Brit. Tons Forn.
In the Year 1820 160,288 137,336
1 181,484 136,432
2 199,484 - 187,181
the removal therefore of such difference of Duties and Bounties
cannot but be attended with the most injurious consequences
to your Petitioners.

That since the return of peace, British Shipping has fallen
in value one half, and has been, for the most part, unpro3
ductive to the Owners; and the consequence is, that the num-
ber of Ships is annually diminishing ; and that Shipbuilding
is rapidly on the decline ; as will appear from the following
extracts from the Official Accounts :

Number of Ships, Tons, and Seamen employed in Navi-
gating them, belonging to the British Dominions: ...
Ships. Tons. Men.
In the year 1818 25,507 2,674,468 173,607
19 26,482 2,666,396 174,373
20 25,374 2,648,593
.174,414
21 25,036 2,560,802 169,179
22 24642 2,519,044 166,333
Number of Ships built in the British Dominions :
' Ships. Tons.
In the year 1818 1,049 104,366
19 1,125 112,173
20 883 84,582
21 879 74,847
22 723 62,534
That your petitioners observe, that in the votes of your Ho-
nourable ,House,. the said Bill is termed the " Reciprocity of
Duties Bill ;"_ but your petitioners humbly beg to submit to
your Hon. House, that there is no " Reciprocity" in an equality
of Duties and Drawbacks, so lon as British Ships are subject
to heavy burthens, or various descriptions, from which Fo-
reign Slops are exempt ; And as to Foreign Countries retaliat-
ing uon British Ships, in their Ports, the higher Duties which,
for tie protection of British Shipping,, are payable upon cer-
tain raciest when imported into this count:yin Foreign Ships, ,
(the 'Obits of which it is proposed to avert br removing such
difference of • Duty) your petitioners humbly beg to remind
your Eton. House, that almost every Ship that arrives from
those colititries imports a Cargo ; whilst not one in three of
them takes back any (foods from this country: ....• _
Vow: petitioners beg further to point out to your tionaiouse,
that all equality of Duties, as proposed by the said Bill, would,
ih effect, he a repeal ti the most important part of the• Act of
the first ii rtl second of his present Majesty, Cap. 37, altering
'IV. -T-Ll'l s L.:l 'limber) which was passed atter the most