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

such an inquiry. It was obvious to every ono that, for
every ton of shipping which they drove from their shores
they they deprived the home merchant of the opportunt
disposing of an equal quantity of goods. The more h
ey
obstructed the merchant from pursuing his avocations
either by fixing him to any particular plceiliosr imposing
roesof
restrictions upon him, they circumscribe
profit. As an instance, be would give the fact that an
American ship brought hides t o Marseilles, and the
French consignee sent them to Rotterdam, where, not
meeting with a ready sale, the French merchant, con-
sidering them sufficiently naturalised by the transaction,
sent them to Liverpool. They were their seized by the
Custom-house officers, and were relieved on petition,
and on condition that they should bo sent back to New
York. They were accordingly sent, after being re-salted.
It was what was called the triangular trade that was
considered profitable, and why should they attempt to
interfere with it ? If the direct trade was more advan-
tageous, they would find all the capital of their mer-
chants
embarked. They would never find that human
laws would work so well as the natural laws that regu-
lated commerce ; and any attempt to interfere with
these natural laws would be sure to be followed by waste
and extravagance. Why, corn was manufactured into
flour, and flax into linen, and both these were European
manufactures, and all the impositions upon British ma•
nufactures amounted to a protection of British ship-
owners. Now, look at the consequences if they only
put a protection of ten shillings a ton on British ship-
ping. In 1843 there were 7,181,796 tons of British
shipping entered inwards and outwards, and if they only
imposed a protection of ten shillings a ton, it would act
as a tax to that extent for the British shipowner, and
would be a tax of 3,590,000/. upon the people of this
country. In 1845, there were 8,326,090 tons of British
shipping entered inwards and outwards, and the raising
the freights to ten shillings a ton imposed a tax et
4,273,045/. upon the manufacturers of Britain. He did
not mean to say that the profits would be raised to that
extent ; but, it they raised freights at all, it acted as a
tax to that amount ; and, if they did not raise freights,
it acted as no protection ; and, at any rate, the people
of this country had been taxed to upwards of four mil-
lions sterling. When the propositions of Mr.
Huskisson were made known to Mr. Marriott
that gentleman had given his opinion very strongly.
It was stated by Mr. Marriott, a staunch friend to pro-
tection, that if the navigation laws were repealed, the
monopoly with the West Indies would be at an end.
The system operated most injuriously for the colonies,
and they had good reason to complain. It was a bad
system to disintegrate the colonies from the rest of the
country for the advantage of the mother country, as
was done by the operation of the navigation laws. It
was through the operation of such laws as these that
Portugal lost Brazils, this country the United States,
Portugal Java, and Spain Cuba and her other extensive
colonies. Under the circumstances he might again ask,
whether there were any political or natural advantages
that justified their maintenance in future. Ile expected
that Adam Smith would be quoted by the other side
against him, but on this question he had departed
from his usual good course by failing to give
the arguments on which he based his opinion.
He was quite willing to give lion. Gentlemen the pro-
position, if they would give him the argument. All he
asked was, that if they quoted the opinion of Adam
Smith, they would read the sentence to an end, and not
keep back any portion of it. Now, it was stated that
the defensive navy was the safeguard of the British em-
pire. Perhaps he might then make some admissions
which would simplify his arguments ; first of all he ad-
mitted that the defensive navy was of the first impor•
Lance to the country; but they, on that side, also ad
mitred that the mercantile navy was the nucleus from
which the defensive navy a as supplied, inasmuch as it fur-
nished the elements for its maintenance. He would ad
rnit that at once; but he dt nied that they were encourag-
ing the commercial navy by throwing protection aroun:i
them, or reetrieting them in their commercial intercourse
with other nations. These were the dregs which
cramped all their efforts. Restriction and protection
rendered them inferior to the navies of other countries.
When an English merchant wrote to an American and
ordered goods from him, he gave particular iestruetions
to ship them, if possible, by an American ship. In
fact they h-al Only a home trade, because no other nation
although obliged to use foreign vessels, would ship their
merchandise on board of British vessels. The American
navy was the second navy in the world, for their tonnage
amounted to two and a half millions. It wns said that
America hal a great advantage over England in its
timber. For his part he was not at ad clear about it.
As far as regarded od: and teal:, they were in as good
a condition as the Americana were. Then, with respect
to wages, the wages of shipwrights in Sunderland, met
the other out ports, averaged from 3s. 6d. to 4s Well
what are wages in the United States ? Set!, n shillings day. One shilling higher than the wages of this country.'
Then they came to iron; it could not be eheaper than ie
this country. Carriage was certainly cheaper in England.
What then was the meaning of this cry—that they could
not protect themselves ? They would fled that the cost
of a vessel built in London was 5/. or 61. over that of one
built in Sunderland or Bristol. There WaS another
thing asserted, as entitling the Britieh shipowners to
some protection, namely, that they could not navigate
their ships as cheaply from this country as from foreigu
ones. It was stated that the Swedes and Dance had less
wages, and that they lived on biscuits and oil, and that
it would be a great convenience to be enabled to take
them. If that was the case. how was it that the Ameri
cans manned their navy principally with British sea
rues ? how was it that they pail them higher wage: ?
If this Committee were granted, he would undertake to
show that the British shipowners needed nn protection
In the year 1814, at tile cl se of the war, when the Eng-
lish ports were not very acceptable, and when they were
still under the Navigatioi La vs of Charles 11, in that
year there were 8,975 British ships in port, representing
a tonnage of 1,248,000 tons, and 5,286 foreign ship, re.
presenting 699,287 tens. In the year 1824 then were
ships representing 1,797,320 tons, and foreign ships re-
presenting 759,541 tons. In 1845, when no less than
twenty seven treaties lied been carried into effect, there
were ships representing 4,310,639 tons in port, and fo
reign ships representing 1,733,000 tons, showing a con-
siderably greater propertion of British and foreign ships.
He had made a calculation of the protected and unpro
tected tonnage of this country since 1826. The protected
tonnage were the ships belonging to Canada
and this country ; and those unprotected tonnage
belonging to foreign countries, who traded with Great
Britain. In 1826, the protected tonnage was 778,879 ;
in 1844, it was 3,012,133 ; showing an increase of
1,233,224 tons, or 69 par cent. In 1826,
the unprotected tonnage was 1,903,176 ; in 1824
it was 4,447,152. Showing an increase of
2,578,976, or 135 per cent. These facts he thought
proved satisfactorily, that protection had not operated
beneficially for the navy. They ought, therefore, to
look to some other means of encouraging that branch of
the service than the navigation laws. lion. Members
may depend upon it that the extension of factories in
the towns would ensure the extension of the navy, and
if they looked to the effects of the relaxations which
had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, it
was extraordinary to see how these relaxations
had worked for the better. In proof of this,
ho would just refer to the article of timber.
In 1843, the year before the restriction of the duty on
timber, there were in that trade 1,841 ships, represent-
ing a tonnage of 689,731. In 1345, the year after the
reduction of the duty, there were employed in the tim •
her trade 2,603 ships, representing 964,276 tons; thus
showing an increase in the course of one year, of more
than two thirds. Let them now take the quantity of
ships employed in the Foreign and British trade in the
Rine months ending the 10th Oct., 1844, and in the cor-
responding nine months ending 10th 0ct.,1846. Now, they
all knew that there were great relaxations between these
periods. They found, then, that in the nine months ending
in 1844, there were employed 4,332,821; and in the nine
months ending in 1846, there were employed 5,153,631
tons; showing an increase in the last year of 2,111 ships,
and above 800,000 tons. Let them take the colonial trade
for the five years ending 1839 ; the increase in that time
represented 1,503,673 tons, and the increase for the five
years ending 1845 was 2,055,600 tons. These were
facts and figures which spoke volumes. If he had in
the slightest degree made out to the mind of any Hon.
Gentleman that this law was mischievous in its operation
—if he had made out the slightest case to show that
relaxed duties as a principle was more efficacious than
protection AT restriction, then ware they bound to grant
the inquiry which he asked. They were bound'to refute
his facts and figures or allow him to substantiate them
before a Committee of the House of Commons. In
conclusion the Hon. Member thanked the House for the
attention with which they had listened to him throughout
his address.—(Cheers.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said that his Hon. Friend had submitte d
to the House a motion of much interest, and in doing so he
had called the attention of the House to the origin and history
of those laws, into the operation of which, he proposed that
an inquiry sheeld take place. The Hon. Member had prefaced
his motion by questioning the policy of these laws, and pointed
out many apparent anomalies in the working of these laws.
The present motion would not commit any lion. Member to any
course of conduct proposed by the Hon. Member, for the
sttlement of the question. If the Government gave their
consent to the appointment of the Committee, they would be
acting in strict accordance with the principles which all owed
the Committee to be appsinted in the year 1844,
the object of whose inquiry was the same as that sought by the
present motion. The report of that committee was, that they
were unable to conclude their inquiry. and they recommended
the re-appointment of the committee, with a view of continuing
the inquiry which they had commenced. It must have occurred
to the minds of most Hon. Members that in consequence of
the great commercial changes which had taken place in this
r country witkin these few years, that a necessity would arise
.o
an inquiry into the navigation laws, and that the same
reasons existing for the continuance of the navigation
laws, considerable modifications would be required.
He was quite sure thate the opinion expressed by the Hon.
Member, that thevrey Committee should be impartial, would be
e
assented to by ,
he n. Member present. On the part of
of the Government
wishedoito see the appointment of an
impartial Committee, selected
and talent would entitle the report such
persons whose position
ntt9hteimetiantiettreeintto. thethe
attention of the House.
he woueldeivreeds,earvned
House
the report of
smerits of the case,
the
use,knew whether
the Committee had been re
inerferer,ce with
the Committee would recommwehnithle
those laws. The Committee his II on. Friend had moved!
for should be acceded to by the Government.
Mr. LIDDELL regretted that he could not agree with the
motion of his Hon. Friend, and he hoped the House would \
bear with him for a short time, while he stated the grounds of
near' hear. )1
his opposition to the motion to the
He looked with suspicion to the quarter from whence the mo-
tion origineted,
notwithstanding tie
disclaimer of the Hon.
Mover that he did not intend to abolish the navigation laws.
eel, was not so much to show the
The whole object of his s.
ts
he country.m t
necessity of any inquiry ineto the subject, but rather to point
out the hardships endured by the chip-owners
Adam Smith had said that the navigationdt.' el
allw of
twereti
ted in 1845, was totally
essential bulwarks to the extends
.commerce of the country,
The object of the Committee, appeal
different from that sought by the Elen. Member in his present
motion, Twenty years since he had moved for a Committee
of inquiry into the subject, but that motion had been refused.
A Committee was obtained in the year 1344, which sat during
the whole of that session. The inquiry was not completed,
and in the session of 1845 it was re-appointee. It might be