The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-30 00:00:00

would any one contend that they would not be an
immense and useless burden to us ? He, for one,
Would say that if such was to be the future policy
of the country, he would be no party to tax the people
of England to maintain colonies, which Ministers by
their measures had ruined, destroyed, and rendered
useless to them.—(Hear, hear.) To show that this was
not mere idle declamation, but that it was a feel,ne-
. Which obtained to a great extent, he would read a reso-
lution come to by the West India Association of Liver-
Paoli in which they said it was impossible for the West
India colonies to continue the production of sugar and
coffee on terms of equal competition with foreigners, and
Pthat there was no course left for the West India interest
to appeal to the Crown to release them from their
t
sent unprofitable allegiance, in order that they might
attach themselves to some other country that
`Phiswould
extend to them the protection of a parent state.
was important,g
as showing that the West indiainterest
felt that they' might ht be driven to seek from the United
States that protection which was so cruelly denied to
them by England. was anxious that the people of
England should fairly anderstand what must be the effect o
these measures as regarded the colonies? because if then
theyhe supported the Government in them they would
themselves alone to blame. He would now in-
!Niro as to what must be the effect on our shipping
• Interest. The Right Hon. Gentleman, when he brought
forward these resolutions, admitted that the power
and greatness of the country depended on the mainten-
steenne of her commercial marine: it followed, therefore,
ert any measure which was calculated to weaken
commercial marine of England and strengthen
that of the United States, would be injurious to us in the
proportion as it was advantageous to our rivals.
• teas
e would take that admission as granted. Now, what
• was promised to the people of England in the way of
f• ni3rapensation for this injury? A reduction in freights.
--(l:rear.) And they had been told that that reduction
iuld not be less than one million annually. Admits_
g the correctness of that estimate, for the sake of
.!rgninent, it was because he believed the interest of the
tethritiah shipowner was the interest of the whole people,
.ee teat he Was prepared to maintain that interest, even at
cos oe
.t a million a year.—(Hear, hear.) But how
was this advantage of reuced freight to be obtained?
13 theßut employment of foreign ships.—(Hear, hear.)
must as we gave employment to foreign ships, we
tcould: adoisplace our own ships.—(Cheers.) They
employ foreign ships without throwing
eieTls h!hiPs out of employment. Take the case of
Li
theßritish West Indies. He was ready to admit that
teresnaeigation-lavvs acted unfairly to the colonial in-
' 't3--(lliniSterial cheers)—but that injury, he be-
see
ll' ved had been much exaggerated—(Hear, hear)—for
r_eolonists, feeling how unfairiy they were treated,
s.! httiqw naturally enough exaggerated the evil which those
Wes entailed on them.—(Hear, hear.) The British
odert Indies were supplied with lumber to the extent
•e, 000 tons a year by meaeslof American shipping.
back the present laws those ships could not take
cargoes of sugar to British ports, a
West nd were in
• hoti3equence often obliged to leave the Indian
rts to ballast. It those laws were repealed, they
aleht take in cargoes of sugar or other produce for
aldritish
Ports at a reduced rate of freightage. And,
etterr',°se that 50,000 tons of American shipping should
couldtake in cargoes for British ports in this way, there
would be
no doubt that 50,000 tons of British shipping
esd be thus thrown out of employment. But that
d °llld not be the only evil. These vessels would en-
t! stale to obtain return cargoes from the British ports
es ther than return empty, and as they would take
freiehts at a lower rate than British ships, it followed
4" of ,at
emP much more English shipping would be thrown out
loyanent. Mr. Alwyn, in the statement he ha
sent round to Members of the House, said that his firm,
Which had been for many years connected with the cell-
ist.- tin' ts could at any time charter American ships from
uropeate
ports to Calcutta at 41. 10s. a ton, which
.w.as
203. a ton less than he would have to pay for British
akil•iPPing; and he added that the competition of foreign
freight
in the East India and China trade would lower th
'reight of British ships and throw them out of emp
blent. That American shipping would compete with
us successful)in the China and East India carrying
trade
et;
which we now had in our hands there could be no
doubt.
There was one trade, aed one trade only, in
Which we had been competing fairly for 25 years with
the United States, and in which no favour had beer;
11hown to either party; and what had been the result
The total destruction of that trade as far as England
• , Wks concerned, and the triumph of the United States.
e,T e trade he alluded to was the South Sea whale-
ushery—a trade requiring much capital, able and ener-
getic seamen, and a trade calculated to form the best
school for the navy—England had all the advantages of
capital and sailors ready at hand—yet what had been the
result ? In 1821 the number of American ships em-
ployed was under 90, the seamen, 2,900. On the Ist of
January, 1846, the number ofd ships
to upwards of
seamen had increased to
737, the number of officers h
20,000. Well, the number ofa British ships in the same
. Period engaged in the whale-fishery was in 1821, 295,
and of seamen 11,900, whereas in 1848 the vessels were
only 61, and the . seamen 2,630. Thus had we been
utterly driven out of this trade. If he was right in as-
serting, as he did, that by this measure a certain number
of British vessels would be put out of employment, and
American vessels substituted in their place; if it would
lead to a decrease of our commercial marine, and the
separation of our colonies; those who proposed it would
have justly incurred the indignation of the people of this
country, whose interests would be sacrificed, without the
Prospect of any adequate remuneration.—(Hear.)
Mr. J. WILSON considered that the amendment
moved was the proper one to bring the whole question
before the House; and that question he looked upon to
be, whether we here prepared to carry out the principle
of free trade to shipping. To the theory of Adam
smith he opposed the experience of the last twenty
Years. Adam Smith, in treating of the question, freely
admitted, that if the shipping could be built. manned, and
carried on cheaper in other countries, it would be the
PolesY o •
-t this to maintain its defences. If that were the
•Aease he should be prepared to assent to the doctrine of
-t-I(.l,,,aeere Smith, that our political defences must be main,
eetfe." in preference to our commercial superiority. But
that Smith had overlooked a great principle—namely,
frog ree trade not only introduced cheaper commodities.
I:0°M abroad, but a larger and cheaper production at
forrnis, causing an increased power of competition with
eoree-ga countries. Surely if the partial free-trade mea-
t°, °f Mr. Huskisson had had that effect we had en-
seeleagemetit to go on in the same direction. The
lese"on was in reality one of facts. In 1823 Mr. Hus-
et,:co first proposed the amelioration of the navigation-
eo
0e in order to avert theelifficulties and dangers arising
stet:erY side; and what 'he would ask, had been the
prior shipping then and since? For set7alyears
les • el the Act of 1823 it had been in a declining state.
leeetesslBl7 to 1823 the amount of tonnage of tee United
ithecrer° gradually declined from 2,623,000 to 2,506,000
I.B4e!as from 1893 it had gradually increased, until in
then, it was no less than 3,817,000.—(Hear, hear.) If;
Pete etsehaPpened that in our strongest state Or mono-
after te' shipping trade was in a declining state, and
it wes'at that there was a rapid increase, until in 1846,
te
seo Per cent. larger than in 1823, he saw no reason
tlieneeit't the ability of the ship-builders and the ship-
(}leae: Of this country to compete with foreigners.—
hatwee hear) Let the House see the difference
now. 'ln the number of ships built then and
elteeati Io 1821, 1822, 1823, the years preceding the
knee of the law b • Mr. Huskisson the ships built
lated ia tonnage^ and 0.
_ Whereas to , 4,000, , 8,000, 86,00 ,
'Me in the three years 1844, 1845, 1846, they
, anted to %fir, 159,000, 203,000, and 223,000 tons.—(Hear,
litelisshate must observe, too, that these did not include
fleets et 1P,3, which were distinct and separate. These
tee pe_earlY proved that there had been no decline in
hipst;t7iitir of the ship-owners to sail vessels, nor the
tieeot, nsers to build them in competition with the c0n-
023 ere IheY were told that the reciprocity Acts of
" teal' theta ,I beneted the English shiping. In order
lelsete
oe effec the thought they oupght to take the
gearslbthe
Shipping prior to those Acts and for some
eiltweee seetently. In 1820 the British ships entered
for those countries with which we hd treaties
„r°citY amounted in tonnage to 6,026,a which in
1,; increased" to 1,129,000 tons. If we referred
esse rower rade
of the whole world it would be
stood that there had been a large and rapid in.
!Yt!ar e
of °:er foreign shipping. In 1824, the first
;iippin Huskisson's law, the amount of British
Oeig enteredsi outwards was' upwards of 3,000,000,
'PPia PPlag was 1,325,000. In 1846 the foreign
tP44' ceeZ had increased to 3,327,000, or more than 100
• , Jevesd. ; but that of Great Britain had increased to
--41Pnin' °f
"°o,ooo.—(Cheere) In 1826 the foreign
etepro g represented 40 per cent. of the whole shipping
tie Yeti .
!vat(' h 4 1846, notwithstanding the demand oceas
• Y the
Piet ranstnissien of foreign grain, foreign
les whet as only 41 per cent. of the whole. There-
ha,l her with regard to those countries with which
Yes a trent;
of
ttr7ttio se•sZ reciprocity or otherwise, we. had as
se eel sh to be alarmed by the supposition that
4' ,t4t4 foreilli)erbsUliders or owners were unable to compete
`l3ll werceleet6e3 ; Much had been said on two subject of
maintainst was a Popular opinion that our colonies
`tees mgr our ettnd for the purpose of securing a market
t tt ala' esael,tie-ctures, and a large trade for our coin-
wkPlaitled marine But that was a fallacy which could be
We
Lett
Y facts. In 1820 the quantity of shipping
446. coloniestohuercoin.
s'et te "or Ports as 1,549 000 tons. Of that 746,000
and 803,000 to neutral countries.
41: i'ollllB4tritlia, hadO
.tai trade, chiefly of the East Indies and
increased from 746,000 to 1 276,090
tl.lO ineree'Q whiled
ere Au free the trade to neutral countries had
Der "e
of llor° 802,000 to 2,721,000 tons, being an in-
,,eett. per cent. on our colonial trade, but of 240
L4e Go"" our trade to neutral countries.—(hear.)
4., se, stekt eereseent
evet, teeto lees on, of this country could remove the
, • tics g thee, t 'ler Which the colonies laboured, by en-
etee fit to het
° employ lumber ships from North Arne-
ss would be their produce to this country, great bere-
t-. ti!ers
there could upon them ; and it- thea manufa'c-
. I,Tir ret'ul could send out their goods by those ships, on
4Rt Iv "Yage at aeh otnd becheaper rate than at present, a Weo •seteeee , conferred, not merel on the British
g were st °tit also upon all the industrious classes
set , altal(%;?enti:esP7lt'leot upon his efforis.—(Cheers ) The
aeettetaled teeho had last addressed the House had
kiesehave upon eff; cts which the proposed alterations
' teat reereern the Eest Italia shipping belonging to
.eoshtbn.eants.
nee, -rows he (Mr. Wilson) apprehended
v6.'1% 6 W".-1 be held to be of greater advantage
high eetintry
'east see, than to adopt any means by
this ° tteettabl"ta cotton could be imported and
ettrintry_eallor manufacture and consumption in
"e ,tcenteeeeee`ear.) Hence he thought the facts
trade att-...narQ,,,,i were sufficient to establish the position
~igaGhat there was nothing in the free-
., • shi `1 ." "
°e-14
t° le3 which had yet been extended to the n a
3 • f P°teetad th
,Oreisee e time e House to doubt that the British
est rai or to P-builder was able to compete with
iesa
to ghtto
ben induce the belief that the shipping inte-
Te• wh• could
eeo Ice free._ be an exception to other mat-
eatio,t; la ht hi trade principles had been applied.
ns to Adam Smith's objection to the na-
-• laws.
If he had shown that free trade had sti-