The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-03 00:00:00

never intended by the institution of the navigation-laws.
The present measure proposed to takeaway all the privi-
leges given by these laws, and to leave the burdens.
This seamed to him to be very unjust. They said that
their sailors were most inefficient, and yet they were
going to retain that part of the navigation-laws which
obliged them to have three-fourths of these inefficient
men in their merchant vessels. That was not his motion

of free trade.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that it
would be a great advantage to the British shipping in-
terests if their coasting trade was thrown open to the
Americans. It seemed to him that they imposed burdens
on the shipping interest for national purposes, and yet
the nation repudiated to pay for those advantages. He
did not think that was fair. He believed, that though
there were many things which might be amended in the
British seaman, he was not the inefficient person he was
represented to be, and that he was able to compete with
the sailor of any other country in the world. He was
not, however, satisfied with a measure iu which the
interests of the shipowners were not attended to. He
thought they ought to be relieved from the duty on ma-
nue insurance. He thought also there ought to be no
vexatious charges imposed upon those who took out of
bond small quantities of stores for short voyages. This
might seem a small grievance, but it was one which con-
siderably affected his constituents. There were similar
charges at foreign ports from which the shipowners
ought also to be relieved. Much evidence had been gone
into to prove that we could not compete in ship-building
with foreign nations, but he did not attach much im-
portance to the evidence which was adduced on that
point upon either side. He thought that the practical
grievances were what the British shipowners had to fear,
and if those were removed he was not disposed to think
they would suffer by change of the existing laws. Under
these circumstances, he of course could not give bis
support to the amendment, not believing that it was by
any means desirable that the principle of the navigation-
laws ought to remain untouched. He knew that it was
very likely his views would be far from acceptable to
either party, but if he satisfied nothing else he should
at least satisfy his own conscience by the vote it was his
intention to give that night in favour of the measure.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE complained of the way in which
this measure was brought before the the House, without
complete evidence being adduced in support of it. He
also complained of the way in which statistics were used
in support of the measure, and especially of the way in
which they were used by the Member for Westbury
(Mr. Wilson). The Hon. Gentleman had quoted the
returns of tonnage from 1817 to 1823, to oppose to
those of the year 1846. But during the interval Sir R.
Peel's banking Bill had passed, and the consequence was
great commercial depression. It was, therefore, an
abuse of statistics to take the years cited by the Hon.
Member. So different were his (Mr. Newdegate's) own
calculations from those of the Hon. Member that he be-
lieved the Americans in a very few years would have a
greater amount of tonnage in their marine than we
should have. Tha proportion in which the maritime
navy of that c untry was progressing was, at the pre-
' sent time, much greater than ours. They were upon
our heels, and were fast overtaking us. But he was told
that this was in effect an argument for alteration of our
existing system, and that we had better at once throw
over a system which did not sufficiently protect us. Wit
must not, however, try to deal with the United States
in that style. The United States, for her part, acted
on the principle of the strictest reciprocity, and so well
did she work it that of her whole trade only 17 per
cent. was carried in foreign vessels in 1846. It was no
trifling matter, therefore, that we were dealing with.
The Chevalier Bunsen, on the part of a great European
power, intimated distinctly that relaxation was not the
principle of the Zollverein. The country was beginning
to look with great distrust at the motives which actuated
that free trade which they observed had its origin, its
centre, and its aim in Manchester. and which for its sole
result, everywhere else, had produced private ruin and
public discontent. He called upon the Noble Lord op-
posite, as he valued the preservation of his reputation for
statesmanship, as he desired to avert the curses of pos-
terity, to reuse his sanction to this Bill.
Mr. WAWN said that the shipping interest of this
country had very little occasion to be fond of reciprocity
treaties, under which its business had so greatly fallen
off, having, among other losses, sustained the entire loss
of the South Sea whale fishery, which had become vested
in the Americans. There was the reciprocity treaty with
Russia; what had been the effect of 'this treaty? That
since its ratification there had been an increase in British
tonnage engaged in the trade of 58 per cent., but in Rus-
sian tonnage, of 150 per cent. The Ministers had made
many blunders in these reciprocity treaties, and many
more they would make before they tumbled- through.—
(Hear.) As to the proposition of admitting the Ameri-
cans to the coasting trade of this country, he had no
tear of the Americans themselves coming here to carry
on our coasting trade—they were too far off; but he
objected to the admission of the principle involved,
for ;he knew that the people who put in this wedge
would drive it home, if room were given, and we should
have, not the Americans, but the Danes, Swedes, and
Norwegians, usurping our coasting trade. The injury,
however, which now weighed upon our coasting trade,
and threatened to overwhelm it, was the railways, to
which an abase of power in Parliament had given such
monstrous facilities for obtaining a monopoly in our
home-carrying trade. He wanted to know whether the
Government, as somo compensation, would reduce the
timber duties, so far as our shipbuilders were concerned.
Ile wholly repudiated the statement of the Hon. Member
for Stoke, that the shipping interest was in a condition
of prosperity. He called upon the House to recollect
that what made us independent of foreign countries
during the war was not free trade, but our colonies, rich,
industrious, and loyal, and our thriving mercantile ma-
rine. Let not the House, by assenting to this measure,
destroy both these sources of independence.
Viscount INGESTRE said that the Government had
assigned no valid cause for the fatal and sweeping
change which they proposed to make in our navigation
system. If there were defects in that system, let them
be clearly shown, and he for one would consent very
readily to remedy them, but he did not understand why,
because a man was ill, he should be poisoned instead of
cured. _ If free trade was to be quoted as the reason for
effecting the proposed change, let him ask whether free-
trade principles had maintained themselves. The oc-
currences of late months would too clearly prove that
such had not been the case. The full effect of the abo-
lition of the corn-laws had not been experienced ; when
it was, llon. Gentlemen would not be so enamoured of
that change as they now were. He recollected in the
good old fashioned times, when ships, colonies, and com-
merce, was a standing toast. The statesmen of that day
never anticipated the hour would come when foreign
ships were to be allowed to snatch the coasting and
carrying trade from our native sailors. There was an
adage, which, though homely, be thought might be
aptly quoted, namely, " that charity begins at home;"
and if the propounders of the proposed policy had re-
garded that maxim a little more, it would have been as
well for the empire. There had been none of that cla-
mour or exertion made to induce persons to oppose the
abolition of the navigation-laws which generally at-
tended great changes. He had presented a most impor-
tant petition yesterday, numerously signed by seamen,
and every one of whom had voluntarily, and without be-
ing stimulated to do so, come forward almost in a body
to put their names to it. As for the Blue Book, which
had been so much quoted in support of the proposed
change, he must say he did not rely upon the statements
contained in that book; oa the contrary he considered it
to be little better than a heap of calumnies upon British
seamen collected by the assistance of British consuls. How-
ever, there was very little hope that a measure introduced
at so late a period of the session would be passed. If
the navigation-laws ware abolished one of the immediate
consequences would be that British capital would seek
investment in foreign states to the great detriment of
the native interests of the empire. The Americans
Would also get all the most 'valuable freights, namely,
the light goods, whilst the heavy carrying -trade of
sugars, and other raw produce involving greater risk
'and more wear and tear, would alone devolve on English
shipping. The more the details of the proposed change
came under his consideration, the more earnestly he
was convinced of the duty which devolved upon the
Government and the Board of Admiralty to render
themselves masters of the serious changes which would
he thereby necessitated in the efficiency of the fleet of
Great Britain. He did say that, before the House en-
tered upon an alteration of the laws which involved the
honour and safety of the empire, the Government was
bound to propose some substitute for the present mode
of manning the navy. The Hon. Member for Westbury
had compared the amount of the mercantile tonnage of
this country from 1617 to 1823, and from 1845 to 1846,
to show that a great falling off had taken place in that
tonnage. But the Hon. Member for Warwickshire had
very • clearly shown that the imputed cause had had
nothing to do with the apparent falling off.
Lord J. HAY said that the Noble Lord and all who
had opposed the proposition of the Government, rested
their opposition on the effect it, was calculated to produce
upon the naval character of the country. He was ready
to concede that the naval power of this and any other
country must depend upon its commercial prosperity ;
and it he could believe that this measure would disturb
the naval power of England, it should not have his
support. But, after considering it in all its bearings, he
believed it caleulated to add to the energy. enterprise,
and spirit of this country, to increase its wealth and naval
supretnacy.—(Hear.) Tweniy years ago he heard the
same arguments used in that House against a relaxation
of the navigation-laws; and what had been the result
since ? Why, that every fresh step towards relaxation
had produced an increase of British tonnage and a corre-
sponding increase of British seamen. Some Honourable
Gentlemen had stated that it would be prudent to wait
until we found a corresponding liberality in foreign
countries. He, for one, was not prepared to suspend the
natural results that must spring from freedom of trade,
because other nations were too stupid to understand
them.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume and others.) It
was said also that the shipping interest of this country
was unable to compete with that of other countries—that
the building and equipping of ships cost more in England
titan elsewhere. He believed that was true as related to
ulterior ships, but certainly not as regarded first class
ships, which could be built and equipped
England than in any other nation on the globe, cheaper
than in the East Indies in the comparison of 60,0001. to
(),0001., and cheaper than in the United States by nearly
2,0 per cent. With regard to what fell from the Hon.
Member for Oxfordshire respecting the correspondence
of the British consuls, he could only say that he had read
every word of it, and the evidence contained in the Blue
(look, and speaking from his own experience, was prepared
to verify every word of it.—(Cheers and counter cheers.)
In 1831, when he commanded one of her Majesty's
squadrons off the Downs, they had to put from 80 to
100 British merchant ships udder the protection of the
British flag; and scarcely a day passed that he was not
called upon to decide a quarrel between the master and
crew of one of them, in nearly every instance the master
being wrong, and the men ill-used.—(Hear, hear.)
In the like manner, in 1843, when he commanded a
frigate at New York, nine cases of complaint were