The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-02 00:00:00

THX; S VN) AIGND ON,

wasAlos9. at sand, and: there purchasing British mane-
factures, ivttltthe deli n of:stmdingthetU to Jamaica. If
there happened to be infirkitish ship at. New York at the
time. our navigation-laws would prevent his employing
any other ship which might be in port at the time.—
(Hear.) Was there justice or expediency in such an enact-
ment? —He ealled. upon them in justice to these colo-
nte to-free them from such odious restrictions, and to
give them liberty to ship their goods in any bottoms
they might think fit—in fact, a share in the privileges
which had been accorded to the parent country. With
regard .to the. manufacturing.iaterest with which the
town he had the honour to represent was intimately con-
nected,.he should best explain their feelings by calling
attention to a petition which he had on that evening
presented from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
(The Right Hon. Gentleman read an extract from the
petition in question, from which it appeared that the
petitioners, having themselves received the benefits of
commercial freedom, were anxious to have them ex-
tended to our colonists by the abolition of the naviga-
tion-laws.) It wais conceded on all hands that the navi-
gation-laws were not to remain in their present state.
The worthy Alderman opposite (Mr. Alderman Thomp-
son) was prepared to concede an important change, and
thus to infringe on those fundamental principles
which the Right Hon. Member for Stamford was so
unwilling to surrender. He (Mr. Gibson) very much
doubted whether any of the changes offered could be
eff ctecl without touching a fundamental principle. One
great fundamental principle of the navigation-laws was
that the produce of Asia, Africa, and America should be
altogether inadmissible from the continent of Europe.
The worthy Alderman was willing to relax on that point,
while the Right Hon. Member for Stamford refused to
touch a fundamental principle. If there were such dif-
ferences amongst the supporters of the navigation-laws,
how could they reconcile it to themselves to oppose even
the going into Committee? Why, the changes which
they themselves advocated could not be effected without
first going into Committee.—(Hear, hear.) There was
one point to which he must make some allusion. He
had been charged by the Noble Lord the Member for
King's Lynn with having assisted in framing returns
which were calculated to mislead the public on the sub-
ject of the navigation-laws. He must say that a more
unfounded charge, or unfounded insinuation, had never
been made against any man. Ho was prepared to assert,
and to prove, that the returns in question were strictly
correct.'

Lord G. BENTINCK—I have not made such a
charge yet.
Mr. M. GIBSON had read the charge in the
Noble Lord's speech. The charge was that returns had
been got up for the purpose of deceiving the Committee,
and inducing them to draw erroneous inferences. He
repeated that a more unfounded statement had never
been made; the figures in those returns were correct in
all their parts. The only object for which those returns
had been compiled was that of comparing the increase
in those trades which were exposed to competition with
the increase in those which were protected. That was
the object, and the returns distinctly showed that in
those trados which were protected the increase was not
so great as in those trades which were exposed to com-
petition. The heading of the returns had also been ob.
jetted to, but that had been adopted from Mr. Young,
who stated that shipping had declined in consequence of
protection being withdrawn by reciprocity treaties, and
that the repeal of the navigation-laws would com-
plete their ruin. The tables proved that instead
of the reciprocity treaties having produced any
such evil effects, the very trades on which
they operated had increased in a much greater
ratio than the trades which remained a close monopoly.
—(Hear, hear.) The returns, therefore, which had been
complained of were perfectly to the point, and gave a
complete answer to the statement of the witnesses. He
could not conceive the possibility of any human being
being misled by them who had any knowledge of the
subject, or who was not entirely ignorant of the whole
bearing of the navigation-laws question. He wanted to
ask another question of the House. Were they pre-
pared to assert, if they rejected the proposal of the Go-
vernment, our existing relations with foreign countries
would allow us to return to the navigation-laws ?
(Hear, hear.) He spoke of the indirect foreign trade.
How could they hope, with the concessions they had
already made, the departures that had already taken
place from the principle of the Navigation Act, and with
the existing treaties of reciprocity which contained
the favoured-nation clause, to maintain the navigation-
laws, or any great portion of them ? You have (said
the Honourable Gentleman) already permitted fo-
reign countries to use ports for shipping goods to this
country, which ports are not in those countries—you
have permitted Austria to use the port of Galata ; yoti
have permitted Hanover to use Alemel, and the ports at
the mouth of the Meuse; you have permitted the duchies
of Oldenburgh and Mecklenburgh, and the states of the
Zollverein, to depart from the principle you have laid
down in your navigation-laws, of making every country
confine itself to carrying its own produce from its own
ports. Then what will those countries which have in
the treaties by which we are bound to them the most
favoured-nation-clause say ? What does Holland say
now ? Holland says you allow Hanover to carry her
produce to England from Memel. Is Memel in Hanover?
we always supposed it to be in Prussia. If you allow
Hanover to come to the Meuse, and carry her produce
from Holland to England, you must allow Holland to
carry from Memel to England, and give to Holland, as
you are bound to do by the favoured-nation clause, the
same advantages you give to other nations.—(Hear,
hear.) What then becomes of your principle
that you will not allow one country to carry for
another to this ? It you allow Holland to become
the carriers from the countries of the north of
Europe, you break down the very ground on which your
navigation-laws were established—viz., fear of the Dutch.
—(Hear.) And if you concede the privilege to Holland
how can you refuse it to Sweden, Denmark, and Nor-
way? Then what will Prussia say when she sees that
you allow those countries to go to Memel and carry
Prussian produce to England? Will not she demand
that her ships shall go to those countries and carry her
produce to England? With this difficulty staring us in
the face I do not wonder at the shrewdness of the Hon.
Member for Westmoreland, for he knows well that the
consequence of the concessions already made to foreign
powers is that that part of the Navigation Act which
relates to the admissibility of African, Asiatic, and
American produce is gone—the foundations of it are
sapped, and do what you will, with your existing rela-
tions and your treaties with foreign countries, you are
not in a condition to maintain it. I doubt, whether, if
the United States were to call upon you to carry out
your treaty with them, whether you could prevent
American produce being brought through Europe to this
country—(Hear, hear)—for what says your American
treaty? It says that you shall not impose any prohibi-
tion on American produce which you do not impose on
the produce of other countries; and if you allow Euro-
pean produce, the produce of one country to be brought
through the ports of another European country to Eng-
land, by what right can you deny the claim of America
to admit ber produce in the same way? In fact, I be-
lieve it is only the idea that you are about immediately
to deal with the Navigation Act yourselves that has pre-

vented foreign countries pressing on you for the per-
formance of the stipulations of the treaties into which
you have entered with them. With regard to the Dutch
treaty, I believe I am right in saying that the Dutch
have already—some years ago—made their claim to this
carrying trade which your Navigation Act was framed
specially to take from them, and that the justice of
that claim was not denied, and whether you repeal the
navigation-laws or not, you must shortly make conces-
sions to that and other continental countries to which
you are bound by the most favoured-nation clause.
—(Hear, hear.) I have stated these arguments in
the hope that they may induce the house not to take
thu course of saying that they will not stir a step in
the consideration of this navigation-law. It would be
monstrous, when we consider how Parliament has sane-

tioned the principle of free trade, that we should now
be deterred from taking this initiatory step on the
ground that it invades the principle of protection, while
there are many who oppose the present motion who are
prepared to suggest alterations in the law. I may be
accused of omitting the general argument as to the
bearing of this question on our national defences—(Hear
hear)—and I will therefore say a word or two on that
point. The Hon. Gentleman opposite talks as if every
man in the British navy was a sailor, whereas, after all,
it is only a small part of the British navy that are sea-
men. Sir J. Sterling, in his evidence before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, tells us that not more
than one-fourth of the navy on the average are seamen,
and the proportion of the mercantile marine is so small
that it would be possible, Sir J. Sterling thinks, so to
constitute the navy as to render it entirely independent
of the merchant service. If you reduce the officers
to the lowest possible limit, and put down all
useless offices, it might I think be possible
to increase the number of seamen in the
navy without adding to the expense. And
this evidently is what Sir J. Sterling (who is
a man of experience in the profession, and whose opinion
is entitled to be taken as an authority)—this is evidently
what he means, though he does not assert it in words.
He says, " You have no mode of procuring men from
the mercantile marine except by impressment ; they
will not volunteer. Honourable Gentlemen opposite
say the mercantile marine must be protected as a means
of support to our naval power, and, at the same time,
they object to the system of impressment ; but not one
of them has told us bow the transfer of the men from
one service to the other, when wanted, is to be effected.
—(Hear, hear.) I believe the only mode by which you
can effect it is by force.—(Hear, hear.) They do net
volunteer now freely in time of peace, and I doubt
whether they would do so at all were war ap-
prehended. Sir J. Stirling told the Committee
before which he was examined that Parliament
was trusting to a broken reed in the mercantile marine
as a means of supplying the navy, except by impress-
ment, and he pressed on them the importance
of making the naval power independent altogether
of the merchant service ; and be added that he
believed it might be so made oven in the event of a war.
His opinion was that the best means of promoting the
interests of both services, and of the country, was to
let each stand upon its own resources.—(Hear, hear.)
Gentlemen opposite plume themselves upon being the
shipowners' and the sailors' friends. Can anything be
more unjust or tyrannical to the shipowner than to invite
him to incur heavy expenses in ships and in procuring
pabreleteseetaiema, while
enathigh wages on the faith of maintaining
you do nothing to guarantee him a
larger amount of profit than can be obtained in any other
trade;
themfor theas profitsyoara in all trades will be the same, pro-
tectc
hand you take credit for
navy
may?—(Hear hear.) On the one
n protectingered credit
for h
the
isahgi p
inventedo wners,
while on the other you la
a plan for manning the n
this unfortunate interest.
(olt
heer trades
entirely a
et
atnh eo
be
ticapei
n s)e,
oouf
ar.) And without giving
them greater profits than
claim the right to pounce down
knockup on them at any mo-
ment, to take away their men,
up their trade, and
perhaps bring them to ruin.—(Hear,)
If it be possible for

_ .
any man to conceive one plan which is more tyrannical
than any other in reference to British sailors, or an ar-
rangement more destructive to British shipping, it is that
plan, which, without benefiting the shipowner or the men
he employs, exposes him at some uncertain moment to alt
these inflictions.—(llear.) I have referred to the opinion
of Sir J. Stirling :—another authority whom we often
hear quoted in this House, Mr. M'Cullocb, says that he
believes it would cost less if the navy were made altoge-
ther independent of the merchant service, and he adds
he believes there are many naval men who consider
that the time is coming when you must, for your own
safety, free the navy from the obligation to press men
out of the merchant service; and that, under proper ar-
rangements, this might be done with economy to the
State. I believe there :are many unnecessary expenses
attached to the naval department which ought to be put
down. It is also my opinion that the worst-treated and
worst dealt with class of the Queen's subjects are the
seamen.
-(Hear, hear.) What do you really do for
them ? ou profess to protect them: but you have not
prevented the prevalence of great distress from time to
time among both sailors and shipowners. Though
the country professes to have at heart the interest of
the sailor, and claims the right to take him from the
service in which he obtains the highest amount of wages
at any moment, what have you ever done for his advan-
tage? Should the sailor fall into poverty and want in
consequence of the uncertain state of employment, what
have you done for him more than for other paupers ?
If you take the practical operations of the statutes you
have passed—as the Merchant Seamen's Fund—are they
worth a fig to him? If employment fail, and he fall
into distress, perhaps, if he is lucky, he may get a
pauper allowance.—(Hear, hear.) This is all you have
done for him, and yet you claim the right to call your-
selves the sailors' friends and the shipowners' friends,
while you expose them to the evils I have alluded to. I
will not say a word in disparagement of the shipowners,
or of the masters or mates, in the course they have taken
on this question—l can forgive men for being uneasy
when they think it possible that their pecuniary inte-
rests may be affected—(Hear)---but I will not consent to
allow in Parliament the voice of justice, reason, and good
policy, to be drowned by the clamour of any class what-
ever.—(Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") We must discuss this
question with a view to the general interests of the
British empire, and must not be deterred from doing
what is right by the fears and apprehensions of any
party.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord asked where
was the clamour and where the petition in favour of the
proposed change. I should much regret if it was to be
understood that Parliament was never to carry any
measure except forced to it by clamour.—(Opposition
cheers, and Ministerial counter cheers.) It must be a
subject of great regret to every friend of his country to
think that we have a Parliament—if it be as the Noble
Lord says—which it is in vain to appeal to unless the
appeal be backed by clamour and threats.--(Hear, hear.)
But this at least is a subject in which we are not backed
by clamour. Here we want reason and dispassionate
consideration, not clamour.—(Hear, hear.) And when
gentlemen lay such stress on power, glory, and such
things, I must tell them that they are not acting in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the times.—(Hear and laugh-
ter.) The spirit of the times is commerce—the spirit of
the times is industry—(Hear, hear)—it is internal im-
provement—(Hear, bear)---it is mechanical invention—
(Hear, hear)—it is, if you will, political economy.--
(Opposition cheers, met by counter cheers from the Mi-
nisterial benches.) It is not war—(Hear, hear)—it is
not clamour—(Hear, hear)—it is peaceful relations,
peaceful progress, and amicable feeling among all the
nations of the earth.—(Cheering.) If you wish to act
in conformity with the spirit of the times, you must abo-
lish those antiquated notions by which you have been so
long influenced. Let the ships of all the nations of the
world bring the produce of the world from every place
—(Hear, hear)—exclude none.--(Hear, hear.) Do this,
and you will carry out a policy beneficial to your in-
dustry, beneficial to your manufactures, beneficial to
your shipping interest, and to all classes of your fellow-
countrymen; do this, and you will add strength to your
peaceful relations with foreign powers, and, by setting
the example of a vast, generous, and enlightened com-
mercial policy, you will be raising the character of
England amongst the nations of the world.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY said that if he could gather anything
from the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke
last, it was that the general interests of the country
ought to be made subservient to a sordid spirit of gain
—( Hear, hear)—that, in fact, for the gain of half a
farthing additional every relation of honour, of inde-
pendence, and of national security, should give way.—
(Hear, hear.) It was easy to clothe a bad sentiment in
good language, and to talk of general advantage, when
the advantage of a particular class only was intended.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman spoke of the ener-
vating influence of the navigation-laws depressing the
raw material ; by which he (Mr. Henley) supposed the
Right Hon. Gentleman meant lowering the price.—
(Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
withdrawn from the Government, he would not have
attempted what no Minister ever yet attempted to do
—to separate the commercial marine from the naval
force of the country. Our mercantile marine had i
advanced almost progressively in an extraordinary
degree, and had supplied us with seamen when-
ever they were wanted. He could not understand,
therefore, why the Right Hon. Gentleman looked upon
them as injurious in their effect upon our navy. He
complained, too, of their being a great clamour raised in
favour of seamen. Now, of all the interests in the
country, he believed there was none, considering its ex-
tent and consequences, that was now, or bad at any time
been so weakly represented as the shipping interest,
which, in some sense, was part of the commercial inte-
rest. He was not disposed to rest this question upon
the ground of competition ; for, after all, it was a matter
of opinion. We had vast possessions in every part of
the world, and he considered it necessary not only that
we should be on an equal footing with the rest of the
world, but that we should have a naval supremacy.—
(Hear, hear.) Once lose that supremacy, and the
strength of the British empire was gone. The great
mass of our empire was composed of scattered parts ;
and if we were to have them knit together by the ocean,
we must maintain the supremacy of the ocean. Com-
petition would not do all that was required. The Right
Ron. Gentleman said we must become one nation by
means of free trade. If so, why did he not begin with his
own constituents and remove protection from Manchester,
cottons? And here ho must take leave to defend a most
deserving class of men, the merchant seamen, from the
groundless attacks that had been got up against them in
true Chadwick style by various officials, and made be-
hind their backs. A paid servant of the Brish crown,
holding a high position in the Foreign-office, writes to
70, out of 215 British consuls, saying he "is particu-
larly desirous of gaining information of the incompe-
tency of British shipmasters." That was certainly a•
very fishing question, to say the least of it. He also
demanded to be informed "of their want of sobriety."
It was very easy to see what influence a letter, such as
that coming from the Foreign-office, would have upon a
consul. But the evidence as reported by the Committee
on the navigation-laws was so full of contradictions, even
by the same men, that he would not hang a dog on it.
The first witness was the consul of St. Petersburgh, and
he spoke favourably of those men. But Mr. Crow, another
consul, said that they were the most ignorant, illiterate,
and brutal set he had ever seen in a civilised nation. That
was pretty well for a man speaking of his own countrymen.
Then Mr. Consul Baker, at Riga, in answer to the same
circular letter of Mr. Murray of the Foreign-office, had
written very much in the same strain; but he had taken
a most extraordinary course. The House would observe
that in this debate almost every Hon. Member who had
,t,akf fehne parteap t
ai
nist
ehma d spoken p
loyed in
htahfei highests
called
possiblethe long
ter
trade.ms
Now Mr. Baker, being consul at Riga, spoke most dis-
paragingly of the merchant captains, but relied not on
h he observations,
a
andmo
stth
interesting
encloseding do
e document,
ine
nhti, his rep l y
refer-
ring to the character and conduct of the British ship-
his
that o
wwhnic
masters. And what was that interesting document so
enclosed? Why, it was a paper emanating from the
Bombay Chamber of Commerce. Now, that body had
only to do with shipmasters engaged in the long trade,
whereas Mr. Baker had only to deal with the east coast
traders, and yet he sends a document which ap-
plied to a totally different class. There was an-
other remarkable piece of evidence in the letters of
Mr. Cumberbatch, the consul at Constantinople, for
that gentleman had written two letters. In his first,
dated the 30th November, 1843, he declared that the
masters and men of the ships coming there from London
and Liverpool were of a superior class, and that acts of
misconduct were less frequent among them than they
were on board other vessels. But, in a subsequent let.
ter, dated 3d November, 1847, Mr. Cumberbatch states,
that " he finds the vessels from the outports better com-
manded and manned than those from the larger ports."
Thus he directly contradicted himself in a matter of fact,
and, therefore, he (Mr. Henley) asked what confidence
could be placed in such evidence, from men who thus
took away the character of others behind their backs ?
But it was stated that the ships insured in clubs were
north country ships, and were commanded by illiterate,
ignorant, and brutal men. Now the fact was, that the
ships insured in clubs were commanded by men of supe-
rior character and respectability, because the clubs, be-
ing constituted of mutual assurers, every member was
careful of the sort of men he employed. Again, all that
had been stated in the correspondence from Rio Janeiro
about the want of skill and activity alleged on
anonymous authority against the English captains fell
to the ground, because that duty was regulated not by
the captains, but by the brokers and agents there. Mr.
Goodwin, the consul at Palermo, and the gentleman
who was consul at St. Michael's, had made similar
statements, wholly at variance with each other. And it
was on such evidence that the House was asked to revise
the navigation-laws. In short, all these gentlemen, in-
cluding Mr. Liddel, the consul at Norway, and others
had furnished evidence of so contradictory a character,
that, he repeated, it was not fit to hang a dog upon. If
the protection to the commercial marine was withdrawn
he maintained that the nation would suffer an irrepa-
rable injury. He reminded the House, that if they re-
pealed the navigation laws they would not be able to re-
trace their steps, and he conceived that not merely the
interests, but the honour, the greatness, and the inde-
pendence of this country could only be secured by the
maintenance of her naval supremacy.—(Hear, hear.)
On the motion of Lord INGESTRE, the debate was
then adjourned until to-morrow (this day).
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Lord MORPETH proposed to proceed with the
further consideration of the report on the Public Health
Bill, but
The Earl of LINCOLN objected not only on account
of the lateness of the hour (half-past twelve o'clock),
but also on the ground that the amended Bill had only
reached the hands of Members that day; so that it was
impossible to enter upon the discussion of the amend-
ments.
Lord MORPETH consented to postpone the further
proceeding with the Bill until Monday next.
METROPOLIS POLICE BILL.
Sir C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this Bill,