The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-09 00:00:00

fasts he had collected, were fully corroborated, in their
'g!toi`lnt3. as to the ignorance, carelessnes.s, and stu-
e,idel_ei he masters of our commercial marine, by th.
*Lee ". e of many gentlemen of great and long expderi•
tinetl la
the trade. Mr. Soames, among others, is.
Y stated that of late years the character of the
misters •
fated in ear commercial marine had so deterio. -
silt that foreign masters were now regarded in
fes 9't all foreign parts as decidedly superior in pro-
ploriecreraeld competency and personal trusworthiness, and
accordingly. Thus, foreign shipowners have
to far improved the character of the masters of their
that in a foreign port a preference is given
o 8 'eta over the English masters, because they take
ille'ileach better care of their ships and cargo. Such was
sle'ldenee on this point. Then, again, the American
tthis, made quicker voyages than English ones, though
Jot w.al ascribed very candidly by Captain Briggs, an
sh,rstrine'l ofee.
u master, to the crew havin an inn the
pqf the voyage, and then acquiringterest ai more
p "t knowledee of the currents. But all this only
troilt'h" hew auPlrior foreign masters of ships were,
witliiknowledo,-e and conduct, to English shipmasters.
th aware were the late Government of this fact,
;4Pktiie',lne°hlunction with Sir G. Cockburn, had drawn
ova scheme for the voluntary examination of masters
Q litea of merchant ships; and latterly he was glad
()ofthtlhd vast increase had taen place in the. numbers
thou s° who voluntarily applied to be examined, so that
ter the blue book which he had quoted had been
gooYeitolul and disagreeable, it had produced some
to h„c
results by stimulating the masters of English ships
tespeveetue better qualified for their profession. With
epeTcch to the effect produced by the navigation-laws
reseb "e commerce and shipping of the country, the
'hewn' h" far as America was concerned, would be
blor "Y undeniable figures to be a loss to England,
Ile le, Particularly in regard to the carrying trade.
ki heard it said that tho Americans so well liked
ovrelp,r,e'ent working of the navigation laws, and of their
Would—later system of protection, that on no, account
the ei.i•trY consent to any change in them. Such was
mitt of of Mr. Dunbar and others before the C.oin-
fled la fact, )tr. Dauber stated that the American
t fer,i'lirect advantage over an English nerchantomf abaotiha
tetio ja port under the present navigation-law's
(rot, e 3• As far as the heavy bulky articles which come
fer Le shore •of the Baltic, the navigation-laws con-
tras no d upon England. But he
te 4 aevantage whatever
l'belie,"Y to admit that any advantage -derive.d by the
the ,„."0 of those laws to the commerce and shipping of
4itail'ltrY would be very dearly purchased by any
N.4'l'l°ll of the number of seamen. It was from the
her Z.reic navy of England that the country derived
the strength at sea. The great supply of men for
lervfe,,riti'h navy must always come from the merchant
half'l,* aving endeavoured, very feebly he was aware,
uat the reasons of his Right Honourable Friend
"ith etegoing into Committee, he should content himself
chtie--Preasing his firm belief that the contemplated
th lando Would be productive of good and not of harm to
e-nataercial navy and the general interests of Eng-
Net et)ne remark he must, however, make to that was,
tti"°Pe could be entertained of making any progress
tesol-tl;r°Posed Bill, which was to be founded on the
uPo th G vernment would consent to layi
, ess e o
lls 6,110 table of the House the entire measure with al
Prep;e'ai.l,a• If that were not done, how could people be
mitt ,'„e' to discuss it when the House went into Com-
itase-t'e the Bill in the middle of July, for that
fare,,Te earliest time at which it, could reach the
Peee—tttee stage. He must, however, object
.to the
004rartitebet it
was proposed to reserve of suspending the
cil'e nof the Bill by the agency of an order in Coun-
'elsie-fetae the American Legislature should refuse or
*le, 13`° agree to carry into effect the promises made by
Ilettallancroft in the letter read by the Right Hon.Gen-
ase opposite, Such a power was not constitutional,
Itigh;"gat not to be vested in any Government. The
lion Sight Baronet concluded by expressing his inten-
t°'ing for the Committee.
tlseiti* CARDWELL said that the question they had to
e was, not whether or no they would agree to the
t'tZe'llin"°'
proposal, but simply whether they
.would.
tigetiltlt° Consideration the laws which regulated the na
44441 of the country. At the commencement of the
Of th 11 her Majesty had recommended the consideration
ht, ese laws in the speech from the throne, and
the
ps-,,lhe of Commons in its address, in answer to
Siel:;",trorn the throne,' unanimously promised thhaedirbceoenn-
lkid
oalattOp. Since that time several
od(f)cruo
ram
'tahe most im-
Pert nt the table of the House,. tw
eikia,•--" Countries with which this country had commer-
frot:elati°os, namely, Prussia and America. The one
Sri . Prussia intimated that the advantages which
esbeti ships enjoyed in Prussian ports would
a,re Withdrawn, unless corresponding advantages
~00nceded ; while that from the. United States
every relaxation, provided their advances were
hal is a 'correspondingspirit by this country. They
0
Of receired documents from the most important
;3:4_, colonies, complaining of the grievances they silt-
yotive under the operationof the navigation-laws, and
facts, the Right lion. Mem-
ber in
the face of all these by preliminary motion, to
°r Stamford proposed,
to atop at once to all attempts at inquiry. For that
sql alone be (Mr. Cardwell) must oppose the. Right
thin.th Member's motion. He could not conceive that
corwti!rs or seamen any reason to apprehend the
I,e Petition of foreigners, provided that in all things they
put
on terms of fair and perfect equality. When
leu
remembered that British seamen were the descend-
tts of Blake and Raleigh, who had carried our flag to
th,
,-remotest parts of the world, the descendants of the
wfio had conquered the Armada, he could not cots-
went to date our maritime power from an order of Crom-
h ran Act of Charles (Hear.) It would be no
te-e.!"°!easonable to take these Acts as the spring of our
• t‘rtbrae strength, than was the old practice of S. pain
e4ti Portugal who used to take possessiwn of distant
-00Ot •
P "es under the authority of a bull obtained from the
,) hat were the true elements of maritime suc-
thle6? Natural aptitude and hardihood in the people,... and
hePossession of a large amount of capital.—(Hear,
,a4r*) NOW, what country in the world would bear a
Parisoia
with this on either points?—(Hear, hear.)
mere!'tight lion. Member for Stamford had said that in
estistnY taking this question into consideration we were
other gent% sixty millions of capital. Was there any
tee,' c°untry in the word that had the same amount
Zag;id shipping?—(Hear, hear.)
.And. with suet'
ker.'N'tai,,what need we fear from competition?—(Hear,
He had been told by men of considerable ex-
in the Adriatic,
ted
,e, that ship building was so cheap in that
quarts Cie so hardy, as to make competition
°IT rau object of alarm. But he looked to the port
oom•-, and be did not see in the accounts. of British
headsets there any ground for apprehension. Jiefrhoamd
the t iiao that competition was to be apprehended
of ha'tie; but if he looked to our trade with Russia,.
fre,t' Position maintained by British shipping in the
h'ilsiert Hainburgh, he saw little cause foriTprt.
had 11,°" in either uarter. He found that our shipping
the -bieell gradually increasing. The tonnage entering
kit of Liverpool, which in 1816 was 642,000
o•ti,i4s,to 1845, 2,819,000 tons, and of that iacreaao
"tirtiOCl•us was British shipping. We were greatly
et iTICIr America, but it would appear that some par-
his hail that country reciprocated our alarm. He held in
eati ited a document—a Protectionist document—being_
'.l:r'ss delivered to the American Institute by Mr.
ere:'?„,iche, who, he presumed, might be called the.
t"Rh t7:.crederick Young of America. Speaking of Brie
aege p'Lt,nage, Mr. Tolemache said that the British ton-
it hurtering the States was, in 1830, 87,281 tons, but
43toui i,i!l 1835, increased to 529,922 tuns. On these
harked facts being communicated, Congress re-
eieen: that the existence of such a trade, under such
(et,he 48e,tae,ces, was a remarkable commentary on their
thete—erican) want of sagacity in the administratien
Peal tn-meurnmercial concerns, and made a powerful up-
Teat the Government to take some steps, so to pre-
*" lute traißc of the States .being made subservient to
bllPPearer"
ast3 of the British colonies.—(Hear.) It would
then, that Protectionist apprehensions were nut
et,cl„.. peculiar to this country ; and it was some comfort to
even •that in our competition with Americans, the latter,
elaltl4 their own country, had no great grounds for
ehe loon4tieee•--(lleisr.) By another report of Congress,
Nitthat the whole registered tonnage of the United
whar,s, 1815, 854,000 tons. In 1818 it had gone
p.aa 1,4:1-,',7as only 606,000. In 1846 it again rose, and
iNiatel,::,,uoo tons. What had been the increase in the
time ?-`' tonnage of Great Britain in the mean-
'ttoo,ole 1821 it was 2,500,000 tons ; in 1846 it was
°rea.a no'—(Hear, hear.) But from the American
in-
The
: H"Qcoething must be deducted for the fisheries.
Casehtelte was aware that in war time no American
"ti'htn wete employed in the fisheries, but on the este.
ttt"d it :tit °f Peace they again made their appearance ,
appear, it we deducted them from the whole
• 5", e, there had been no increase in American tonnage
lar, otit 5
1,815.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Member
tem tl'c'rd had, in the course of his powerful speech,
Plowing declaration of British shipowners in 1833, cow-
return a their and had shown by subsequent
Nr. C a g
hew little e,rorsepectsal,
cause there was for fear. He
the ardwell) would
refer to the Committee of 1833,;f0r
'iclicitinerN,e of calling the attention of the House to the
elestive-eshgii.svo‘Tilt)y Mr. Aiken, of Liverpool, a most ex-
hut did er.. Mr. Aiken admitted that there
mei no, some distress among the shipping interest,
then s ~‘ attribute it to the reciprocity treaties, the
`Meth. e°J,Ct of apprehension.
He w •
as then asked
15,,fr.efer`r'b.t.
,t;htie restrictions were removed he would
g his ships abroad. His. answer
thou! d lei there would be nothing saved, as be
froth d,:quire different articles, which must be brought
teedNimerent and distant places Mr. Aiken then pro-
1t°441 t°
'how that the remove. I. of the timber duties
that,• lee a
ROuld
theyelude were abolished, Liverpool and not Bremen
buye the emporium of, ship-building. He con-
thil'Petiteeon serving that he did not fear anything from
tePssUre f
• w
he question that now arose as whether
114
w' object. of the Government was calculated to effect
time 'th I:.'"r which it was brought forward. He agreed
tahota ,) Right Honourable Friend that this was not the
ente
tulle into the details of the measure; at the
4PPearer° were
tlti. wlth the some.l ,of the provisions which, as
cotiejle .ed on the face of it, it was very difficult to
tie or Principe, and policy of Mr. fluskis-
e Teeninstance,, while the Right Honourable Gen-
'oateein
down that the British shipowner was to
er:ttiee, of and equal competition with the "ship-
toq the world, he imposed upon them an obli-
Alth whomto the rna.nning of ships from which those
1144in' with theY would have to compete were free.
staltie Sad regard to the building of ships in the
eet°lild be elsewhere they were told that the shipowner
eh„ "°vred to build his ships where he could do so
-suer ]fad -4Pest rat
kuylent e, but the Chancellor of the Exche•
foe,•sirailae told them that he was about to make
arc 'go titiaboposition with regard to the import of
"light' the r•-5114 if he understood the proposition
p, result would be that the raw material of the
41‘tnir " still to be subject to a high duty, while the
a,,,turee
trer ktore chi were to be admitted free. Then the
but eteot ttlajea"eman
proposed to exempt the coasting
b*Cause at
tit wad a matter of any great importance,
grew that a proposal for opening

that trade would occasion. It would have been well
had the Right Hon. Gentleman succeeded in preventing
alarm, but he believed that the proposals he had brought
forward had created very
.great consternation amongst
those interested in the shipping trade, and that the ex-
emption of the coasting trade had had no effect what-
ever in preventing it. The general feeling was that if
they were going to establish freedom at all, they should
have looked for freedom from America in regard to the
coasting trade. These were the reasons why his Right
Hon. Friend had urged on the Government to introduce
measures in the way of reciprocity instead of in the way
of retaliation. He was surprised that no member of the
Government had as yet risen to answer his Right lion.
Friend's speech in that respect.—(Hear.) He wished to
impress on Ministers how it was that they would fail
in obtaining freedom and equality from the manner
in which their proposition was brought forward.
The Hon. Member for Westbury, referring to the tariff
previous to the year 1846, said: "If yon proceed on the
principles of reciprocity you will be taking a retrograde
step, for the principle you then laid down was, that you
would pay no regard to what other nations did, but that
you would do what was right in regard to commerce,
and leave other countries to follow your example or not
as they pleased." That was, without doubt, the principle
then laid down as to imports generally, and it was the
correct one, for, if you took the raw material of other
countries, it was evident they must take your manufac-
tured goods in return, but the same rule did not apply to
shipping, for the same ship which brought the raw ma
terial from the Baltic would take back the goods which
were to pay for it; and if the countries from which the
raw material came maintained an artificial system of
protection against our free system of trade iu the matter
of carriage it must tend to their advantage and our dis-
advantage. In this respect Ministers were departing
from the principle laid down by Mr. Huskisson. It
appeared to him that the same reason which prevented
their proceeding in the way of reciprocity should
prevent their proceeding in the way of retaliation ; and
he hoped some member of the Government would explain
how it was that the obstacle in the way of reciprocity
was not equally an obstacle in the way of retaliation in
regard to those countuies to which we were bound by
the most-favoured-nation clause. He, however, believed
that the original intention of Ministers was to proceed
in the way of reciprocity, and that was, in effect, the
demand made by Prussia and America, through Mr.
Bancroft ; and from the Noble Lord's (Paen lmerston's)
letter in answer to the demand of that gtleman, he
had a right to assume that that was the way ,the Noble
Lord proposed to proceed, and. not in a way in which
while certain dangers were incurred under the retalia-
tion clause, we shut ourselves out from availing our-
selves of the advantage we might obtain from recipro-
city. His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries) invited him,
having those feelings, to join him in throwing au
obstacle in the way of the Bill. He would state
why he could not. In the first place, he must be
allowed to say that his Right Hon. Friend's proposition
appeared to him to be very vague and indefinite ; and
then the evidence taken before the Navigation Com-
mittee, and his own experience when a member of the
Government, proved to him that the existing navigation-
laws not only were full of absurdities and anomalies,
but in many instances actually injurious to the British
shipowner. And with regard to the fear of foreign
competition, it was a libel on the British name to say
that we were not able to compete on equal terms with
any nation in the world. What the Legislature ought
to do was to secure fair play and free competition—let
there be effectual freedom and unlimited means of inter-
course, and the greatest amount of advantage would
then be conferred on British shipping and British trade.
He had only further to express a hope that such a settle-
ment of this question might be effected during the
present session as should secure this important interest
against injudicious changes for the future, and
place it on a firm and satisfactory footing.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed
that this was not the proper time to discuss the details
of the Government measure. He could not understand
on what general grounds the measure could be opposed,
unless it was to be contended that it was advantageous to
this country that we should enbance the price of those
articles we required for our manufactures. Only a short
time ago Parliament had found it necessary to suspend
the navigation-laws to facilitate the import of corn; they
had then experienced die benefit of that relaxation, and
he could not see how they could refuse to alter them so
as to admit those articles which were in constant de-
mand for the maintenance of the people and the carry-
ing cm of our manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) As to
the apprehended danger to the shipowner, it was an
established fact, that wherever
we we were on terms
eteof
fair and equal competition, could comp
successfully with any country in the world. The
same might be said of the shipbuilder. We built
ships as cheaply as America or any other country, and
there was no reason why, if the trade were thrown open,
we should not be able to compete with other nations.
He did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman that it was
necessary, in order to enable us to do so, to remove the
timber duties. It had been abundantly proved in the
debate that even with those duties we were able to com-
pete with the shipbuilders of every other country. The
Hon. Gentleman also adverted to the invitation given us
by America and Prussia to relax our navigation-laws.
Surely Prussia had a right to demand from us the same
advantages she conferred ; and as for the United States
we would clearly be gainers by the proposed change ;
for at present they had the advantage over us in the
carrying trade. If the system of restrictions were
adopted, he believed that we should lose much more
than Prussia, into whose ports, in 1846, there en-
tered no less than 2,000 British ships. Our colonial
trade stood upon a different footing, and it was pro-
posed to relax the restrictions on it, with a view not to
our own benefit, but that of the colonies themselves. (The
Hon. Gentleman entered into some details to prove these
positions, but in so rapid and indistinct a manner, and
amidst so much noise in the House, as to render it im-
possibleto collect them with accuracy.) With regard to
reciprocity treaties he admitted that much might be said
in their favour. The Ministry thought at one time that
they would be the most convenient mode of proceeding;
hut the more the Government had looked into the ques-
tion. and considered its difficulties, the more they felt
satisfied that it would not; and they slowly, but with
conviction, arrived at the conclusion, that it would be
better to legislate upon general principles, reserving to
themselves in special eases, the power of retaliation.
But, in reference to America and Prussia and the
northern powers, who were, after all, the competitors
feared, if they threw open their ports to us, we ought to
throw open ours to them. Under the existing law, any
foreign ship had the power to warehouse goods in a Bri-
tish port; but the power of removing them for consump-
tion depended upon their coming in British ships; so
that if a foreign ship loaded a cargo of Indian corn in
one of our warehouses, it could not, even in case of
famine, be taken out, without an order in Council, and
such orders had frequently been issued. He might refer
to many instances in which similar relaxations of the
law had been made by orders in Council; and this proved
that the proposition now made by the Government to
retain the power of the Queen in Council to impose
countervailieg duties was not new in the legislation of
this country. These powers had been retained in the
statute 59th George 111., the 4th and sth George IV.,
and the Bth and 9th Victoria, chap. 90. The statute
4th and sth George IV. presented a case precisely in
point; and it had been strictly followed in the present
proposal. From 1817 up to 1822 the United States of
America were not allowed by law to trade to the British
West India colonies; but such American Staten as were
then dependencies of European Powers might so trade. In
1822, however, au Act passed which for the first time al-
lowed American ships generally to trade to the colonies.
The concession by the 15th section of the Act of 1822 en-
abled the King in Council to prohibit, if he thought fit,
by Orders in Council, the vessels of any one of the Ame-
rican states to trade with the colonies, if those states
did not admit British vessels to trade from their ports
to the West Indies. On this the Americans imposed
tonnage dues on British ships, and in consequence the
powers of the Act of 1822 were increased ny an Act
passed in 1823, which enabled this country to impose
additional tonnage duties not only on American ships,
but also on the goods brought in those ships to the \Vest
Indies. These powers were further increased by the
Act of 1824, and these powers had been acted upon with
success, and eventually in 1827 or 1828 the trade and
vessels of the two countries had been placed upon an
equal footing. This showed the advantage of retaining
amidst the concessions now proposed, the powers hereto-
fore kept, and which it was advisable to keep, in
order to exercise it, should any exceptional case arise.
As there would be many future opportunities afforded
him, he would not now go further into the question
than to say that with all his old Admiralty experience
he could not admit that the proposition of the Govern •
ment would have an injurious effect with regard to the
manning the British navy. On the contrary, he be-
lieved there would always be an ample supply to meet
any demand, and that, as heretofore, the military marine
of this country would continuo to be superior to that of
any other nation in the world.
Sir C. BURRELL, who spoke in an inaudible tone
and amidst loud cries of "Divide," was understood to
say that he considered that the greatest benefits had
been conferred upon this country by the operation of the
navigation-laws; and believing that the change proposed
by her Majesty's Government to be made in them,
would have a most pernicious effect on the interests of
all classes of the community, he should vote for the
proposition made by his Right Hon. Friend near him
(Mr. Herries.)
Mr. DISRAELI (after a long pause during which the
cries for a division were general, and after strangers had
been ordered to withdraw) rose and said that he under-
stood that several Hon. Members who wished to take
part in the debate had left the House in the expectation
that it would be adjourned. He should do his best to
enable those Honourable Members to fulfil their inten-
tions, by now moving that the debate be adjourned.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he confessed ho was sorry
the debate should be further protracted ; but he hoped,
if it was now adjourned, it would be on the undertaking
that it would be brought to a conclusion to-morrow (this
day). If not, he should, instead of moving that the
ilinise adjourn for the Whitsuntide holidays, bo com-
pelled to move its adjournment to Monday next.
The motion for the adjournment of there debate until
to-morrow (this day) was then put and agrd t
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Lord MORPETH moved the further consideration of

the report of this Bill, but
Mr. HENLEY objected to its proceeding at that late
hour, especially as several Hon. Members, including
the Hon. and Learned Member for Ceventry (Mr. G.
Turner), who had left the House, had nevr clauses to
propose.
Lord MORPETH said those clauses could be discus-
sed on the third reading, which be did not propose to
take until after the Whitsuntide recess.
After a short conversation, in which the Attorney-
General, Sir H. Willoughby, , and Mr. WalFole took
part,
Lord MORPETH consented to postpone the further
consideration of the Bill till this dol.