The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-10 00:00:00

tnifriaa

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1848.

The debate on the navigation-laws has at length
been brought to a conclusion, and the representatives
of the people have by a majority of 117, in a House
of 471, affirmed the proposition—" That it is expe-
dient to remove the restrictions which prevent the
free carriage by sea, to and from the United King-
dom and the British possessions abroad, subject
nevertheless to such control by her MAJESTY in
Council as may be necessary, and to amend the law
for the registration of ships and seamen." As usual,
in cases of extraordinary interest, the last act of the
drama was by far the most brilliant and effective.
The cause of protection, we should rather say of
monopoly, having been advocated by the Noble Lord
the Member for Lynn, the guardian leader of the
party, the Hon. Member for auckinghamshire and the
Gallant Admiral the Member for Launceston, while
JOS3sPII HOME, RICHARD COBDEN, Sir ROBERT PEEL
and Lord JOHN RUSSELL insisted on the necessity of
a further extension of the great principles of free
trade, and the removal of the last and most formi-
dable obstacle to the full development of our national
industry.
It may easily be conceived that such ae-
complilhed orators brought forward every argument
that could be urged on behalf of their respective
views ; but despite the laboured statistics of Lord
GEORGE BENTINCK, the brilliant eloquence and cut-
ting sarcasms of .111 r. DISRAELI, and the cautious
fears of Admiral BOWLES, a complete victory was
achieved by the opponents of monopoly. It is im-
possible that any unprejudiced person can remain
unconvinced by the overwhelming arguments brought
forward during the course of the protracted discus-

sion, in which the most experienced and the leading
men of every section participated.
It is not necessary now to enter into the details of
the proposed measure, or to decide whether the
Ministerial propositions go sufficiently far—whether
the coasting trade should be thrown open to foreign
competition—whether British vessels should still be
manned by crews consisting of a large proportion of
British seamen, or whether the power should be re-
served to the QUEEN in Council to place restrictions
upon the trade of ally country which would refuse
to reciprocate the advantages about to be conferred
by the proposed measure. Thee are all points of
detail, which may be more properly considered when
the Bill itself is before the House. The great ques-
tion on the present occasion was, whether any altera-
tion whatsoever should be made in the present code,
or whether it should be maintained inviolate, with
all its admitted anomalies and defects. By the stand-
ing orders of the House a Bill relating to trade, or to
any alteration of the laws concerning trade, cannot be
introduced, unless founded upon a resolution or re-
solutions adopted by a Committee of the whole
House; the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Member for Stamford, therefore, if carried,
would have acted as a complete bar to any change'
however beneficial. A clear and decisive majority
has, however, declared that great and comprehensive
reforms are required in our maritime code, and that
henceforward no monopoly of any description will be
tolerated.
Every argument put forward by the monopolists
was in its turn most clearly and satisfactorily re-
futed. The fallacy of the assertion that our dock-
yards would be dismantled, and our shipwrights
thrown out of employment, if foreign shipping was
admitted to compete on terms of equality with British-
built vessels, was completely exposed. It is true
that ships of a certain description might be obtained
at some of the northern ports at a cheaper rate in the
first instance than our own first-class vessels. But if
the superior quality and the increased durability of
the latter were taken into account it would be found
that the difference was more apparent than real, and
that it Has rather favourable to the British builder
than otherwise. Indeed it was given in evidence be-
fore the Committee that a vessel could be built at a
cheaper rate at Sunderland than at Dantzic, and the
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire
showed that the statement was fully borne out by
what he himself learned during his recent continental
tour. It further appeared that the cost of
building or repairing vessels in the United
States was at least as high as in this
country ;
that, in fact, higher wages are paid
to shipwrights in New York than in any of the Bri-
tish ports. The wages of seamen are also higher in
the American commercial marine than in our own,

too many of our best seamen being driven from the
service of their own country by the superior advan-
tages afforded to really good men. If, therefore, our
chief rival—the only one whose activity and enter-
prise would enable it to become a formidable compe-
titor—possesses no advantages whatever either in the
building, the navigation, or since recent alterations,
in the victualling of its shipping, why should we
fear any competition from that quarter ? In truth the
great danger to British shipping consists of the want
of that feeling of self-reliance, the healthy stimulus
to exertion which only exists when active and intelli-
gent rivals are in the field. By forbidding any opposi-
tion you really retard the improvements that would
otherwise take place. Parties who enjoy a monopoly
too frequently depend thereon, in place of their own
activity, for a continuance of their prosperity. The
granting of exclusive privileges is similar in its re-
sults to the swathes and bandages with which over-
careful nurses bind up the limbs of infants, and
which, in place of strengthening and supporting the
object of their solicitude, only cramp its power and
fetter its freedom of action.

On one point, and one only, we think the ship-
owners would have a right to complain. It would be
most inequitable that they should be charged a heavy
duty on the raw material used in the construction
of their vessels, while the manufactured article was
admitted free. The timber duties must, therefore, be '
repealed, if not unconditionally, as we would desire,
at least upon all that was required for ship-building
purposes. With that just concession, every fragment
of the code might be abolished, not only without in.
juring, but with the most beneficial results to our
shipping interests.

Poor France is still a victim to the revolutionary
epidemic. her imagination is still wandering in the
delirium, her extremities are still distorted with the
convulsions of political agitation, and Paris—the
heart of the Republic—is still palpitating with horror
at the possible triumph of anarchy or terrorism.
Something of all this might have been anticipated by
those who had familiarised themselves with the
character of the French as a people, either by personal
intercourse with the population, or by examining the
revelations of their national history. From the first
grand outburst of the 24th of February it might
have been conjectured that the Parisians would
long continue to oscillate between Ultra-
Republicanism and Moderate Republicanism,
There was no doubt, there is no doubt, there ever
will be no doubt, with the blessing of GOD, of an
enormous preponderance in favour of moderation—
but still the cause of the mere violent politicians in
the French capital was and is sufficiently formidable
to afford reason for profound solicitude. Witness
this, the extraordinary vicissitudes which have illus-
trated the career of the Young Republic since the first
moment of its inauguration. Witness it, the 17th of
March, when the tricolour was for a moment aban-
doned fur the red flag of sedition ! Witness it, the
16th of April, when the Provisional Government were
only saved from assassination by the • spontaneous
homage of the Garde Nationale, and the
Garde Mobile! Witness it, the memorable and de-
plorable 15th of May, when the sanctity of the na-
tional representation was violated, when the sceptre
was seized for an instant by the hands of a few men-
dacious rebels, and when the Executive Commis-
sioners were only restored to power by the
simultaneous efforts of 200,000 armed men ! The
history of the Republic of February up to the com-
mencement of June has been nothing less, in fact,
than a series of catastrophes. And of these catas-
trophes there does not seem to be at present any
prospect of a termination.
Latterly there have been several causes for disquie-
tude in the metropolis of Republican France,
some of these causes being quite irrespective
of the last lamentable insurrection. For example
there have been the supplementary elections not
merely in Paris itself, but also in the Basses-Pyre-
nees, in the Gironde, in Herault, in the Ille-et-Vi-
laine, in the Nord, in the Sarthe, in the Saone• et-
Loire, in the seine Inferieure, and in the Yonne. Of
the sentiments and emotions which must have been
excited by these incidental and scattered elections
some idea may be formed from the circumstance of
such men as PIERRE LEROUX, PRUDIION, and CAUS.•
SIDIERE being returned for one department, and that
one the metropolitan department, or the circumstance
of such men as ADOLPHE TRIERS and Prince Louis
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE being elected by two or three
different constituencies. Remembering these things,
remembering the abandonment of the accusation
against Louis Bnaisc, remembering the resignation
of CREMIEUX, and the subsequent retirement of
several other members of the Administration—the
capture of BLANQUI—the dispersion of the Montag-
nerds, and the jealousy with which the conduct of
LAMARTINE is beginning to be regarded—it is by no
means surprising that the state of Paris should be
excessively dubious and decidedly unsatisfactory.
The witty remark with which the news was received
of L A MARTINE'S victorious efforts to pacify
the population on the memorable fifteenth of
May, when he rode through the streets on
horseback, restoring quietude to the city and
security and confidence to the citizens—the
witty remark with which these accounts were re-
ceived by one of the Royalists—" 0, he is an incen-
diary changed into a fireman!"—is valuable as more
than a mere bon-mot. It is indicative of the reason
why the policy of LAMARTINE is beginning to be re-
garded with such universal jealousy and dissatisfac-
tion. The enthusiasts for the ultra-Republican
regime are inimical to the moderate principles of a
man who, although intimately associated with LEDRU
ROLLIN, is by no means identified with his plitical
disposition. On the opposite side the recent acts of
LAMARTINE are viewed with distrust by those who

have hitherto lavished upon him their acclamations,
because those acts to the superficial spectator sip
geared to be undue concessions to the insurgent party.
Precisely in the same manner the conduct of Pio
Norio was scouted as contradictory until the apparent
incongruities were reconciled by the eloquent expla-
nations of GIOBERTI. LAMARTINE wants another
GIOBERTI to restore to him his diminished popularity,
and to prove to the moderate Republicans of Paris
that there is no truer friend to the sacred cause of
their liberties than the very man whose influence
they are paralyzing by ill- timed and unnecessary
suspicions.:
What is the actual cause for the recent diminution
of the popularity of no NoNo and of LAMARTINE ?
We are bold to say that it is this—that both the
Poet and the Pope have sunk in the estimation
of the people—the one at Rome and the other in
Paris—because neither of them have fluctuated in
policy with the fluctuating passions of the mob, but
have both remained staunch in the maintenance of
moderate principles, while the public mind has
been agitated for the moment by the visions of an
exaggerated democracy. Not only because this, but
because, likewise, the Romans failed on the instant to
boPefleonL
AuNI v oaAnbnol
recognise
pbpe
creacuitsahet eet
hetemh
erb embarrassingbewildering
nsaigvt
eu aphtoii
hitherto
rootnof
ae
tTonspsdaE. GIOBERTI has spoken to the hearts
of the Romans, and the PONTIFF has been
restored to all his former popularity. May
someof utnhaenointed Parisians,G ainondEraeTntderaptphel to
ea the rea-
sons
poet-statesman
orenacleismatoiorne the object
fthep of their
olieyofr ehuiontNosNiaosma, for
ndLAinmAthe
R.
TINE we can alone recognise a security for the reali-
sation of Italian independence, and a guarantee for
the stability of the French Republic.