The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-16 00:00:00

navy where he can find employment, because we have
overstocked the labour market of our commercial maiine
by calling these boys into the service, and driving out
the able-bodied seaman. My own belief is, that instead
of answering the object it was intended to promote,
namely, of increasing the nnmber of able-bodied seamen
in the British navy, and thus making a nursery for our
military marine, it has produced exactly the reverse,
without in the slightest degree increasing the number or
improving the character of the seamen engaged in our
commercial marine. The law now obliges a certain
number of apprentices to be taken in proportion to the
tonnage of every ship, and I propose to abrogate that,
by leaving it perfectly free for every shipowner to em-
ploy boys and men as he thinks fit. I cannot help on
this point reading the evidence giving before the Navi-
gation-law Committee by Sir Edward Stirling last year :
--‘1 It throws the older persons out of employment at
times when trade is not very brisk, and leaves them no
alternative but to seek employment in foreign service.
The law requires that about a sixth part of the whole
number of seafaring persons shall at all times be appren-
tices; but, if too many seamen are made by this process,
the hardship falls upon the old sailor, who is thrown out
of employment, or is prevented from getting full em-
ployment. It appears to be an arbitrary interference
with the labour market; is at all times a hardship upon
the shipowner, and at certain times a hardship upon
the seaman." Mr. Duncan Dunbar says, "We being
compelled to take apprentices entails a very consider-
able expense, and very considerable inconvenience,
It not obliged to send boys, I should send a ship with
twenty able-bodied men. I now send her with fourteen
able-bodied men and six ordinary men, and six appren-
tices. The ships could b. better manned if we were not
compelled to send boys, and there would in that case be
more security for the lives of the people on board." Sir,
I think I have now stated the outline of the measure
which I propose to the House on the part of her Ma-
jesty's Government.
Mr. HERRIES here. across the table, in a low tone of
voice, requested some further explanation.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—I will recapitulate the propo-
sition. I propose to preserve, unaltered, the coasting
trade and the fisheries of the mother country, and of
the colonial possessions of her Majesty. With regard
to the coasting trade of the colonies, there is a
modification which I omitted to state, which I will
allude to presently. With that exception, I propose
absolutely to throw open the whole navigation
of this country of every sort and description.
But I propose to retain to the Queen in
Council the power of appointing such restrictions
upon the navigation of foreign countries as she
may think proper, if those countries de not us meet on
the same terms. We do not render it obligatory on the
the Queen in Council to exercise that power, but we
enable her to do so, as may seem best for the interests
of the country. With regard to the coasting trade of
the colonies, in the Bill I shall bring in, to preserve it in
the same manner as I do the coasting trade of the
mother country ; but I also propose to allow each co-
lony, if it shall think fit, to pass an Act throwing its
coasting trade open to foreign countries, and that Act,
With the-consent of the Queen given in the regular way,
will enable the colony to deal with its coasting trade as it
shall think best. It was necessary to do this in order to
place Canada in a right position. Our object is to give
the colonies, as far as possible, the most unlimited power
of making their own navigation-laws. If the colonies
wish to have their coasting trade thrown open, I should
be very sorry to prevent them so doing ; and therefore
we propose to enable the legislatures to adopt any
measures they please with the consent of the Crown—
Mr. GOULBURN—Antigua, for instance.
Mr. LABOUCHERE That is the inter-colonial
trade. We propose, that by a Bill, the colonies may
make their own navigation• laws, but that the Queen
shall have the power of restriction, as I previously
stated. I will now shortly recapitulate my-, statement
with regard to the manning, ownership, and -build of
vessels. I propose that to entitle a veisel to the cha
racter of a British ship it shall not be necessary that
;he shall be British built, but it shall be necessary that
she should be a British-owned ship. I also propose a
restriction as to men in the same proportion as now ex-
ists. The whole crew of a coasting vessel must be
British, and a foreign trading vessel must have three-
fourths—

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—You said two-thirds
before.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—I made a mistake, I do not
propose to alter that regulation. But I propose alto-
gether to do away with the necessity of having a certain
proportion of apprentices. This, Sir, is the outline of
he alterations which I have ventured to submit to the
consideration of Parliament. I do not disguise
from myself that they are of very grave
and serious nature—that they go to the founda-
tion of what we have hitherto considered as
the navigation-laws of this country. I can assure the
House that it is only after the fullest and most mature
consideration, after having come to the complete con-
viction in my own mind that the course which I propose
is really the best for the great interests involved, that I
have ventured to propose it to the House. Sir, I cannot
but believe that this very competition will really
increase the marine of the country. Look at the
way in which it has prospered in proportion as
restriction has been removed and freedom esta-
blished. I recollect what was said when Mr. Huh-
kisson introduced his celebrated measure in the year
1826, by which he so greatly threw open the trade of
this country to foreign competition. I remember the
prognostics which were uttered of the ruin it would
bring on the British maritime interest. I beg to re-
mind the House of what really has been the result of
that legislation. In the year 1824 the tonnage of the
United Kingdom—the registered tonnage—amounted to
2,348,000 tons, and the colonial to 211,000 tons, making
a total of 2,559,000 tons. In the year 1847 the tonnage
of the United Kingdom was 3,307,000 tons, and the
colonial was 644,000, making a total of 3,952,000 tons,
and being an increase of 1,393,000 tons. Now, Sir, I
think these figures prove there may be an ebb and a flow
of prosperity, but taking the two periods of 1824 and
1847, and looking at the immense increase of tonnage at
the end of that period, I think it clearly proves that the
relaxation then made by Mr. Huskisson has not been
pro luctive of that injury which so many persons believed
would flow to the navigation and commerce of this
country. And, Sir, if I turn from the general commerce
if the country to that part of it which has specially been
open to the competition of other countries, and compare
it with that part of our commerce which has been spe-
cially protected, I find nothing in the comparison of the
effects of the two systems to discourage me from pro-
ceeding onwards in the course of commercial liberality.
Sir, I hold in my hand a return the contents of which
were communicated to the Committee of the navigation-
laws last year. I mean the statement of the tonnage of
British ships which entered the ports of the United
Kingdom, and also of foreign ships each year from 1824
to 1846, distinguishing the tonnage employed in trade
to foreign countries and British possessions, and that
-.mployed in protected and unprotected trade. Now, I
know that a great deal has been said about this return
not being a fair return.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Ber-
ries) cheers that statement, and therefore he does not
(.nisider this a fair return. Now, this much lam
prepared to admit to the Right lion. Gentleman,
that the terms used as the heading of this return
are not strictly applicable. The word " unprotected"
does not strictly describe the return. It should be less
protected instead of unprotected. But this I must say
in justification of the officer of the Board of Trade who
drew up this return, that it was the distinction made
before the Committee in the navigation-laws by one of
the gentlemen who, I believe, fought most steadily the
battle of protection there, Mr. G. F. Young. lie de-
scribed one class of vessels in that trade as protected,
and the other as engaged in the unprotected' trade.
therefore I do not think that any blame is to be at-
tached to the gentleman who drew up the return. But
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite will at least admit
to me that there is a broad distinction between these two
classes of trade. One of them is strictly and, closely
protected, and the other is less protected, and iII which
we are exposed to competition with those countries
with which we are trading. Now, Sir, the result of this
return is this, that the protected trade was, in 1824, of
British vessels, 893,000 tons in round !nprnbers.
In the year 1846 the tonnage was 1.735,000,
being an increase of 184 per cent. Tiien in
the less protected trade, as I will call it, being the
more correct expression—the less protecte trade
amounted in the year 1824 to 904,000 tons, and n 1846
to 2,558,000 tons. I know the Right Hon. Gentleman
will say that that includes the rapid voyages of stramers;
but that will apply to both sides of the return equally.
There is no difference in that respect. In reference to
this return, I will call the attention of the House to the
comparative effect upon British and foreign snips en-
gaged in this less protected trade. This is a statement
foreigntwa kt
he nthfreoo
countries
ert
thcr the
fiseotßritishigep againstie foreign
ttoaf
cialnonBcude2rnaltoa
increase
reehyes
iiieengwahnrat
ecfshipsrnh9otome4r ,entered
year.ons ott2e:treT:etndohus
tons.
so
tri
ton-
nage to
lenm6nd:
iniaignegdoofelßrfirtoimsh
1846 the tonnage amounted to 2,55588,0,00000;
and
df
in
obrlesigon
ships, in 1824, the . tonnage was 7
it was 1,883,000. The increase, therefore, of British
shipping engaged in this less protected trade, has
amounted to 1,654,000 tons, or 182 per cent. in round
numbers; and the foreign increase 1,044,000 'tons, or
137 per cent. That shows, therefore, that the shipping
in the less protected trade has increased more than
that in those trades which are strictly monopolies, and
showing, likewise, that in this comparatively, unpro-
tected state of the British shipping there has actually
been a greater increase than in the foreign shipping.
Sir, I bare stated my reasons for believing that British
commerce and British shipowners will not be injured
by the alteration of the law that I have proposed. Sir,
I have no apprehension either that the British fail p.
builder will be injured by this alteration. When I
consider the great national advantages of this co-entry
with regard to our manufacture of ships—when I con-
sideri.ts capital, its abundant supply of iron, of cordage,
and of.
paint—and that supply of timber, which I be-
lieve gives, a .greater choice to the British shipbuilder
than in any other place in the world he can have at
his command—Sir, I cannot believe that there is
5.Y real disadvantage to the shipbuilder, or that he
will suffer by being brought into competition
wiialiutheitrhoef
believe, • shipbuilders of foreign countries. I
omparingSitrt: that it is a
.great.f.fmistatkeartine
of
fotmhe-
tails
on
this
seucost of ships built in di eren p
wood, to look merely at the amount of money expended
proved thitttl,
quality
teadndindaunraybil3t
ne:atkrujicetcion. We should also consider the
belief is-1 aniships there built, and their durability. My
timetLi: to build ships bnt
wyfilling to weary the House with de-
l::
i;pyu t my
tions of ship buildifor ship, considering the
belief is that it can be
of British ships, we are able at this
tstance of cheap g the world. Sir, if the competi.
d equal
depended a to those
rl
ownh
the! h arecir
ccuomn
keg p. nstruotion the British builder would
"woe bee 4
"'"" swaY from the market, not