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

THE SUN', LONDON,

, was
erosesE ewe& ere there perrehesine• British menu_
facture s, with •the teesieit of 6,oeleg teem to el ainelca. If
there ha ppened to be no British ship at New York at the
time, our navigation-laws would prevent his employing
any other
ship which might be in port at the the, .
(Hear.) W, es there justice or expediency in such an eneet-
meet? Ile 'died upon them in justice to these colo-
nies to free tieew from such odious restrictions, anti to
give theta liber, Yto ship their goods in any bottoms
they might think tit—iu fact, a share in the privileges
which had been re. %corded to the parent country. With
regard to the maveufacturing iuterest with which the
town he had the hon, ear to represent was intimately con-
nected,explain their feelings by calling
ettcu ion he
to should
a petition vbich he had on that evening
best
presented from the Man ehester Chamber of Commerce.
t
(The Right Hon. GentleCten read art extract from the
petition in question, from ‘vhich it appeared that the
petitioners, having themseh'es received the benefits of
commercial freedom, were ai;xious to have them ex-
tended to our colonists by the a bolition of the naviga-
tion-laws.) It was conceded oh atl 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
effected without touching it 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 3taneford 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 lie 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. He was prepared to assert,
and to prove, that the returns in question were strictly
correct.
Lord G. BENTINGK—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 trades which were protected the increase was not
so great -as in those trades which were exposed to corn-
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 thorn 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 Rouse. 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
placs 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 ; you
have permitted Hanover to use Memel, 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 sa
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 ? If 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 aro
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 her 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 ant, 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
the 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 sanc-
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 it every
man in the British navy was a sa►lor, whereas, atter 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 ono
of them has told us how the transfer of the men from
one service to the other, when wanted, is to be effected.
—(hear, bear.) 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 he added that he
believed it might be so made even 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 rach 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
able seamen at high wages on the faith of maintaining
protection, while you do nothing to guarantee him a
larger amount of profit than can b obtained in any other
trade; for the profits in all trades will be the same, pro-
tect them as you may?—(hear, hear.) On the one
hand you take credit fur protecting; the shipowners,
while on the other you claim credit for having invente(
a plan for manning the navy
this unfortunate interest. ( entirely at the expense of
ear.) And without giving
them greater profits than
claim the right to pounce down other trades can obtain, you
i
upon them at any mo-
ment, to take away their men, knock up their trade, and
perhaps bring them to ruin.—(Hear,) H it be possible for