The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-25 00:00:00

LONDON,_

fallacy of such an assumption. This was the anodyne
offered to the distressed agricultural interest, at the be-
ginning of the session.—(Hear.) They were told that
they must soon be relieved by participating in the general
prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He would not
then enter into that subject.—(Hear, hear.) Other op-
portunities would present themselves of discussing it.
He would tontine himself entirely to the shipping in-
terest, and merely content himself with the statement
that the prosperity assumed by the Right Honourable
Gentleman did not exist, either in the agricultural, the
colonial, or the shipping interest, and he had. very
great doubts whether the vaunted prosperity in the
manufacturing interest really existed. At the proper
time he should be prepared to show the grounds of that
belief. The Right Hon. Gentleman had argued in fa-
vour of the system of reciprocity, which was just com-
menced in 1816, and fully carried out by Mr. Huskisson
in 1826, as having been advantageous to British ship-
ping. He had returns—[which the Hon. Gentleman
quoted in detail]—which proved the very reverse was
the case. With the United States we had reciprocity
during three years, and the consequence was, there was
a decline in the amount of British tonnage, and an in-
crease -of United States tonnage, while, with the Baltic
states, where we had no system of reciprocity; but a
system of protection, our tonnage had largely increased
in proportion to the ration of the increase of the ton-
nage of these states. He thought the Right Honourable
Baronet had failed in showing that reciprocity would
advance the interests of the shipowner. He then said
there wore three points, which exemplified the ad-
vantages of the new system. First, the general exten-
,ion or British navigation. With regard to this point
he did not deny that such was the case, but it was
to be observed, that it was advancing under the system
of protection, and if that advance had been less rapid
since it had been abandoned, that would show the disad-
vantage of the system. They never said that British
navigation would decline, they knew it was not in the
power of a Minister to destroy the energy of the people
of this country, which had, to a great extent, sustained
the shipping interest; but, notwithstanding that, he felt
convinced it could not maintain the disadvantages of the
unequal competition to which it was exposed.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not wish to trouble the House with sta-
tistical statements which were generally wearisome, and
would, therefore, in referring to them be as brief as
possible. They had been told that British tonnage had

increased. What were the facts? The amount of
English and foreign tonnage in 1848, was 6,548,000
tons, and in 1849, the last year of protection, it
amounted, as compared to the preceding, to 6,919,000
tons, showing an increase of 393,955 tons. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said that the predictions of the ship-
owners with regard to the increase of foreign tonnage
was fallacious. In forming an opinion upon this point,
it was necessary to distinguish between the amount of
tonnage in ward and outward. It seldom happened that
foreign ships going outwards were laden but in part,
and in cases where they took little more than ship
stores their full tonnage appeared in the returns. The
case was different with regard to the amount of the ton-
❑age inwards, for they entered our ports with full car-
goes, and the amount of tonnage inwards was, therefore,
the best criterion to test the real importance of the
foreign shipping, and the movements of the mercantile
marine.—(Hear.) In 1849 the British tonnage increased
318,677 tons, while in 1850, the first year after protec-
tion, it declined 184,000 tons. In 1849, the foreign
tonnage increased 75,000 tons, while it advanced to
364,587 tons. These were the amounts of tonnnage of the
respective ships from foreign ports. That was not all,
the experience they had of the system since 1850 enabled
him to corroborate what had been pointed out by
his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries), and to arrive at
the same result, computing in the same way. In the five
first months of the present year British shipping had
declined to the amount of 85,000 tons, while that of
foreign shipping increased to 80,000 tons. From 1842
to 1849, the average amount of tonnage inwards, of
British and foreign shipping, amounted to 345,000 tons,
hut in 1850, the total amount, instead of being what it
should have been estimated upon, the average of those
years, 345,000 tons, amounted only to 42,000 tons. The
average amount of foreign shipping was 187,000 tons,
but, in 1850, it became 354,000 tons, while the British
declined 311,000 tons.—(Hear, hear.) He wished also
to call attention to the progress of American shipping,
not in a spirit of jealousy, but as a matter worthy of
consideration.—(Hear, bear.) Mr. Huskisson clearly
stated the true object of the navigation-laws when he
said their object was to create a mercantile marine,
and next, to prevent any other nation from engrossing
too much of the commerce of the world. In 1815 the
tonnage of Great Britain was 2,681,000 tons, and that
of America 1,368,000 tons; but in 1850 the amount of
British tonnage was 4,232.960 tons, and that of America
3,535,000 tons. It appeared that America in four years
added to her mercantile marine 967,000 tons, and if
America went on increasing at the same ratio as she had
done for those four years she would shortly have a
larger mercantile marine than this country. He had
shown that the assumption of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, that there had been a great increase in the aggre-
gate tonnage of this country, was fallacious, while the
increase of foreign tonnage refuted his second assump-
tion, that the British shipping took its fair share of the
increase, whereas it had actually decreased. He wished,
further, to draw attention to a fact, which would show
that they should not rely too mnch upon returns of the
tonnage of British shipping. It was found, in 1827,
that a great number of vessels appeared upon the re-
gister at Lloyd's which had no existence, and that they
amounted to 41,000 ships, representing a tonnage of
396,900 tons, and he had every reason to believe that
the register of shipping at the present moment was not
in a better condition. In the returns with regard to the
foreign trade, the steamers trading to France, Holland,
and Belgium were returned. There was a list of all
these steamers, and the amount of their tonnage, which
stood at 20,257 tons. These vessels aggregately made so
many voyages ia a year that they represented 150,000
tons of shipping. He did not allude to this fact as mak-
ing a charge of deception, but merely to induce caution.
Cho Right Hon. Gentleman said he would prove a great

improvement in building British ships. He could-not,
however, agree with him in that ; for in shipbuilding,
from 1848 to 1850, it had decreased to 74,403 tons. In
tact, the trade of the shipbuilding was greatly depressed
throughout the kingdom ; and, in fact, there were but
two merchant ships building in the port of London.
The Right Hon. Gentleman alluded to the ships built
for the Royal Mail Company, but that would have taken
place whether there was protection or not. He would
admit that the steam shipping of the country had in-
creased, and was in advance of all other countries.
Shipbuilding, irrespective of steam-ships, was, however,
in a state of deplorable depression, no doubt. This was
assertion against assertion, and the public must give
judgment between them. He would undertake to have
a declaration from all the shipowners of the country,

that the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the
views he entertained on that interest. On the opening
of the trade to India, the American flag found it more
profitable to engage in that trade, and leave the short
trade, which was less remunerative to us, It answered
their purpose to take freights to California at a high
rate, and thence to proceed to Australia, and
China and India. The returns of their in-
ward tonnage might appear small from the number
of these circuitous and long voyages, as appeared
with ours ; 1,100 ships went to California, this caused
an tete rflow of shipping in the Indian trade, and
caused a depreciation of receipts. In this competition
who would go to the wall? Of course, the British. The
Americans in their progress from California could take
goods at any freight. In a case of an American ship, of
five and six hundred tons, which cost 42,000 dollars,
that made a freight of 46,000 dollars to California, and
from China to this country got 21. a ton, and then took a
cargo back to America, getting a preference of freight,
because the Americans favoured their own countrymen.
He contended that the system was not one of fair compe-
tition, but was a bounty for foreigners over the British
shipowner. The trade of the British shipowners had
greatly diminished of late years. Mr. Dunbar has been
referred to, but he could assure the House that that gen-
tleman would have been glad if he could have secured 3
per cent, upon his laid out capital during the last year.
He should be glad if the Right Hon. Gentleman would
apply for information on this and such like subjects,
from some honest and independent shipowner, instead of
seeking for information from persons who really had not
the necessary knowledge on the subject. It was a pain-
ful thing for him to be obliged to admit that the
shipping interest was in a prostrate position; and he
was quite sure of this, that if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man were to look into the facts of the case, ho would
see reason to modify, if not to alter his views in refer-
ence to that important subject.—(Hear.) It was his
painful duty to state to the House that the interests con-
nected with the British shipping were on the verge of
ruin; and if the House thought they could uphold the
mercantile marine in this country under the present sys-
tem, they were very much mistaken, and they would find
out that mistake when it was • too late.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman then complained of the manning
clause in the amended Act relating to the navigation-
laws, and said that this clause was in violation of the
free-trade principles upon which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man acted. Why was he, as a British shipowner, to be
restricted as regarded he men by whom he was to man
his ship? Why was he obliged to take Englishmen,
while he could get Swedes or other sailors at half the
price? He would illustrate the difficulty of the British
shipowner:, in this matter by an occurrence which was
within his own knowledge. Two captains of vessels,
one a Swede and the other an Englishmen, entered the
counting-house of a shipowner, an acquaintance of his.
In reply to his friend, the Swedish captain said
his pay was 51. per month, that of the sailor
30s. a month, and that the sailor was fed
upon stock fish and biscuits. The British cap-
tain in reply to his friend, said his salary was 101. a
month, with 51. for cabin requisites, 50s. a month to the
sailor, who was allowed one pound and a half of pork, or
beef, n day,—(Hear, hear.) Now, was it right to oblige
o
the British shipowner to contend against the foreign ship-
owner, taking from him that protection which he formerly
had
under the navigation-laws, and yet oblige him to
man his vessels with British sailors at double the expense
which.i he
on wouldbe
hoard?liahl toli ifthhouegwhetrtehey
enabled to
edu-
cate foreignsailors e-
cate the sailors. In the city of Boston no sailors were
sent to sea who were not acquainted with the rudiments
of education. He thanked the House for the kindness
they had shown him, and he hoped he had used no ex-
pressian that was calculated to give offence to any one.
Mr. WILSON said the Hon. Gentteman had argued
upon this question in direct opposition to the principle
upon which the motion before the House rested. He
argued that reciprocity had ruined the shipping interest,
and the Aka of the motion was to extend the recipro-
city principle all over the world. The Hon. Gentleman
ought to remember that when the law was passed we
were, as to some of the morn important branches of our
trade, in the same position as we occupied in
1821, when Mr. Huskisson first proposed his
reciprocity treaties. He forgot, too, to mention
to the House, that Russia and Prussia had given us