The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-01 00:00:00

ra _ t SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUMAT 1, 1E60.1

,shipping entering the ports of France. British ships paid
2if. per ton, as against 18 centimes per ton which was all
that was paid by French ships. However high the diffe-
rential duties of France migt be differential us they were as
nothing compared with the duties maintained
by the Spanish Government. Coffee from Havannah, if
imported m British ships, was charged 20 cents per 91b.,
and in Spanish ships only 9 cents per 91b. Sugar in British
ships was charged 37 cents per box, and in Spanish 25 cents
per box. It was the same with tobacco, and while the ton-
nage duty was 1 dole. per ton on British, it was half a dol-
lar per ton on Spanish ships. From the coasting trade of
France, which might be of some importance,. our shipping
was excluded, and 17 different nations still maintained more
or less differential duties, or prohibited our ships altogether
from entering their coasting trades. What course the
house would deem it advisable to adopt was not for him
to say, but these were facts into which a committee ought
to inquire. He wanted to know what the different Govern-
ments which had been in power since 1850 had done to
obtain that reciprocity which the British shipowner had a
right to expect. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He feared
that the various Governments had not exerted themselves as
they might to induce foreig,nnations to allow our ships to enter
their ports on the same terms as their ships were allowed to
enter our ports. (Cheers from the Opposition.) For many
years treaties of reciprocity had existed between this coun-
try and the United States, and before 1850 their ships were
admitted to our ports on exactly the same terms as our ships
were admitted to their ports. But after the repeal of the
navigation laws our ports in India and Australia were opened
to ships of the United states, and in 1854 we threw open
the whole of our coasting.. trade. The right hon. member for
Oxford said that he felt not only sanguine but perfectly
certain that after the Act of 1854 the United States would
throw open their coasting trade to us. Six years had passed
and the Americans still retained their coasting trade, and
still excluded our ships. The voyage from New York to
California was quite as long and quite as difficult as the
voyage from London to Calcatta. In making it ships were
obliged to pass the shores of various foreign nations, and
therefore, it its strict technical meaning, it was not a coast-
ing voyage. But the Americans not only maintained that it
was a coasting voyage, but that a ship, loading at New
York with portions of cargo for Rio, Bahia, Valparaiso, and
the remainder for California, was engaged in the coasting
trade from which English ships were excluded. He could
only touch upon the leading features of a subject so com-
prehensive as this, and, in the first place, he begged atten-
tion to that of lights. He knew that many hon. members
held a strong opinion that, as the shipowners derived the
benefit, they ought to maintain the lights. The question
had often been discussed, and it was examined very filly
by a committee in 1815, over which the late Mr. Hume
presided, and of which the noble lord at the head of the
Government was a member. That committee reported
that these charges should be defrayed out of the consoli-
dated fund, and that the debt incurred by the
Trinity House should be undertaken by the
public. The noble lord now at the head of the Government
voted in favour of that resolution. At that tine the shipping
interest was a protected interest, though he had never been
of opinion that it derived much benefit from that protection,
but if it was right to recommend the removal of those bur-
dens then, surely it was much more so now that our ship-
ping was exposed to competition. Surely, if we invite other
nations to trade freely with us we ought to warn them of
the dangers which surrounded our shores, without taxing
them for the knowledge. Other nations were far before us
in this respect. The United States of America had never
charged our shipping visiting their ports a single sixpence
for light dues, while their shipping visiting our ports had
paid no less than £234,000 light dues in the 10 years from
1840 to 1850. If we redressed this inequality, we should cer-
tainly have a better chance of obtaining reciprocity from the
United States. Another subject for inquiry would be pass-
ing tolls and local dues. With regard to local dues, it. was
fairly open to many persons to look upon them in the light
of property, which could not be taken away without compen-
sation ; but, without going into that question, it was certain
that in many cases no return had for many years been ren-
dered in return for these dues. The Manchester merchants
had in one year paid no less than £105,000 to Liverpool
without getting anything for it. The whole sum had been
transferred to the borough fund and spent in improvements
which, however desirable, ought to have been provided from
-the borough rates. In the same way Newcasele extracted a
large sum for which it gave no return to the parties from
whom it was drawn. The great shipbuilding port of Sun-
derland was treated yet as a creek of Newcastle, and paid no
less than £104,000 a year tribute to Newcastle, of.which not
one fraction was returned to Sunderland. In former times
there were certain corporate bodies which had the right of
charging double sates on all foreign ships entering into
their ports. But in the reciprocity treaties negotiated from
1810 to 1820 there were always provisions that foreign ships
should only pay the same rates as our own. Those
corporations had consequently been obliged to reduce the
dues on foreign ships to the same rates which are charged
on British vessels ; and, on application to that house., they
had been granted compensation, he presumed, in accord-
ance with the justice of the case. No less a sum, however,
than £1,225,000 had been paid to them up to the end of the
year 1858. He now came to consider the question of pass-
ing tolls. He had the honour of being chosen a member of
the commission which was appointed to inquire respecting
harbours of refuge for the kingdom ' • and that commission
arrived unanimously at the opinion that if these harbours
were to be made they ought to be constructed at the expense
of the country, which was bound to provide an asylum,
where not merely their own vessels but those of other na-
tions frequenting its shores could find shelter in the hour
of need. But the harbours which they had in view were
such as might receive ships of almost any size at all states
of the tide, as well as during stormy weather. If the com.
mittee were right in believing that it was the duty of the
nation to maintain harbours froniwhich the shipping could
derive benefit, it was surely high time that vessels should
be relieved from the payment of duties to harbours from
which they derived no benefit whatever. (Hear, hear.) For
a long time they had been paying £12,000 a year as passing
tolls to the harbour at Dover, which hon. members might
know was dry at low water—(cries of "No I ")—and per-
haps not one out of every ten ships which paid the tax for
its maintenance would be able to enter that harbour at any
time of the tido. Ramsgate, to which £1,400 were annually
paid; would perhaps be somewhat hotter, there being at low
water a depth of seven feet, but it could only be used, even
At high tides, by small vessels. Whitby might also be said
to be dry at low water, yet towards its maintenance
rsee;ng Airs paid ne loos than -Cli,fflll Last off all
case Bridlington, which was one or the places at Trish
the commissioners had stopped in the course of their
inquiry, and he must do the inhabitants the justice to
say that they did not recommend their own locality as the
best which could be selected for a great national harbour.
It might have been thought that the steamer which had
been placed at their disposal by the Admiralty, and which
drew only eight feet of water, would have been able to enter
the royal harbour of refuge at Bridlington, but they were
obliged to moor full half a mile outside, and to land with
the steamer's boats ; and when they got to the entrance of
the harbour they found it impossible for even those small
boats to enter, so that her Majesty's Royal Commissioners
of Inquiry had been obliged to be carried on the backs of
coastguard amen—(laughter)—into a harbour which had been
for many years in the receipt of £2,808, and on the faith of
these dues had contracted a debt amounting lo £28,000.
Surely these were matters demanding inquiry, and which
ought long since to have been amended. (Hear.) He would
remind his hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade
that he and these with whom he had acted since 1850 had
pledged themselves to the house and to the country to re-
move those peculiar burdens and restrictions from the ship-
ping interest. In a discussion which took place on a bill
proposed in 1856 for the abolition of local dues on shipping.
Mr. Labouchere (now Lord Taunton) stated that Govern-
ment did not undertake to deal with the question until it
had been duly examined, and proceeded thus
" I will ask, likewise, is the subject a new one to this
house P Why, the very grievances that we are now consi-
dering have year after year been pressed on the attention of
the house and the Government; and when it fell to my lot
several years ago to propose the repeal of the navigation
laws, I was repeatedly taunted for not coupling that great
change with a subsidiary measure like the present, doing
justice to the shipping interest. And it is, in fact, in re-
demption—a tardy redemption. I admit—of the pledges
then given by me and other Ministers on that subject, that
the Government introduced the bill before the house."
He now asked his right hon. friend to redeem those pledges
so often and so solemnly given, and to remove from the
shipping interest those restraints and impositions by which
it was still fettered. He also found that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, when Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer in 1852, had declared that those
tells " were a vexation and a burden to which the shipping
of this country ought not, under present circumstances, to
be subjected." He had no doubt that if the right hon.
gentleman had remained in office, these tolls would have
been removed. Another question hich had often been dis-
cussed by the house, and with regard to which it was de-
sirable that something should at length be done, was that
of the Stade .Dues, which were not merely oppressive to
shipping, but also stood very much in the way of the large
transactions of this country with Germany. The house was
not, perhaps, aware of the existence of a company called
" The Russian Company,." which must, however, be very
well known to his hon. friend the member for Hull. This
body had now been established, ho believed, for 200 or 300
years, and of late it had levied a tax on the shipping fre-
quenting Cronstadt, of no less than £12,000 per annum.
What benefit vessels derived from this large payment, or
what connexion they had with the objects to which, accord-
ing to the blue-beok, this fund was applied, ho was wholly
at a loss to understand. £791 had been expended on the
British Chapel at St. Petersburg; £613 on the Russian
Company's chapels in that Empire; £25 for an organ at
procureovern plate
r of fothor thec Company
a‘ Governor"—heny;andforan
presumed
; or XB5
the to
Governor
entertainment at the Russian Embassy, £193 had been
spent. (Hear, hear.) But there was more that. There
was an item for an entertainment to the Grand Duke Alex-
ander of £595. Why the shipping, and the shipping alone,
should bo called ran to entertain the
Grand Duke Alexander
at the Russian Embassy, he felt utterly unable to discover.
(Hear.) But if anyolion. member were familiar with the
position and objects of the Russian Company he would per-
haps be able not only to explain this, but also why they were
called called on to pay £260 for engraving and £2OO for framing
and embellishing the portrait of the Emperor Nicholas
.....(laughter)—and likewise why they were called on
to give £lOO to the churchwardens at Moscow. The
next point was with reference to the imposts on timber,
and he did not see how, consistently with their
political opinions, hon. gentlemen who sat on the
Treasury benches could maintain this tax. On what prin-
ciple were manufactured ships admitted duty free into our
ports, to compete with British vessels, and to realise profits
from their cargoes, at the same time that taxes were laid on
the raw material from which those ships were built, and
which was capable of giving employthent to large masses of
peole ? (Hear.) Yet a duty of 7s. 6d. for load and square
limber, and 10s. for deal was demanded. It might be said
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this duty, which
amounted to £600,000 annually, could not be dispensed
with, but his answer would be that it was not a question of
money but Of justice, and if the people of this country were
once convinced that a question was just, thereould always
find the ways and means for acting on their conviction. If
it were found impracticable to part at once with the entire
of the duty, it ought at least to be remitted on oak and
pitch pines, which were the descriptions of foreign wood
most largely in use in this country. Ho came now to the
-liability of shipowners on account of freight and passen-
gers. By a clause in the Merchant Shipping Act the re-
sponsibility of the shipowner was limited to no less than
£l5 per ton for the ship and freight. By over-legislation
they had raised the-passage-money to a serious extent, so
that a passage in a ferei;rl was preferred to one in a
British ship. But while they had inflicted severe penal-
ties on their own shipowners they had not effected the
object:th ship.m
they had in view. The Passenger Act of 1819 laid
the shipowner under imperative obligations, by fines fro
40s. to £5OO, and in some cases extending to the forfeiture
of the HouseeShipowners could not be said to be in the en•
-
ideevni n
s. ho free trade while they had to sustain such bur-
relieved from
reason to fear the 'r
:flatters were well worthy of the consideration
thC:mmons. If tho British shipowners were
particular burdens they would have no
was a fair inquirycompetitieri of the world. All they asked
mr. noir_ ea lair field, and ne favour,
'er ALL, in •,
seconding , the motion, seise ho

------- -
agreed with ,the hon. gentleman by whom it was made in
the views -wilth respect to recifirecity to which he had given
expression, as well as in those which related to the,neces-
sity which existed for the removal of the burdens on ship-
ping and the operation of Lord Campbell's Act. lie could
not, however, concur with the hon. gentleman in the obser-
vations which had fallen lama him in reference to local
dues, more peaticularly the local dues of Liverpool, which
were now, in accordance with the provisions of a special
act of Parliament, appropriated to the benefit of shipping,
and not extended for the advantage of the town itself. There
was also another important subject to which the hon. gen-
' tlenaan had adverted—he meant the operation of our inter-
national maritime laws—in dealing with which he (Mr.
Horsfall) was desirous of impressing the house with the
conviction that it was a question most deeply affecting the
shipping interest of this country. He was, of course, quite
aware that there were political reasons why there was an
objection to any interference with that law, but the mode in
which it acted ought nevertheless, he thought, to be fully
investigated by the proposed committee, so that such infor-
mation upon the point might be obtained as would be of use
to Parliament in case legislation in regard to it should
hereafter be determined upon. The question was one, he
might add, which affected not the shipping interest only but
the whole consuming population of the country—nay,
more, the national defences—for, if the mercantile marine,
which was the nursery of that reserve of 30,000 sea-
men by which our shores were to be defended, were to
continue to suffer under the existing system, the efficiency
of the force to which he alluded must be proportionately
diminished. (Hear, hear.) He should not on that occa-
sion enter into a subject which had been so often and so
fully discussed, but should, in conclusion, content himself
with expressing a hope that the committee, if nominated,
would present to the houss such a report as would enable
Parliament to legislate effectively upon a question of great
importance. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said that, while actuated by
no spirit of hostility to the motion before the house, ho was
afraid the terms were not such as to arm the committee with
those powers which would place it in a position to set at
rest complaints which were made from one end of the king-
dom to the other. As to the cause of those complaints he
need say but very little, for in the debate upon the subject
which had taken place in May last hon. members on both
sides of the house, the representatives of great as well as
small maritime constituencies, were unanimous in their
opinion that a cloud heavier than that which the experience
of any former year revealed then hung over British ship-
ping. In support of the justice of that view he might
quote the authority of the hon. member for Sunderland
himself, who, in a work which ho had recently,published,
made mention of the adversity under which the shipping
interest had laboured ever since the date of the Crimean war
and declared the prediction that that adversity was only a
mere passing cloud to have been completely falsified. He
might add that in letters which had emanated- from the
Shipowners' Society of Sunderland a short time ago, in an-
swer to an application which had been addressed to them,
it was stated that the depression in the case of the shipping
of that port had decidedly increased since Dec. last ; while
from North Shields, Montrose, and Glasgow similar replies
were returned. He should next call the attention of the
house to certain figures whieh had been furnished by the
Board of Trade, in compliance with a motion which had
been made in the month of February last year. From these
figures it appeared that the average increase in British ship-
ping during the five years from 1844 to 1848 inclusive was
72 per cent. over the corresponding period from 1834 to
1838, while the average increase of foreign shipping was 86
per cent. on its previous amount. He found also that the
average increago of tonnage in British vessels for the five
years ending in 1858 was 39 per cent. above the average for
a similar period ending in 1848, while in the case of foreign
ships it was 126 per cent. He perceived, moreover, that for
the five years previous to the repeal of the navigation laws
the average annual increase of British tonnage was 73 per
cent., that of foreign being 88 per cent.; while, taking a
similar period since the repeal of the navigation laws, the
increase in British tonnage was, he found, only 40 per cent.,
that of foreign tonnage being 133. (Hear, hear.) He did
not quote those figures with a view of saying anything hos-
tile to the repeal of the navigation laws, because he was one
of those who believed that free trade was almost an unmixed
blessing. He did not mean to prejudge the opinion of the
committee by pronouncing whether the views of the ship-
ing interest were right or wrong ; he merely said that while
they murmured and complained, something more would be
found necessary than the remedy pointed out by the hon.
member for Sunderland in order to silence those murmurs
and apply the healing balm to those complaints. He quoted
a passage from " Mitchell's Maritime Register," illustrative
of the general condition of the shippinginterest, and show-
ing the great preponderance of French, Dutch, and other
foreign ships over British tonnage in the Chinese ports in
April last. British vessels in China were unable to hold
their own against foreign competition ; American, French,
and Spanish ships actually running away with their
freights. The shipowners did not say, "Enforce recipro-
city, go back and avail yourselves of your orders in Council,
but look at France , look at America ; look at the system
of differential duties to which our ships were subject in
foreign ports, all but excluding us from their trade, and
nay whether something cannot be done to put us in a more
fair position." He was happy to see,-so far as France was
concerned, that the prospect was improving; the Emperor
was disposed to hold out the hand of a reformer, guided by
a judicious and intelligent mind. He hailed this as an inch-
eation that the time was not far distant when France would
be encouraged to follow the example shown in this country,
urged by the remonstrances which the debate of that even-
ing would enable the Foreign-office to address to her, when
our shipping would participate in the benefits of prosperous
commerce, and when the golden threads of friendly inter-
change would be woven into a band of amity. At present
we had to compete with foreign ships, having deferential
duties in their favour. America excluded us from her coast-
ing trade, covering a voyage of 5,000 miles to San Fran-
cisco. That could not be called, in any equitable sense of
the term, a coasting voyage ; if so, what became of the voy-
age from New York to Aspinwall—was that to be held a
coasting trade ? The shipowners said, in the spirit of free
trade, " Let America meet us on fair and equal terms, we
will throw open our Canadian coasting trade ; throw open
yours." They did not clamour for something evanescent and
`paltry when they sought admission to this vast field of pro-
fitahlo employment in the American coasting trade.. Their
exclusion 'row ii LLial I.y tAultilb.,. plenaforeign trade as well. He did not, therefore, ask toe much
when he asked that the British shipowners might go before
a select committee to tell their wrongs, and hear from that
tribunal whether their giievances were such as Parliament
only could help but no legislative remedy could heal. Here
was the great mercantile interest of this country, with all the
relations direct and indirect plingiag around it, supplicating
that house to hear their complaints, and were they to turn a
deaf ear to their supplications, or meet them with a prejudiced
opinion that they should not be listened to because they
were protectionists at heart? He trusted that so respectable
body of gentlemen would at least have the satisfaction of
knowing that a British House of Commons would not re-
fuse to listen to their complaints. They did not want a
committee to, determine the question of lights. The incidence
of lights on the shipping interest had been condemned in
principle by the opinion of their most eminent statesmen,
by votes of the house, and by the most enlightened foreign
Ministers. Was it fair that these lights should fall on the
merchant and not affect the Royal navy ? They had already
had reports of committees unanimously declaring that the
cost of the lights along the coast Rbould be borne by the
public revenue. In France and Russia the State defrayed
this charge. The hon. member for Sunderland himself had
admitted that a select committee could throw no new light
on the question of lights. (A laugh.) It had been shown
that by proper economy this burden might be reduced from
£300,000 to £150,000 a-year • and when that had been done
this part of the subject might receive a more favourable at-
tention from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then as to
the passing tolls, successive Governments had admitted
their injustice, and pledged themselves to deal with them
in a liberal spirit. The right hon. member for Caine (Mr.
Lcwe) some time ago introduced a bill proposing at once to
cut the Gordian knot by exempting all ships from these
tolls, except such as entered and used the harbours for the
benefit of which they were levied. The delay of a reference to
a select committee on that point also was therefore idle and
unnecessary. So, again, with respect to the harbour and
town dues raised at Liverpool, Hull, and Newcastle. The
wisest course would be to submit the question of those dues,
together with the mortgages or other charges upon them, to
the award of a competent arbitrator. The subject of the
timber duties was a matter for the consideration of a liberal-
minded Chancellor of the Exchequer who should allow the
shipowner the benefit of a drawback, or of a substantial re-
duction of the impost on oak and pine. The working of the
Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts might, however,
very fairly form the subject of inquiry, with a view to re-
move the grievances of the shipping interest. The Court of
Admiralty required adaptation to the increasing wants of
our commerce. It ought to have a concurrent jurisdiction
with the common law courts in questions of general or par-
ticular average, charterparties, lading, &c. At present the
Court of Admiralty, which might have the assistance of the
registry of merchants to guide it on points of mercantile and
maritime usage, was ousted of its jurisdiction if a special
contract existed betwccen the parties. The recent investi-
gation into the conduct of the captain of the ship Paramatta,
suggested another topic for consideration. The Board of
" Trade now stood towards an important branch of our mer-
cantile marine in a position wholly opposed to the funda-
mental principles of the constitution. It combined judicial
and executive functions, which were exercised free from all
control, and often in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner.
It would, therefore, be a fit matter for -inquiry whether the
shipping interest did not desire a power of appeal from the
tribunals constituted under the Board of Trade to the Court
of Admiralty, aided by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity
House. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, as an
amendment, to insert, after the words "inquire into," tho
following words, "the causes of the present depressed con-
dition of British merchant shipping, and how far the same
are capable of legislative remedy, and ;" and to add at the
end the' following words :—" and to consider the expediency
of giving to the High Court of Admiralty an appellative
jurisdiction over naval courts and inquiries under par.
VIII. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and otherwise
enlarging the powers of that Court in matters relating to
merchant shipping."
Mr. SOMES, in seconding the amendment, expressed his
conviction that the motion of the hon. member for Sunder-
land would not be satisfactory to the great body of ship-
owners.
Mr. CRAWFORD, who had given notice of his intention
to move the appointment of a select committee "to inquire
into the condition of the commercial marine, and the opera-
tions London
e ofii o nn a
t large
h theat
month
h bodye r es
o o
u f November
tis of any legal enactments and peculiar bur lens affecting
the same," explained that he had given that notice at the
request
y pei taci
expressed
placing
te cityhehis
ftf
ati
shipowners
nbeerrs
ballot,lwas htbo m
, of
result
of
and
t
mo-
tion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland first upon
the paper, had relieved him from the taskwhich he had un-
ddrtaken, and had placed the direction of the committee, if
it should be appointed, in the hands of that hon. gentleman.
At the same time he confessed his preference for his own
terms of reference, and suggested the introduction into the
motion of his hon friend of words which should exclude the
consideration of the operation of Lord Campbell's Acts on
railways, whieh might otherwise seem to be included in the
duties of the committee, and should expressly enable it to
inquire into the condition of the commercial marine. (Hear,
hear.) Were this latter provision omitted the committeere-
membering the lecture of the right lion. baronet opposite
(Sir J. Pakington) en tho previous evening, might decline
to enter upon such 1111 inquiry. He could not concur in the
amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for
Southampton, because it proposed to exclude from the con-
sideration of the committee matters which were of great im-
portance to the shipping interest. He, to a certain extent,
concurred with the argument of his hon. friend the member
for Sunderland as to what was due from America to this
country, but ho was quite content that we, having
opened our ports to all other nations, should leave them to
follow our example when they pleased. In urging the
house-to authorise the committee to go into the con.
sideration of the reciprocity question he was ac-

tuated by no desire to undo what was done in 1849. The
hou. and learned gentlemen who moved the amendment had
adverted, in terms which were not in the slightest degree
warranted by the facts, to the vast field of profitable eater-
prise which would be °poled to us if we could get a footing
in the American coasting trade. The real state of the case
was that the dep!ession o: other trades had driven all the
American ships into that one, and it had now becomeas un-
remunerative as eny other, being one proof among many
that protoctlon was never beneficial to eny interest. (Hear,
hear.) Not'with.standingthe earueat endeavour of the hon.
and learned membar for Southampton to dissuade the house
from inquiring into the questions of lights, local dues, pas-
sing tolls, timber duties, ind the stamps upon policies, it
was, in his opinion, molt important that the committee
should undertake that infestigation, in order that thacoun-
try might see clearly how these imposts operated upon the
interest of shipping. The house would recollect that in the
course of last session he described how the various acts re-

feting to shipping bore upon the interests of that branch of
industry. The Merchant Shipping Act passed in 1854 re-
pealed every previous act which many way affected shipping,
and was, in fact, a codification of the law as it stood at that
time. But it introduced various alterations and modifica-
tions. It consisted of nofewer than 518 clauses, every one
of which was passed through committee in the course of
one evening. He did not intend to point out the objection-
able parts of that act, but he wished to remind the house
that it was understood at the time to be an act which might
require further consideration. It was, to a certain extent,
tentative. Six years hadnow passed away, and he thought
the shipowners were justified in asking the house to re-
consitler the act of 1854 with the view of ascertaining what
improvemenis might be made in it. (Hear, kear.) So with the
Passenger Act. The act was introduced, not by the Board
of Trade, but by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and
its effect had been to drive the passenger traffic out of the
hands of British shipowners. Of 90,000 passengers who
had embarked at Liverpool for the United States 75,000
went in American ships, and only 15,030 in British vessels.
At the same time, while our shipowners had lost the traffic,
the American shipowners had gained an additional sum per
head for every passengerconveyed by them. Nor was that
all. A vessel taken up for the conveyance of emigrants
was subjected under the Passenger Act to the inspection of
an emigration officer. If the emigration officers acted upon
any fixed rule the shipowners would have nothing to com-
plain of, but unfortunately they were most capricious in
their proceedings, and a vessel was often hewed and hacked
in pieces to suit their peculiar views. Again, take the case
of an English ship conveying passengers to Australia. She
might,- for some reason or other, be obliged to put into a
port on the Brazilian coast, and might there be found to be
in an unseaworthy condition and unfit to continuo her voy-
age. The means of repair might not be at hand, the ship
might be condemned, and in that case the captain would be
obliged to pass on his passengers to their destination. He
did not complain of that; but if the ship were an American
ship the captain might snap his fingers at the authorities
and leave his passengers to do the best they could for them-
selves. The Passenger Act, therefore, did not place Eng-
lish and American vessels upon the same footing. Eng-
lish shipowners might also complain of the liability to
which they were exposed by that act. The house would
recollect that, in the investigation which took place into
the circumstances attending the loss of the Royal Char-
ter an attempt was made to fix upon the unhappy cay-
sain the charge of intoxication. No proof whatever
was adduced that Captain Taylor had been a man of
intemperate habits, and the charge completely broke down.
But what was the object of that charge ? It was to fix upon
the owners the responsibility of having entrusted the com-
mand of the ship to a man given to intemperance, and so
to expose them to heavy claims und6r the 'provisions of the
Passenger Act. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman con-
cluded by expressing his intention to vote for the motion of
the hon. member for Sunderland.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR stated that the hon. member
for London had misunderstood him. He did not wish to
exclude the committee from the consideration of the re-
strictions and burdens upon shipping.
Mr. BENTINCK thought the question of a depression
of one of the greatest interests of the country was an all-
important one, and yet the Ministerial and front Opposi-
tion benches were entirely deserted. With respect to the
amendment proposed by his hon. and learned friend, the
member for Southampton, he thought, when he said the
depression arose from natural causes, he was cutting the
ground from under his own feet. The hon. and learned
gentleman stated, in the first instance, that it arose from
natural causes, but he afterwards changed his tone, and
proposed that those foreign countries that did not recipro-
cate should be excluded from the benefits given to others in
coming to British ports. His hon. and learned friend
called America " shabby" for the part she had acted, but
he could not see why she deserved to be called so, because
she took everything she could get, and gave away nothing.
His hon. and learned friend called upon tho Government
to demand reciprocity from those countries that refused
to do so ; but of what advantage could that be ? Suppose
they refused to do so, what would be the course to pursue ?
If the old restrictions were resorted to an outcry
would be raised that they were returning to the old
system, but he believed the Government had no
intention of doing so. He contended that while
the timber duties were in existence, there could be no free
trade, or as long as they were obliged to raise a revenue for
the public service. The shipowners had drawn up an able
address to the Crown, in which they put forward the
grievances under which the shipping interest laboured ; and
the answer from the Board of Trade was not, in his opinion,
a reply to it. In his opinion, the framers of the act of 1849
knew well that foreign nations would not reciprocate, and
thus a power was given to the Government of the-day to
abrogate, in point of fact, the principal provisions of the
law. Then, why was it-that the Government had not re-
course to that power ? The fact was, it resolved itself into
a question of prejudice, because it was decreed that, if the
demands of the British shipowners were complied with, it
would be a step backwards from the doctrines of free trade.
He believed that no such thing as free trade could exist in
any country, unless where men lived in the woods and lived
on roots. (A laugh.) He repeated the assertion, that no
free trade could exist in any civilised country; and there
were many hon. gentlemen who held the same opinions,
though they declined expressing them in that house for
political reasons. He thought they refused the prayer of
th 2 greatest interest in the country, because they felt afraid
they should be doing something that would injure what he
called a phantom.
Mr. CLAY agreed entirely with the objects of the hon.
rnr bn ,-,fraciti.,l that, thA wAnciA
recommended to be introduced into the motion by tho hon.
member for the City of London should be adopted, so that
the dill p!ng interest might be able to tell their own story
in their own language. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. INGHAM approved of the appointment of the com-
mittee, and expressed a hope that the amendment proposed
would not be persisted in. He believed that the report of
the committee would form the basis of legislation most use
ful and satisfactory to the shipping interest.
Lord LO VAIN E hoped that no objection would be offered
to the appointment of the committee.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR thought the Goveanment
ought to bring in a bill at once to regulate the subject of
passing tolls and light dues. These subjects had been al-
ready inquired into, and among other grievances under
which the shipping interest found they suffered, might
form the subject of consideration. Their case was fairly
entitled to the favourable notice of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
After a few words from Mr. H. TAYLOR and Mr. A
SMITH, who condemned the restrictions placed upon the
shipping interest by the Board of Trade,
Mr. LIDDELL thought that the great object ought to be
not to narrow this important question. Some years ago Par-
liament made a great alteration in the laws affecting the
shipping interest, and it was only natural that they should
be anxious for an inquiry into the effects of that change,
more especially as a great and important interest was af-
fected by them. The present Government could make such
an inquiry without creating a shadow of suspicion. If the
late Government had attempted to make such an inquiry,
they would have been assailed by a cry that they meant to
restore protection to the shipping interest. He was glad to
see that the Speech from, the Throne congratulated them
on their national prosperity. He could have wished that
some notice bad been taken of the depression of the ship-
ping interest, which he was afraid was assuming some-
thing of a chronic character. With reference to the
reciprocity clauses, he should like to be informed why
these clauses were inserted in the Act of 1849, and whether
the Government were prepared to expunge them. As
they stood on the statute-book, these clauses were a de-
lusion and a snare, and had- deluded people to invest
capital on the faith of them. With regard to the United
States, he might remark that their so-called coasting
trade excluded us from a great deal of the foreign carrying
trade which they professed to leave open. He hopod,
if the Government brought in a bill to deal with passing
tolls, that they would not mix it up with the matters
which had led to the loss of the former bill, but would deal
with it as a simple question, in which case it would doubt-
less be carried. There were several important matters which
the committee ought to inquire into connected with the ser-
vice of the countrEaud the hostile feelings said to have been
engendered in the minds of the merchant seamen by'their
legislation on this subject. He had no doubt that an inquiry
would take place, and he hoped it would be a full and fair
one. (Hear)
Mr. CAVE thought that if the Government of this coun-
try would adopt a firm, he would not say hostile, attitude
Sowards countries which did not act in a spirit of recipro-
city with us, they would soon be able to induce those Go-
vernments to act in a more equitable and liberal manner
towards the shipping interest of this country.
Sir C. NAPI ER said he was happy to say that apprentices
were entering the service much more numerously new than
when the apprentice laws were in existence. It was quite
true that there was a difficulty in manning the navy, but the
causes of that were very different from those mentioned by
lion. members. He would not, however, enter into the sub-
ject at the present moment, because the matter would shortly
come under the consideration of the house, and ho would
then take an opportunity of pointing them out.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that a variety of subjects had been
introduced into the debate, and au opinion had been expressed
on a great number of regulations and acts of Parliament, and
also on measures adopted by foreign countries, which were
considered to affect more or less the interests Of British
shipping. He should find it pike impossible, from the course
the debate had taken, to touch upon those variovs subjects;
and more than that, he felt it would be particularly incon-
venient, as many of the acts of Parliament which had been
referred to were precisely the subjects it was proposed to in-
quire into before this committee. Ho was aware that many
of those acts of Parliament were of recent origin. They were
passed with a desire to benefit the mercantile shipping of the
country and that class of sailors, but he did not think that
any one was of opinion that those acts of Parliament were .so
perfect in all their parts that they might not be improved
after inquiry. But the situation in which they were placed
was rather a peculiar one. The question appeared to turn
mainly on what should be the particular order of reference
which should guide the committee of inquiry. Last year the
late Government promised a committee of inquiry, and the
hoi. member for Sunderland moved for the committee in
these terms :—" That a select committee be appointed to in-
quire into the burdens amid restrictions especially affecting
merchant shipping." That motion was not considered
sufficiently wide by the hon. member for the City of Lon-
don, and therefore that hon. gentleman subsequently moved
an amendment to it,.and in the end the motion as amended
was agreed to. That amended motion was precisely what
was now before the house, and was considered by the ship-
owners as sufficiently wide for all purposes. He thought,
therefore, that as both sections, as it were, had agreed to
the order of reference, and the House of Commons had
mo that
au ge
at
as-
sented to it, and the committee having once met, they
might consider the present proceeding as merely a
Governmentcontinu-
that had a d
they not
m theig htsmallestev
e nm
amend
desiree d
it by inserting the wordsn
continu-
ance of what had already commenced. He could assure
theu house
to lunitwouldthe in any degree this inquiry. If it were net thought
u
"the state of British shippitig."
To that 145 should have nq objection, but be did not think
it would be au bnprowraent on the order as agreed to. -His

hon. friend the member for Sunderland had spoken of the
treaty of reciprocity now existing between England and
France as regarded deferential dues on merchant vessels,and
he complaine7l that notwithstanding the reciprocity provided
for by the treaty, British shipping entering French portswas
not placed on the same footihg as French vessels entering
British ports. Now it was remarkable that there was a coin-
. •

plaint of the same kind by the French Government. On that
point it was his duty to say that his hon. friend was not quite
correct in his allusions to the act, as the act only regarded
the direct and not the general trade between France and

England . The French Government had often complained
that whilst we were promising thisreciprocity we maintained
a system of exemptions in England—freemen in certain
towns, which Frenchmen could never become, not being
liable to dues on entering. certain English ports. It was no
new difficulty, for it had been the subject of correspondence
between the two Governments for years. His' hon. friend
the member for Truro had laid some strictures on the Board

of Trade examinations. But he would observe that it was
Parliament that made the regulations, and the Board of
Trade only carried out the wishes and intentions of the Le-
gislature. He thought the hon. gentleman must have been
misinformed in what he had stated respecting the case of a
master in the navy, but if he were correct he should be in-
clined to say that a person so ignorant of navigation was
not competent to command a merchant vessel. 'With respect
to the amendment of his hon. friend the member for South-

anipton, ho thought the house would think it hardly admis-
sible, He did not for a moment dispute that the shipping
interest was in a very depressed condition, but he would ask
the house whether it had any sufficient authority by figures
upon which they could base a deliberate resolution, as they
must necessarily come to in appointing a committee, that
there existed at the present moment such a depression of the
shipping interest as to demand inquiry. The fact might be
so, but parliamentary documents did not show it. On the
contrary, the figures which had been laid before Parliament

rather fed him to a contrary conclusion. If they turned to
the number and tonnage of steam and sailing vessels built
and registered in the United Kingdom within the last few
years they would find that in the year 1855 there was an in-
crease from a cause perfectly well known—the stimulus im-
parted to shipping by the Russian war in the building and
registering of steam and sailing vessels, yet that in subse-
quent years there had been an annual augmentation far be-
yond what used to exist in former times. Thus during
the three years complained of the tonnage built and regis-
tered in 1856 amounted to 244,758; in 1857 to 250,472, and
in 1853 to 208,030. But if they took a test which was
better than any other—namely, the number and tonnage of
the shipping actually employed in the home and foreign
trade—they would find that in 1855 it amounted
to 3,990,000, in 1856 to 4,000,000, in 1857 to 4,211,000,
and in 1858 to 4,325,000. If there were a growing and se-
rious depression in the shipping trade, he did not think
there could be that increase. The old comparison of British
ships and foreign ones entering and leaving British ports
was somewhat delusive ; for in the return of the British
shipping there was no account of British ships employed in
other parts of thelworld. Again, while there had Been an
increase sf British tonnage in those three years which had

been complained of, in the United States there had been a
decrease, and therefore the depression in the United States
must be greater than it had been here. He believed indeed
he was perfectly correct in saying that from some of the
returns made out in America, France, and Holland, very
similar results would be indicated. From the year 1855 to
the present time 352,072 tons had been added to the Bri-
tish and foreign trade, or about 10 per cent, whereas in the
same period the tonnage of the United States had been
66,961, or a decrease of rather more than 1 per cent. had
taken :place. He could only further say the conclusion
come to by those who could form a sound judgment on
these facts, and the conclusion to which he (Mr. M. Gib-
son) had also come was this, that the depression complained
of was a fluctuation common to all trades and employments,
and that it would be quite impossible for Parliament to
secure an undeviating course of prosperity to the ship-
ping or any other interest, or to assure them an uniform
rate of profit. The only fair way was to take an ave-
rage of years, and if that were done the increase which
they found ought to give them full confidence that the
present depression would only be of temporary duration,
and that we might look forward to a very near period for a
considerable improvement in the English shipping interest.
With regard to Lord Campbell's act, which had been referred
to, it was undoubtedly true that there was something more
in the act than the mere question as to how it bore on the
shipping. interest. The object of that act was to provide a
remedy for injuries inflicted either by railway companies,
private carriages, or by any other means, and it extended,the
old principle of the common law to cases where death ac-
tually ensued from the injury done. He thought it would
be advisable that they should limit the inquiry into the
operation of Lord Campbell's and other acts merely as they
affected the interests of merchant shipping. He should
therefore, with the permission of the house, move to insert
merely the words, "as affecting merchant shipping."
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the motion, as
proposed to be amended by Mr. Gibson, was agreed to.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. MELLOR moved for leave to introduce a bill to
amend the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854), and to
make further provision for the detection and punishment of
bribing, treating, and undue influence at parliamentary and
municipal elections. He felt encouraged to take this course
by the unanimity of condemnation which charaeterised the
recent debate on the motion respecting the issuing of writs
for Gloucester and Wakefield, the Sentiment of the country
with respect to bribery being unfavourable to the honesty
of the house. There was a deep-seated feeling in the coun-
try that the house was not in earnest in the matter, and re-
fcrricg to the evidence taken before the Gloucester Com-
mission, they had the evidence of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter) that the Corrupt
Practices Prevention Act was a dead letter; and • of Mr.
Price, the late member for Gloucester, that it was the
homage which is paid by vice to virtue. As a necessary
means, then, of suppressing bribery, his bill proposed that
every confederate who gave the evidence essential for the
conviction of any one engaged in bribery should be indem-
nified against all pains and penalties. By another provision
of the bill, any one refusing to give evidence as to the acts
of bribery in which he might have participated, conjointly
with others, would not be allowed to shelter himself
under the .plea that such evidence would tend to cri-
minate himself. A refusal of the kind would be hence-
forward deemed a contempt of court. The inquiry at Nor-
wich had been rendered abortive because a banker there,
who was also a magistrate, refused to make a declaration
-a,- ----,.zz, ..lakyula
whether that gentleman still remained in the commission of
the peace? Of course that last provision would not extend
to requiring persons to give direct evidence against them-
selves. In the next, any one paying money for electioneer-
ing purposes, except through the election auditor, was to be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanour. The present act declared
all such payments illegal, but it was notorious that the act
was a dead letter. The case of Gloucester was a notorious
instance of how easily the law was evaded. According to
the return of Sir R. Carden, his expenditure at the last elec-
tion was only £1,020 10s. Ild., while that of Mr. Price and
Mr. Monck, by their return, was in each case £464 Ils. 6d.
The commissioners, however, reported the expenditure to be
—for Carden, £2,600, and the joint expenditure of Price and
Monck, £2,300 ; and in all likelihood the real amount ex-
pended was greatly in excess of that. All payments, there-
fore, for election purposes would have to be made through
agents duly appointed, who, in their turn, must make them
through the election auditors. Of course, he could not ex-
pect that this provision would be a complete protection
against bribery ; he hoped, however, it would tend to give
vitality to the existing law. Ho proposed, also to check one
of the most insidious means of corruption now resorted to,
via., the employment of voters as messengers and runners,
by making it a misdemeanour to employ any one upon the
registry of voters in that capacity. The bill was likewise in-
tended to prevent corruption at municipal elections, as well
as at elections of members of Parliament. For by the report
of the Hull Commission it was shown that corruption at
Parliamentary elections was much engendered by the cor-
ruption prevalent at municipal elections. The bill would
apply, therefore, equally to both. He had added a clause,
enabling a short form of indictment to be framed, which
would allege generally the offence to be prosecuted, and
which would allow of every means of proof. He hesitated
to recommend the employment of a public prosecutor in
cases of bribery. He was told that the prosecution of the
British Bank directors had cost the country £20,000; and
therefore be might well pause before proposing so ex-
pensive a remedy as a public prosecutor in all cases of
bribery. At the same time he would place it upon the
same footing as all other misdemeanours, and should
allow the costs of a prosecution whenever the judge
thought fit to give them. On the other hand, in order to
guard against the prosecution of vexatious indictments, he
proposed that in all cases where an informant proceeded
without, in the first instance, going before a magistrate, he
must give security to the extent of £2OO for the payment of
the costs of the prosecution ; otherwise the proceedings
should be stayed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. HANKEY seconded the motion.
Sir F. KELLY expressed the gratification he felt that
a gentleman on the opposite side of the house should have
introduced a measure, the effect of which would be to check,
if not altogether to suppress, the practice of bribery. At
the same time it was matter of regret to him that it had not
been announced, at least in any satisfactory form, that a
bill for the suppression of bribery was not to accompany the
great measure of reform promised by the Government.
Having had larger experience of Parliament than his hon.
and learned friend (Mr. Mellor) he might warn him that no
bill had the least chance of being carried unless it received
the warm acquiescence of the Ministry of the day. The
Corrupt Practices Act of 1854 was a failure because the in-
tentions of the framers of the act were not carried into effect.
It was their intention that all persons paying money for
election purpoes, except through a public officer, should be
declared guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to severe
punishment. But the bill was so mutilated in passing
through the house that it almost entirely failed. With re-
spect to the present bill he could not entertain a hope that
any mere addition to the severity of the punishment to be
inflicted by the law for acts of bribery would have the
slightest effect for their prevention. (Hear, hear.) It was
the fear of punishment only that would deter from acts of
bribery ; and if any such bill could be made effective, bribery
would have been long since abolished, With respect to the
bill before the house, he (Sir F. Kelly) would give it hie
most earnest attention, but he did not antieipate that it
would have the effect intended, or put a stop to bribery.
Viscount PALMERSTON would not oppose the bill,
but at the same time he world not pledge the. Government
to any opinion as to the efficacy of its details. He was sure
that every person on each side of the house considered its ob-
ject as ono highly deserving of attention, and the accom-
plishment of which was most desirable for the proper work-
ing
of the constitution. He was afraid, however, that a
feeling existed in many places, among electors, too, not
a low degree, which led them to consider that being bribed
of
was not an offence of that moral dye which the house con-
sidered it ; and so far from saying that the House of Com-
mons was remiss on the subject of bribery, he believed that
the feeling among them on the subject was greater than in
the country at large. He should hope, however, that with
be de..
the experience of the last election a measureuch better than
would
vised to accomplish the purpose in view
the Corrupt Practices Act. The subject had occupied the
attention of . the Government, and if the hon. and learned
member was present best week he woulhoardd
ivehrinvoeticeofa
billhis
right hon, friend the Honie Secretarys,
on the subject. In the meanw ill.,,thegGovernment would
be happy to consider any suggestion from any quarter of the
house, and he hoped before the session closed to devise a
measure to meet the inherent difficulty of the case,
After a few words from Mr. STEUART, lesrve was given
to bring in the bill.
ELECTION PETITIONS.
Mr. MELLOR then moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the Election Petitions Act, 1848. His object was to
put a stop to compromises, and to render election petitions
not withdrawable without the permission of the house.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

On tbo muilon of Mr. SLANEY, leave was given to bring
in a bill to enable a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers
of any parish or district, duly assembled, to rate their parish
or district in aid of public improvements for general benefit
within their district, a certain proportion being before raised
by donations
WAREHOUSING PLACES.
M. HAPIE LA in committee, moved for kayo to bring