The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-16 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CAPTURE OF FASHIONABLE YOUNG PICKPOCKETS.—
Henry Harris, 19, John Brown, 14, and James Reece, 21,
all remarkably well dressed, and wearing loose coats, and
the two former well known to the police, were placed at the
bar charged with stealing a gold watch, the property of a
gentleman unknown, but believed to hold an appointment
at the Horse Guards.

Charles- W. Bolton, errand boy in the employ of Mr.
Barron, 23, Haymarket, said that about twelve the previous
night he saw the prisoner Harris go up to a gentleman who
was in conversation with some others at the corner of
Windmill-street, and put his hand to his waistcoat pocket
and cut the chain of his watch and directly after saw the
watch in his hand. Harris was by himself at the film*,
Brown being a little behind him. They went along Co-
ventry-street till they came to a silversmith's shop, when
Reece crossed over, and he then saw the watch handed
from one to the other, and distinctly saw it in Reece's
hand. Seeing a constable coming he spoke to him, and he
seized two of them, but Reece started off down Oxendon-
street.

Brandig, a porter, residing at Penton-street, Walworth,
proved seeing the prisoners together some time before the
robbery, and following Reece down Oxendon-street, he
(Reece) running at the top of his speed.
Inspector Parke, of the C division, said a feature in the
ease was that in the prisoner Reece's coat was found a cap.
A constable proved stopping Reece and taking him into
custody. He was almost out of breath with running at the
time.

Reece cross-examined the witnesses with some degree of
ingenuity.
The prisoners were remanded.

A MILITARY RUFFIAN.--George Henry White, a pri-
vate in the Coldstream Guards, was charged with commit-
ing an assault on Robert Markham, a foreman carpenter.
The prosecutor said that he was that morning in Oxford-
street, near the Marble Arch, with two men who had been
working with him at a job at Messrs. Coutts':i‘ the bankers,
having been employed all night, when he stopped at a stall
to have some coffee. They had not stopped more than a
minute-when theprisoner came up to him, knocked off his
hat, and then took off his belt and gave him a severe blow
on the head with the buckle, causing a severe wotmd,which
bled very much. He had never said a word to the soldier.
Joyce, a constable of the C division, said he was called to
take the prisoner into custody, and found the prosecutor's
head bleeding from a wound in it. _ _

Thomas Bensley, a carpenter, said he was with the pro-
secutor at the time. The soldier came up and said to him
(Bensley), " Can I get through the gate ?" Witness said
he did not know. The prosecutor said to witness, " I think
the gateis shut." The soldier then said, "No gate shall
stop me." lie then knocked off the prosecutor's hat, and
took off his belt and gave him a severe blow on the head
with it.

Another witness called corroborated the previous wit-
ness's evidence. The soldier made use of vile language,
and threatened to strike him also.

Mr. Bingham, having animadverted in strong terms on
the prisoner's brutality, sentenced him to pay a fine of Li,
or two months' imprisonment.

THE GRIEVANCES OF THE SHIPPING

INTERES7I

A public meeting of shipowners and others in-
terested in British shipping was held yesterday at
the London Tavern, " to take into consideration,"
in the language of the advertisement, " the ruinous
condition of British navigation, and to adopt such
measures as may be deemed expedient thereto."
Mr. David Dunbar was in the chair, and the plat-
form was occupied by a large number of dele-
gates from the various outports of the United
Kingdom. The following members of the House
of Commons were also present :—Mr. J. C. Cob-
bold, Ipswich ; Mr. R. Ingham, South Shields ;
J. Mellor and Mr. A. W. Young, Great Yarmouth;
Mr. H. Paull, St. Ives; Mr. Jas. Clay and Lord
Ashley, Hull. The large room was crowded with
representatives of the London shipping firms.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings,
said that the object of the meeting was to take into
consideration the depressed state of the shipping
interest, a fact which needed no arguments to prove.
Some time ago the Legislature thought fit to repeal
the Navigation Laws, but, whatever might be the
various opinions as to the expediency of that
course, he did not believe there was anyone pre-
sent who believed in the possibility of re-enacting
those laws. (Hear.) In the outset, therefore, he
was anxious to dislaim, for the meeting, any idea
of asking for a reversal of recent legislation on this
matter ; nor was it their intention to go into any
discussion of the policy of that legislation. (Hear.)
Neither was it their intention to take into their
consideration the peculiar burdens to which the
shipping interest was subjected, such as the local
dues, the policies of assurance, &c. Another op-
portunity might possibly be taken for the discus-
sion of those grievances, but at present, acting
on a resolution which had yesterday been agreed
to by the assembled delegates, what it was
desired to press upon the attention of the public
was the grievance under which the shipping inte-
rest suffered from the non-fulfilment by foreign
nations of the reciprocity clauses in the statute
repealing the Navigation Laws. When those laws
were repealed, a clause was introduced inta the act
giving her Majesty power to re-enact the restric-
tions of the old laws against those nations which
did not grant to English vessels the same privileges
which their own vessels received therefrom, and,
after eight years' experience of the disinclination
of foreign nations to grant this reciprocity to
British shipowners, they were justified in asking
her Majesty to do them justice by exercising the
right which had been conferred upon them by this
clause. During those eight years foreign nations
had enjoyed all the benefits of the concessions then
made without their having one iota of advantage
in return. A gross hardship it was felt had been
done to the British shipowners on this point, and
their object in assembling there was to ask justice
from the hands of their countrymen. (Cheers.) He
had that morning received a letter from Melbourne,
in which it was stated that out of 52 ships
which were lying in that port only 21 were
British.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG moved the first resolution—

"That British shipping is at present, in all its most im-
portant branches, in a state of most deplorable and ruinous
depression,which has been partly caused ,and is greatly aggra-
vated, by the unequal competition to which, by the repeal
of the Navigation Laws, British navigation is now exposed
with the shipping of foreign countries."

After adverting to his long absence from public life,
the hon. gentleman proceeded to disavow, on be-
half of the meeting, any intention of reviving the
controversy of Free Trade v. Protection. It was
of the last importance, not merely as regarded con-
ciliating the support of public men, but even to
obtain a hearing from the general public, that it
should be distinctly understood that they had no
intention of flying in the face of the decision which
had been arrived at on that question, however
erroneous some of them might think it. He was
there not to ask for Protection, but for simple jus-
tice. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish for any
new legislation, but merely that the law as it
now stood should be carried into execution. It
was no doubt, unfortunate that public opinion
seemed to have adopted a foregone conclusion
against the object for which they were striving.
The great organs of public opinion, too, seemed to
have adopted by anticipation a view of the question
opposed to their claims, but it was clear that they
had taken this course without a full examination
into its merits. Still it was not for them to quail
before these obstacles, but bravely to encounter
them—(hear)--and he hoped that when a full and
clear statement of the case had been laid before the
public those who professed to guide public opinion
would look carefully into it, and would endeavour
to do full justice to an important British interest.
When the Navigation Laws were repealed the ex-
pectation was held out to the shipping interest that
in return for the surrender of the privileges then
surrendered, foreign nations would give to them
reciprocal advantages. That amiable man but ex-
ceedingly weak Minister, Mr. Labouchere, who
proposed that repeal to Parliament, said therecould
be no doubt that foreign nations would follow our
example, although his concurrence in the clause
which enabled her Majesty to reimpose the pro-
hibitions in the case of non-reciprocating nations,
seemed to argue that lie had some misgivings on
the subject. The language of Sir Charles Wood,
Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Porter on that
occasion was, that the effect of the surrender of these
privileges must be to give an immense impetus to
the increase of British shipping ; but their predic-
tions, instead of being verified, had failed lament-
ably. The influential organ of public opinion
(the Times) had lately stated that the advance of
British tonnage since the repeal of the Navigation
Laws had been incredible ; and, according to the
Economist, that increase was more than 50 per
cent., but the facts contradicted both of them.
According to the Board of Trade returns, the total
tonnage of British and foreign vessels entered
inwards with cargoes in 1842 was 3,655,230
tons, and in 1849 it was 6,710,269, being an in-
crease of 66 per cent. in the eight years pre-
ceding the repeal of the Navigation Laws. In
1857 it was 8,731,806 tons, being an increase of
44 per cent. only in the eight years following that
repeal. In the eight y-cars preceding the repeal the
British tonnage had increased from 2,680,858 to
4,390,375 tons, being 64 per cent., and the foreign
tonnage from 974,372 tons to 1,680,894 tons, or 73
per cent., while in the eight years following the
repeal British tonnage had increased from 4,390,375
to 5,427,534, or 24 per cent., and foreign tonnage
from 1,680,894 to 3,304,272, or 97 per cent. (Hear,
hear.) It was argued, however, that because there
had been an increase of British tonnage and of the
trade of the country since the repeal of the Navi-
gation Laws, therefore British maritime com-
merce must have benefited from that measure ; but
no fallacy could be more transparent. In the first
place it might be asked, had the increase in our
mercantile marine been greater before the repeal
of the Navigation Laws or since ; and next, had
the increase since that repeal been greater in the
British commercial marine or in the foreign ?
(Hear, hear.) That was a nut for the journalists
who strove to write down this movement to crack.
It was necessary that the people of England should
take these things into their consideration before
they made up their minds on this question, and
this was an opportunity which ought not to be
passed over. He might have written a pamphlet,
and shown the result much more conclusively ; but
who would have read it ? (Laughter.) He might
have written, too, a letter to the editor of the
Times, but would he have put it in? These figures,
however, stated at a public meeting, could not be
suppressed, and it was for their opponents to com-
bat them. Still, he would do the writers in the
journals the justice to say that he believed they had
been misled, and that they had not paid sufficient
attention to the facts of the question. (Hear.)
But to return to the statistics. In 1849 the gross
registered British tonnage was 4,144,115 tons, and
in 1857 it' was 5,519,114, showing an increase
since the repeal, of 33 per cent. In the same
time the tonnage of the United States had in-
creased from 3,374,014 to 5,250,456, being an in-
crease of 60 per cent.; and there was very little
doubt that at the present moment the gross ton-
nage of the United States actually exceeded our
own. (Hear, hear.) That was the result which he
had predicted at the time of the repeal, and it was
one which had scarcely yet been brought home to
the convictions of the British people. Most people
who had not studied the subject would be asto-
nished to find how foreigners bad come into our
commerce and run away with the best part of it.
Intheeight years preceding the repeal of the na-
vigation laws British shipping entering in and
clearing out had increased about 43 per cent., and
foreign shipping entered in and clearing out had
increased 36 per cent., but in the eight years suc-
ceeding the repeal, while British tonnage had only
increased 42 per cent., foreign tonnage had in-
creased 118 per cent. In 1849 British tonnage
entered inwards in the ports of London and Liver-
pool was 2,590,156, and foreign tonnage 1,900,209 ;
but in 1857, while British tonnage was only
4,671,672, foreign tonnage was 3,211,420 tons. It
was said, however, that we had overbuilt our-
selves, and that the depression was partly caused
by that fact ; but he maintained that instead of
that being the case we had not actually built to the
extent which the average increase of the commerce
of the United Kingdom would have justified us in
building. In the eight years preceding the repeal
of the navigation laws we built 1,751,913 tons,
while the Americans built 1,448,842. But in the
eight' years following that repeal, while we had
only built 2,947, 127 tors, the Americans had
actually built 3,385,945 tons. (Hear.) It was
beyond all doubt that the commerce of the United

States had not in that time increased in such a
ratio as to justify this increase in their building;
the increase, in fact, was accounted for by the
opening which the repeal of the navigation laws
had given to the American carrying trade. Our
imports had increased from 1842 to 1857 from
£65,000,000 to £136,000,000, but our tonnage
had not increased in anything like the same ratio. In

fact, we had not built enough, but the United States

had stepped in and supplied the deficiency. The
British shipowners when the repeal of the navigation
laws was passed, were led to believe that they would
obtain an indemnity for the privileges they then lost
in the counter-advantages which would then be
opened to them in foreign trade, but experience had
proved the hollowness of this promise. For instance
the trade with Brazil was open to all the world, but
out of 41 ships which cleared out from Rio Janeiro
for London last year, amounting to 13;138 tons,
and employing 468 men, only 7 were British, and
only 70 of the men were British sailors. (Hear.)
This was a fact which the commissioners now sit-
ting to inquire into the best means of manning the
navy ought to take into their most serious con-
sideration. On the Ist of the present month there
were in London 17,258 tons of shipping loading for
our Australian colonies, of which only 6,984 tons
were British, and of six ships loading for Adelaide
not a single ship was British. (Hear.) Again, in
1855-56-57, 399,542 emigrants were conveyed to
America. Of these 105,246 were conveyed in Bri-
t'sh vessels, and 294,296 in foreign vessels. That is
another proof of the extent to which foreign ships
are stepping into our trade. The last accounts from
Batavia, where we have a reciprocity treaty, state
that of 29 ships lying there only one vessel is Bri-
, fish. From Calcutta, from Singapore, and from the
Chinese ports we have the same tale of vessels lying
inactive. One great fallacy by which people were
misled was that the interests of the consumers were
benefited by the reduction of freight to the full ex-
tent of the difference which must exist between the
sum paid tothe English carrier and the sum paid to
the foreign carrier. That was a pure delusion.
With respect to a large proportion of articles, im-
ported freight did not enter into the price at all. In
bulky and heavy commodities freight, no doubt,
constituted an important item in the cost of the
article in the market in which it was sold ; but in
goods of a valuable description and not of any bulk
it entered less, and it diminished gradually accord-
ing to the diminution of the bulk and the increase
of the value, until in the most valuable it ceased to
exist at all as an element of price. But there could
not be a greater mistake than to contend that, if a
shipload of timber were brought over by a foreign
vessel at a freight of £1 per ton, instead of £2 per
ton by a British vessel, the consumer therefore
would get it at £1 per ton cheaper. In all such
cases the reduction of freight was added to the
price of the article by the foreign producer,
and he alone got the benefit. The price of an article
was not regulated by its cost of production in the
market, but by the proportion of supply and de-
mand in the market. When the Navigation Laws
were repealed the ports of Great Britain did not
present a single petition in favour of the measure,
but the West Indian colonists did petition. Their
object was to get their sugar conveyed home cheaper
—not that the consumer here might have the bene-
fit of a reduced price, but that they might put the
difference between the higher and lower freight
into their own pockets. For many years he had
been an advocate of what were called the principles
of protection ; but he was neither bigotted to pro-
tection as a principle, nor to free trade as a princi-
ple. He objected to every attempt to carry out
principles in themselves good to results which were
pernicious. The Navigation Laws could never be
reimposed in their integrity, and they ought not to
be, but there was much of good in the Navigation
Laws, and that good ought to be restored, or the
maritime commerce of Great Britain must sink
from the position which it had so long occupied.
(Hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving
the resolution.

Mr. ANDERSON seconded it, and it was carried
unanimously.
Mr. S. R. GRAVES, of Liverpool, moved the second
resolution :

" That, after the experience of eight years, it is proved
that the indiscriminate admission of all foreign shipping to
the privileges of British ships has failed to induce many
foreign Governments reciprocally to admit British ships to
equality of privilege with their own ships, and that British
navigation is, consequently, in many cases impeded and in-
jured by prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations inconsis-
tent with fair and equal competition, for the express purpose
of meeting which contingency the following clause was in-
troduced into the Act by which the Navigation Laws were
repealed, was continued by the Act 16th and 17th Victoria,
cap. 107, and is now the law of the land If it shall be
made to appear to her Majesty that British vessels are
subject, in any foreign country, to any prohibitions or re-
strictions as to the voyages in which they may engage,
or as to the articles which they may import into, or ex-
port from, such country, it shall be lawful for her
Majesty (if she think fit), by order in Council,
to impose such prohibitions, or restrictions, upon the ships
of such foreign country, either to the voyages in which they
may engage or as to the articles which they may import
into or export from any part of the United Kingdom, or of
any British possession in any part of the world, as her
Majesty may think fir, so as to place the ships of such
country on, as nearly as possible, the same footing in British
ports as that on which British ships are placed in the ports
of such country? ",

The resolution was put and carried unanimously.
Mr. ATKINSON, of Hull, proposed the next reso-
ution

"That, in the opinion of this meeting, the time has now
arrived when all who are interested in British shipping
should concur in an urgent appeal to her Majesty, praying
her Majesty to exercise the powers thus vested in her, and
to place the ships of all such countries as may continue to
refuse to reciprocate the benefits conferred on them by the
liberal concessions accorded to their navigation, as nearly
as possible on the same footing in British ports as that on
which British ships are in the ports of such countries.'"

Mr. WAWN, late M.P. for South Shields,
seconded the resolution, which was carried unani-

mously.
Mr. MITCHELL, in proposing the next resolu-
tion,—
" That with this object the addreSinow read be approved
and adopted ; that it be signed by the chairman on behalf
of this meeting, and by the chairman of the General Ship-
owners' Society and the members of the various deputations
now present from the ports on behalf of the shipping inte-
rests cf the metropolis and of those outports respectively ;
and that when so signed it be placed in the hands of the
Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment for presentation to her Majesty,"—
quoted from the Customs returns of Montrose, Dun-
dee, and Aberdeen, to show the great decrease of
British shipping, and the increase of foreign ship-
ping in those ports since the repeal of the Naviga-
tion Lass. The hon. gentleman also expressed his
belief, founded on the Earl of Malmesbury's letter,
that the present Government were anxious to do
justice to the shipping interest.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
The meeting then separated.

THIS DAY'S 2IIARKETS.