The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-01 00:00:00

[BRITISH PRESS.]

The Session is now terminated, and we are at li-
berty to look back to its commencement, in order to
contrast it with its termination. All the hopes of
Parliamentary opposition to Ministers, which were in-
dulged at the outset by the few who still continue ad-
verse to the measures of Administration, have been
completely falsified by every division which has taken
place during its continuance. We have seen, in the
case of the Silk Trade, a clamour raised against Mini-
sters, both in Parliament and out of doors, which no-
thing but the conviction of possessing upright motives
and sound principles could have enabled them to
withstand, and eventually to overcome. A similar
clamour has recently been raised by another class of
the community. The Shipowners, it seems, feel ag-
grieved by the alterations in the Navigation Laws.—
These gentlemen, like other advocates for monopoly, are
desirous that the principle of free trade should be tried
on every branch but their own. They argue, plausibly
enough, that the prosperity of the shipping interest
ought to be secured at all hazards in this country.
But they make one very important mistake in their
reasoning. They state die question as if it were
merely whether they should or should not enjoy the
exclusive privilege of carrying goods both for home
and foreign consumption ; but the real question is,
simply, whether they shall consent to make a compro-
mise with fbreign countries, and thus preserve a
large portion of the trade of the world ; or whether
by continuing our restrictive enactments, and thus
provoking similar measures in other States, they
shall lose by their obstinacy by far the greater
part of our foreign trade, both carrying and
direct ? If the Navigation laws are calculated
to secure advantages to this country, these laws
must be equally advantageous to other countries,
and consequently other countries must desire to adopt
them, as they already have in some measure done.—
The result would be the annihilation of our carrying
trade; and if it be admitted by the Shipowners that
they cannot contend with some foreign nations, in
point of cheapness, in importing goods from other
foreign nations, it surely will not be denied by them,
that it is utterly impossible for them to contend with
these States in •supplying their own market with our
productions, or in carrying their productions to other
countries. We admit here, for the sake of our argu-
ment, that the Shipowners are right in affirming that
they could not contend, in point of cheapness, with
these nations : but it may be well to observe by the
way, that we deny that this is the case. The admis-
sion, in the mean time, shows very clearly the incon-
sistency of their arguments. Now if these nations pos-
sess such advantages in cheapness over us, theso, ad-
vantages would not be confined to the case of carrying
their own productions to this and other countries,
but would be equally useful in enabling them to
carry goods from all other nations whatever into
this country. This will appear by the follow-
ing argument. On what principle, we would ask,
arc we to determine that a vessel belongs to the
United States ? North America contains people
from all quarters among her citizens, and she may
man her vessels with the natives of every corner of
the globe, who would still continue to be her citizens,
or if not her citizens before, might agree afterwards to
become so. Thus we cannot determine the country
to which the vessel belongs by its crew, in this case at
least. The manner in which the Spanish trade with
its colonies was formerly carried on will show how
easy it is to c9nceal the real owners of vessels. The
circumstance of a vessel's being built in a country
could not be made the distinguishing mark in such a
case ; for an American merchant, by purchasing an
English-built vessel, might then trade on the same
footing as an English merchant. Thus, neither the
distinction of crew, owner, nor building, could supply
a difference sufficiently marked to prevent the parti-
cipation, of other nations in our trade, in spite of
the Navigation Laws ; nor could all these distinc-
tions united prevent the contravention of the spirit
of these laws ; for the crew and the owner might
be Englishmen, though American citizens, and the
vessel might be English built, though belonging to
an American. It cannot, then, be the Navigation
Laws that have prevented the destruction of our trade.
—The continuation of the restrictive laws on shipping
would not therefore prevent the effects of the com-
mercial enterprizo of fbreigners ; but the establishment
of restrictive laws in other countries would be, highly
injurious to this country. The cause of the alarm of
our Shipowners is the difficulty of contending with
foreigners, from the higher wages of labour in this
country, whether employed in buildings or navigating
the vessels. If our Shipowners wished to engage in
the carrying trade of other countries, after these
countries had adopted restrictive laws, they would be
obliged to employ fbreign-built vessels and foreign
crews : and their proverity would then become almost
as detrimental to us, as it would be productive of all
the evils which can be apprehended from the increase
of sailors in foreign countrieS. If we really cannot
contend in cheapness with foreigners, to pursue any
measures which would induce them to retaliate, would
be only to precipitate a result which, if we had come
to the same conclusion as these gentlemen have
done, we must consider to be quite inevitable.—
Our commercial eminence does not depend on our
Navigation Laws, but on the situation and circum-
stances of the country, which renders it necessary to
draw supplies from countries beyond sea, and to re-
lAialynetrhiecian, I
from yoltlliesima
products
cse
uctalofs'o,our own soil or industry.
commercial state, and we mustmbuest becomeconte
nTtoapagrtrieeai-t
pate with her in her commercial advantages. It is
perhaps in sonic measure an advantage in this respect
to stand in need of supplies from foreign countries;
because it obliges us to exert
our industry at home,

to be enabled to obtain these foreign commodities.—
The free-trade system encourages our navigation in
this very way—by producing more wants, and more
capacity of producing exchangeable commodities.
When navigation and commerce arc under no
restrictions, men naturally go to the market from
goodswhich : can be brought at the cheapest
rate. Some countries are more favourable for one spe-
cies of produce, and other countries for other species.
If no jealousies interfered, each country would select
for cultivation that species of produce in preference,
which it could raise with most advantage. Large
tracts, therefore, instead of being parcelled out for a
thousand different productions, would be devoted en-
tirely to a single commodity. Other commodities
would be brought from the different quarters where
they could be raised with the most facility, in most
abundance, and consequently most cheaply. The
effects of this, in increasing navigation, need hardly be
commented upon : this is the very principle upon
which all commerce is founded ; and those who argue
that the commercial principles of Mr. Huskisson tend
to render us dependent 011 foreign countries, might as
well object to the system by which one man is render-
ed dependent on another in common life.
If the Navigation Laws prevent us from procuring
articles by the cheapest possible conveyance, they
restrain the liberty of trade as much as if duties
were laid on them ; and in so far they encourage the
raising of commodities in our own country, which
might be more advantageously produced in other
countries. And not only does this course diminish
our imports, but it diminishes equally our ex-
ports ; for, by inducing us to raise commodities for
which our country is not adapted, it prevents us from
raising others which might be furnished in much
greater abundance, for the purpose of exportation.—
We maintain, further, that sailors and ships are one
species of produce, (if we may be allowed so to ex-
press ourselves) for which this country is peculiarly
adapted : nature has made us a maritime people ; and
if it had not been so, all the navigation laws that ever
were or could be invented would not have prevented
our losing our commerce long ago. The Shipowners
themselves have furnished us with the best proof of
this, as may be deduced from the argument in the out-
set of this article. Our people living near the coast
have an inclination for a sea life, which will always
produce sailors, if there is a supply of exports and a
want of imports to give the means of employing them.
An allusion was made by the Shipowners to the corn
Jaws, as preventing them from being able to contend
with foreigners. In this respect Shipowners have the
least reason to complain of any class of the commu-
nity ; for they have it in their power to supply, and
they do actually in many cases supply, their sailors
with provisions from foreign countries, while the
wages of labourers in other departments must be pro-
portioned to the price of the corn required to support
themselves as well as their families at home.