The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-08 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTEREST.

General GASCOYNE, pursuant to notice, rose to move
for a Select Committee to inquire into the present distressed
state of the British ship-owners. He congratulated him-
self on having given notice of this motion so many weeks
ago, that his bringing it forward could in no way be attri-
buted to political hostility, and he disowned any feelings of
a personal nature. The subject involved the question of
how far it was expedient to depart from the policy of our
ancestors as handed down from generation to generation,
and to adopt maxims altogether contrary to it. At the
time England began to establish her system of navigation
laws, she was only on a par with all the other nations,
being as poor as the least civilised of them in general
resources. Yet the Government of these times thought it
proper to enact prohibitory laws. But when, under circum-
stances wholly different, with a heavy debt, which affect-
ed all the articles of life, and made open competition
with less burdened countries actually impossible, it was
proposed to repeal those laws ; this was, indeed, a
subject for them to inquire into. The extent of this
distress could not be denied, though the Right lion. Gen-
tleman might object to the causes assigned for it. Not
only had it been represented by petitions to Parliament,
but the Board of Trade had been petitioned, and the
_Right
lion. Gentleman had been assailed by particular applications
without number. By papers which he the capital
invested in shipping alone, without any of the traffic inci-
dental to building, rigging, and navigating ships, amounted
to 7,000,0001. sterling ; and there had taken place upon
that investment a diminution in value of 25 per cent.
When this question came on at a past period, the views of
the Hon. Gentleman had been greatly supported by the
Gentlemen sitting on the opposition side of the House ; ono
of them had called his Hon. Friends his Majesty's oppo-
sition—and with the additional force which had recently
joined them, they might now be called " The King's Own"
From that circumstance, complaints had scarcely obtained
any inquiry, as the complainants were scarcely represented.
The petition of the port of London to the Board of Trade
had shown, that long previous to and at the time of passing
the Reciprocity Act, and at the time of signing the treaties,
reciprocity was perfectly impossible. In reference to the
treaty with Prussia, the Hon. and Gallant Member read
a passage from the British Vice-Consul in Prussia, object-
inv to the imp...st of a duty, not laid upon goods, but in
a ...lore hostile shape, on British shipping. The conse-
quence was, that appeals come from all quarter; to the
Board of Trade and the Hwise of Commons. A Coin
mittee was granted, and a very able repOrt drawn up. lb.
course taken upon that report by his Right Honourable

•
colleague was 'most elelelAieeey. Tice use made
of the rev art was hot at all justifiable. The shipping
owner' never ceased to advise him, and to point out
the ruinents consequences which must follow. The
Right reion. Gentleman still persevered, and in the speech
whie;de he addressed to the House, he stated, that having
tt'.ade those very concessions to America, he could not with-
hold them from the Prussian Government. In reasoniug
upon the report, the Right Honourable Gentleman had as-
sumed things as being contained in that report, no syllable
of which was to be found in it : nothing which tended to
justify the Reciprocity Act, much less to make it perma-
nent, could be found there. He admitted that a revision
of the shipping laws were necessary, but it was a little too
much to confer benefit on other nations at the expense of
this. By the alteration made in these laws, no less than
5,000 ships had been admitted to the privileges of the
British trade. Ia 1816, America had 99,941 tons of
shipping employed in the trade with Great Britain and
Ireland, and tlsie country had 45,140 tons employed in the
trade with America; but by a recent statement it appeared
that in the last 10 years America had doubled the amount
of her's, while Great Britain had diminished to 37,800.
He 'would ask why this advantage should be yielded to
a'etnerica ? He was ready to prove that by these treaties
England had to encounter competition with other nations,
who could build at 81. per ton, while it cost this country
28/. per ton. He was ready to admit, that as 28/. per
ton was only the price in London, it was not fair to con-
sider it as the general price. He would therefore take
the price at the ports, and then the difference between our
prices and those ofthe northern nations would be the difference
between 81. and 181. If this matter were referred to a com-
mittee, he would pledge his honour that he would prove
this fact. The comparative prices-of building in England
and foreign countries, taken from papers before the House,
were as follow :—in London, the price was 28/. a ton ;
but that he conceived to be a moat extravagant charge, and
he took the prices in Ergland, therefore, at 181. a ton. In
Prussia, it was Si. 8:e. ; in France, 11/. ; in Sweden, 61. 155.;
in Holland, 10/.. On Denmark, 9/. 10e. ; in Russia, 4/.155.
.
The wages -de these countries amounted only. to half as muel,
as in England. Reckoning according to the returned
recce, a Prussian vessel might be navigated feir four voyages
at about SOL; while an English vessel of the same tonnage,
and carrying the. same number of men, would cost about
664 L Had the English shipowners any advantage on their
side to set against all these ? Certainly not. It bad, in-
deed, been said, that they had an advantage in the insur-
ance, but that was not the case. It must be recollected,
that when a foreign ship cost only half as much as an
English one, the foreigner had to ensure for only halfas much
us the English owner. A certificate, signed by the principal
!?rokera in London, had been presented to that House, and
it declared that the British vessels possessed no facilities in
this respect which were not enjoyed in au equal degree by
the foreign. It was a well-known fact, that foreign ships
made as many voyages as the British, and with equal safety;
and so great an improvement had taken place in naviga-
tion in the northern countries, that it was by no means
uncommon for the owners of vessels in those countries
to enter into a bond to perform a voyage in a cer-
tain time, wind and weather permitting. The vessele
of the northern countries therefore possessed the same
advantages as the British ships, while file eXpence
of building the latter was enormous: He was informed
that, at that very time, where there Was one British ship
entered at Liverpool there were ten foreign ships. The
returns which had been laid upon the table would show
the superiority of the numbers of foreign ships entered over
that of the British, and the exports had been diminishing
for some time past, and were still dimishing. From
Prussia the imports, in 162,t, amounted to 504,140/. ; and
the exports amounted: to 634,0741. ; the next year the im-
ports amounted tee 620,2871., and the exports were only
468,4681. Ile exports to the northern countries did not
amount tee more than one million, and the House would
hardly suppose it possible that we were paying 37,0001. a
yea,: to these individuals, without including 36,0001. due
to the Trinity-house, making in all a sum of 73,000/. per
annum. Not satisfied with this, they must have the ad-
vantage of our colonial trade given them in addition.—
[The Hon. Member here entered into a detail respecting
the intercourse between this and the northern countries,
but afterwards confessed that he was in an error, and had
been stating the tonnage instead of the number of the vele
seh.]—The colonial trade furnished a proof of the disad-
vantage under which the British navigation laboured. In
1822, by a comparison between Prussian and English
vessels, there appeared to be a superiority in favour of
England of two to one. In 1825, when these treaties
were in full force, the English vessels were only supe-
rior to the Prussian by 4,000 tons ; and in the year
1826, the relative amount was 83,000 tons of foreign
vessels, and 64,000 British. From the last accounts
which he had been able to procure, it appeared that there
was a considerable failing off in British shipping in
the last year, especially in the trade with the south.
If foreigners could navigate their vessels, as they cer-
tainly could, at forty per cent cheaper than the English,
and could build them for half the money, the British
trade must be sacrificed when brought into competition
with persons who possessed such advantages. The result
heal already been felt. The shipping interest of this country
had been materially injured. There had not only been a
'material falling off in this department, but he could chew
that the trade was now being carried on at a loss. The
shipowners did not meet with a greater return than five
per cent. ; and, when it was considered of how perishable
a nature their property was, it would he easily seen that a
return of five per cent. was by no means a profit. He
wished that the hook of the register, which, though it
could not perhaps be laid before that House, might he pro-
duced in a Committee, had been investigated, because he
thought that a great deal of light would be thrown upon
the extent of the distress which at present prevailed among
the ahipoweers of this country. He thought that, by an
investigation of that hook, it would be found that that dis-
tress was much greater than was generally believed. It
might be said, "Look at the number of ships employed;
look at the comparative statement of the numbers of Bri-
tish and foreign ships cleared out, which has been
made up to the sth of January, 1827 ;" but he begged
leave to say that that return was by no means a
fair one. Ha could not possibly conceive why any
comparative statement of British and foreign vessels
should hare been made, when it was well known
that no foreign ships could be cleared out to the colonies.
If the returns were divested of this comparison, he thought
that, instead of the amount stated, the British ships cleared
out would not be found to amount to more than 800,000
tons. He coufeseed himself utterly unable to comprehend
that comparative statement which had been laid upon the
table, and the reason of the statement having been so
drawn up, was as inexplicable to him as the mode by which
another ingenious person proceeded to find out the half of
any thing, which he did by first doubling the actual
amount, and then divide it by two.—(A Laugh.)—lt had
been attempted to he proved, that the great increase of
shipping within the few last years was a proof of the floe-
' ishing condition of the shipping interest. This was an
assumption not warranted by fact ; because if there had•
been an excess of ship-building, there must also be an ex-
teen of tonnage, and he thought, from what he had already
shown, that such was not the fact. It was a fact for which
he could vouch, because he had it from the best possible
source, that in the port of Liverpool, vessels, the building of
whicheriginally cost_l4,oool.,were sold a short time ago for.
6,0001. It was urged by the supporters of the e.ystem upheld
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if the Corn Bill should
pass into a law, it would give employment to a great deal
of the shipping now disengaged. He for one sincerely
hoped that the Corn Bill would never be carried. But if
even it should, the anticipations of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman and his friends would be found totally to fail, for
he was convinced that the passing of that measure would
not give employmeni to more than 5,000 tons of British
shipping. Foreign shipping would always have the pre-
ference. The falling off in the number of sailors was in
proportion to the amount of unemployed shipping. By a
calculation which had been made, and the result of which
was now before him, it appeared that there were nearly
12,000 sailers less in the present year than in 1816. The
ships were still in existence, but the energies of their owners
were paralysed. It appeared that nearly one-third of the
ships built for the British merchant service were built in
Canada. Now he (General Gascoyue) could see no ad-
ventage to this country from the transfer which had thus
taken place. It appeared that in 1825, 536 ships were
built in the British plantations. In 1826, there were
near 400 vessels built in the British plantations. Now,
what was the number built in England during those years ?
In 1825, 413 ships were built in England; end, in 1826
Only 415 ships were built ; making a falling off in that short
pace f 2S shins. He could not but regard with jealousy thetransfer°fer 'to the colonies of our trade in ship build-
ing, and he objected to it principally because the price of
colonial produce was thereby enhanced. The gallant Ge-
neral entered into a calculation respecting the amount of
tonnage inwards for (we believe) the last three years, by
which, he said, it appeared that the average of foreign
tonnage employed in conveying merchandise to this country,
amounted to 61 per cent. more than the average of the
British tonnage employed during the same period. There
was a material distinction between merchants and ship-
owners. Merchants were generally partly shipowners,
but the shipping interest was divided between a class of
men who were deeply, he would almost say exclusively,
interested in the shipping question. It was quite true, as
Isle Right Hon. Colleague bad asserted, that several of the

merchants of Liverpool who were shipowners supported
the project of Government, but he (Gen. Gascoyne) denied
that the shipping interest as a body had ever expressed a
favourable opinion of the changes introduced by his Right
Hon. Friend. It was impossible, he contended, that one
night's debate would be sufficient to satisfy the shipping
interest and the country at large with respect to the all-
important question which the House was now called upon
to discuss. If his motion should he lost, would it satisfy
that interest whose welfare and prosperity were so closely
connected with it ? The wealth, safety, and independence
of this country depended on the state of the shipping. His
Right Hon. colleague might attempt to " mysticate"
the figures of the shipping returns.—(A laugh.)—He
meant mystificate, for he was well aware that his Right
Hon. Friend and colleague possessed that art to the greatest
perfection. If the opportunity were denied of entering on
the enquiry which it was the object of this motion to obtain,
the result, be feared, would be ruinous to the shipping
interest, and perilous to the Government by which that in-
quiry was refused. Before the_next meeting of Parliament
the subject would be agitated at every place where the
shipping interest was affected, and a pamphlet war would
ensue in which the question espoused by his Right Hon.
Friend and its supporters, might meet with a defeat by no
means convenient. Declaring this to be his impression, he
solemnly declared that in bringing forward the present mo-
tion he was wholly uninfluenced by party feelings. He
had no personal animosities to gratify, no personal attach-
ment to any man.—(Hear, and laughter.)--He declared
he had no wish to attack the Administration .of to-day,
more than the Administration by which it was preceded.
—(Hear.)—So help his head—(A laugh)—he was influ-
enced by no party feeling in bringing forward the present
motion, and had no other object in view than simply to ac-
complish a pledge made to his constituents. He hoped
the House would treat the great question now under discus-
sion with becoming temperance, and that no party feelings
would show themselves on this occasion.—(Hear, bean)._
He hoped, therefore, that his Right Hon. Friend would
not refuse the motion with which he intended to conclude.
The Gallant General then moved—" That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed to inquire into the present distressed
state of the Commercial Shipping, and report the' same to
the House."

Mr. LIDDELL hoped that the petition of one of the
greatest commercial towns in the world would not be op-
posed by his Majesty's Government. Feeling every dispo-
sition to support the present Administration, and he should
do so on principle, he owned he felt considerable pain in
seconding the present motion, because that motion in-
volved the first great question which was brought forward
in that House under the new Administration, at the head
of which was that enlightened statesman who for years had
succeeded in securing his (Mr. Liddell's) confidence and
that of the public.—(Cheers.)—ln his defence, if defence it
could be called, where there was no accusation, or rather,
he should say, in the explanaion of his conduct with which
that Right Hon. Gentleman had favoured the House, there
was something so satisfactory, so candid, so dignified and
patriotic, that it must have brought conviction
even to those unwilling to be convinced.—(Loud
cheers.)—Under these circumstances, he should sup-
port from choice and conviction the present Administra-
tion. At the same time his duty told him, that the ques-
tion which was now before the House was one which he
was also bound to support. He denied that it was a pirty
question. There were two points in it to v-Lich he had
to direct his attention. The first was to establish the
claim of the shipping interest to the consideration of the
House ; and the next, to meet the great talent which he
knew the Right Hon. the PreSident of the Board of Trade
(Mr. Huskisson) would bring to bear on the subject. He
did trust, however, that that Right Hon. Gentleman him-
self would see the fairness of the course he was now taking,
as lie (Mr. Huskisson) had, in the course of his celebrated
exposé on this subject about twelve months ago, observed
that if any Hon. Member should have cause to differ from
the course then pursued, it would be open to him to point
out his objection by a specific motion. It was not denied
that the great body of shipowners had viewed the mea-
sures then adopted with a jealous eye, anticipating that
they would in the result prove greatly injurious to their inter
rests. It was true, that thebody generally did not at that time
petition against those measures, but they were not allowed
to go altogether without remonstrance. He would beg
to call the attention of the House to the comparative state
of the commercial marine in 1816 and at the present time;
and he wished to be understood that he spoke of the
amount of tonnage- In 1816 the amount of tonnage be-
longing to all the ports of the United Kingdom was
2,783,949. in 1826, it was 2,635,653, being a decrease
since the time of the war, of 147,296 tons, while there was
in the same time a decrease of from 11,000 to 12,000 sea-
men. Now, considering the situation which we occupied
during a great part of the war, as the carriers of the greatest
portion of the trade of Europe, which we did not hold at
present, it might be to some a matter of surprise that our
commercial marine should still stand so high as it did ; but
then it should be recollected that there had been since the
war an immense increase in our imports and exports, and
by there the state of our foreign trade should be judged.
In 1816 we had imported 60,000,000 lbs. of cotton. Our
import of that article continued to increase until it reached,
in 1825, to 150,000,000 lbs. The question then was,
why we had not increased in the same proportion in the
number of our seamen? The answer to which was, that
foreigners, who could afford to navigate their ships much
cheaper than we could, came and filled tip the void thus
created in our shipping. From the Baltic we had the
greatest competition in our trade. This would appear from
two tables which he held in his hand. From one of those
it appeared, that in 1821, the amount cf foreign tonnage
in British ports, from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, !and
Prussia, was 91,457 tons. In 1822 it was 132,251 tons;
in 1823, 202,000 ; in 1824 it was 322,816 tons; and in
1825 it was 395,643 tons.

Mr. HUSKISSON asked across the table, what writhe
amount in 1826 ?

Mr. LIDDELL had not received the account of the
amount inwards of that year, but be could state the aggre-
gate amount of tonnage which cleared outwards to the Bal•
tic in 1826, was 267,861 tons. British shipping was
nearly stationary till the stimulus given to it by the specu-
lation of 1824 and 1825. In 1821, the excess of foreign
over British shipping clearing out to the same ports (as
we understood the Hon. Member), was 23,911 ; in 1824,
it was 40,420; in 1823, it was 86,720; in 1825 (we
did not hear the amount in 1824), it was 127,318 ; and
and in 1826, it was 153,723. This he considered a strong
case of the shipowners, for it was clear that the British
shipping suffered very much from it, particularly in the
northern and eastern ports, from which the greatest compe-
tition with the ports in the Baltic was kept up. He was
aware of the fact, that even if all the protection which
had been given to the British shipping had been continued,
there must have been an increase of foreign shipping, as
compared with what it was during the war; but that, he
submitted, would be a reason why the little protection it
had against foreign trade should not be withdrawn—(Hear,
hear. )—lt had been said that the decrease and deficiency
of the present year arose from the over-speculations of
1825. This he did not believe to be the real cause.
That cause he thought to be the competition with those
nations which could build and equip their vessels much
cheaper-than we could. He--would now show what had
been the state of ship-building within the last few years, and
a great falling off would appear in 1826, and that much of
what was done in that year was from the contracts of the
preceding. In 1823, the ships built amounted to 3,700
tons ; in 1824, to 6,000 ; in 1825, to 6,613, and in 1826,
to 2,300. These accounts were taken from the returns of
shipowners ; and from later accounts it appeared, that in
some ports, where much business had heretofore been done,
none at all, in the way of ship-building, was now going on.
This proved that the new system, howeier ingenious it
might he in theory, did not work well, and was, in practice,
at variance with the prosperity of the shipowners of Eng.
land. If evidence of this were wanting, it would be found
in the petitions, which had come from all quarters. Were
these petitions to be neglected, or wer, they to close their
ears against the grievances Which pressed so hardly on au
large a portion of the trading interest of the country? When
they talked of reciprocity of benefits, he must observe that
our situation was so different from that of other nations that
we got no advantage from reciprocity. Every thing done
with this view, was giving an advantage against ourselves
to our rivals. Allusion had been made to the committee
in 1825, and it was said that if any thing there suggested
should be found at variance with our interests, it might
be modified at some future period. But complaints, and
very strong ones, had since been made against the system
then proposed, and be trusted they would not be allowed
to pass over without that attention which their import-
ance deserved. He did not at all despair that employ-
ment would be found for our shipping, bat that, he thought,
must now be looked to, from an increased intercourse with
our colonies. To that source he looked with much con-
fidence ; and he trusted, that if Government had the firm-
ness to maintain the interdict against American interfer-
ence with our colonial trade, a channel of intercourse
would be opened to the mouth of the St. Lawrence,
which would be found most advantageous. Another mode
by which our trade with part of North America would be
increased, would be by a repeal of some of the duty on
North American timber, and by some modification in the
bonding system. He would also suggest some modifica-
tion of the duty on deals, which might be considered a
manufactured article. This was recommended by the
I Lords' Committee in 1825, and if adopted, would lie

found extremely useful. A return had been made of
the amount of duty paid on American timber within the
last 10 years; and from that it was endeavoured to be
shown that we might have obtained a much higher duty
if the saute quantity of timber were imported from the
Baltic, and that the difference was the amount of pro-
tection given to American timber. But it should he
recollected, that if the duty were not thus low, the same
quantity would not be imported. It was now imported
in such quantities, that some of it was cut up for fire-
wood, which in itself was an advantage to the poor of the
country. The Honourable Member then proceeded to con-
tend that the Colonial trade was that which ought to be
particularly encouraged by the country ; as, besides the
employment it gave to the capital of the British ship-owner,
it was one of the best nurseries for our minim. In sup-
port of his argument, he read an extract from Mr.
Brougham's work on the Colonial system, in which the
same principles were maintained with respect tc the trade
with the Colonies. It might, he observed, he objected to
him, that he was opposed to those large and liberal views
of commercial policy which prevailed in the country ; but
he thought there was a great difference between a liberal
policy and that which went to cripple a main branch of
our commerce. It should be considered that there was one
central spot, which he tool to be this country, from which
every improvement extended to all parts of the commer-
cial world, and that if we were too premature in enlarging
our commercial policy, we might impair our energy,
weaken our maritime superiority, and that if we suffered
in these respects, we should not suffer alone, but the injury
would extend to the universe. On these grounds, he felt
it his duty to second the motion.
Mr. POULETT THOMPSON, in rising to oppose the
motion of the Gallant General, felt the greatest -Ipprehen-
sion lest it should be supposed that he did Fa from any fear
of what the result of the labours of a Committee on the
subject of shipping would be. On the contrary, he felt
certain that as nothing but truth could be elicited by such
an inquiry, the cause to which be was attached, the liberal
principles of policy, as applied by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to the shipping of this country, would only be made
more manifest, and be more than before confirmed. On
this account he should rejoice at the establishment of a
Committee ; because he felt that the principles of the Right
Hon. Gentleman would come out brighter than before, after
having passed the ordeal of inquiry. Still he was bound
to oppose the motion for two reasons, because be conceived
that two evils might result from its being granted—one,
that it might be construed into something like a doubt, on
the part of his Majesty's Government, of the expediency
of the principle ; the other, that it would necessarily raise
delusive hopes in the minds of the ship-owners and their
friends. There was yet another reason which induced him
to oppose it—that he did not think a Committee should be
granted on any subject, unless asufficient case could be made
out; and certainly, in his opinion, the Gallant Officer hail
failed entirely in doing so. He thought he should be able
to show to the House, that the Honourable Gentlemen
who had brought forward the motion were equally
unfortunate in facts and conclusions. He did nut
accuse them of having wilfully made mistatements
all they had done was, to believe a little too impli-
citly what had been stated to them by others. And
certainly there was nothing in their credulity which
astonished him so much as he was by the extraordinary—
lie might almost call it unblushing—effrontery with which
they were supplied with those distracted statements, by
those who must have known how much they were so. The
same hands which had supplied the Gallant General had
supplied the documents which were upon their table, and
he should proceed to shew in what manner these state-
ments had been compiled. And first, with regard to the
cause of distress--the only part of the Gallant General's
statement in which he could at all agree, and in that be
only partially coincided ; but the bare instance of distress
was not sufficient to institute a claim for a Committee, es-
pecially when the cause of that distress was obvious. He
agreed in the existence of distress amongst the shipowners,
but he would ask the Gallant General in what class of men,
in what line in which capital was employed, did distress
not exist at present ? Did it exist solely amongst the ship-
owners ? The Honourable Gentleman had talked of a
depreciation to the amount of five-and-twenty or thirty
per cent. in shipping. Let him run his eye over the ge-
neral price current, and he would find that, in many other
departments of our trade, there had been a fall of above
five-and-twenty per cent. He might perhaps be told that
the distress in those classes was becoming daily alleviated,
whilst that of the shipowners was increasing. This he
denied; but if so, it was easily to be accounted for. In
those businesses, such as shipbuilding, where capital ex-
pended cannot be withdrawn or transferred, except by an
almost certain sacrifice, it was natural that the distress
would last longer -than in 'others 'not in that situation.
But the cause of the distress in the shipping was the
same with that in other lines of business--the over-
speculation and over-trading. The papers on the table
chewed what were the returns of ships built in the British
empire duringthe last few years :

iBl9 111,000 tons: 1823
1820 ..... . 84,000 , 1824 143,000
1821
1822 ...... 67,000 1826 178,000
Here was, in 1825, an increase of nearly 200 per cent. on
1823; and in 1826 of 100 per cent. Was it, then, to be
wondered at that there should be difficulty now in employ-
ing all this increase of shipping, when; owing to the
over-speculation in other branches of trade, the amount of
goods to be transported had likewise fallen off? But we
were told by the Gallant General, and by his supporters,
in their correspondence with the Board of Trade, that the
distress was now owing to the competition of foreigners.
And how do they attempt to prove this? Not by a refer-
ence to the amount of the respective shipping employed—
not by showing that a decrease had taken place in the
amount of British shipping—because, ache should presently
show, they could not—but by a reference to statements of
the cost, time of sailing, and comparative durability of fo-
reign ships, in which it was easy to impose upon the cre-
dulity of those who were not well versed in the subject.—
These attempts were so open and so barefaced, that they
deserved to be exposed ; and he should certainly do so.
First, with regard to the cost of building, the parties left
out of their calculation altogether the difference of the ad-
measurement, owing to the registry regulations of this coun-
try. The foreign ship was built at so much per tons bur-
den, the English vessel at so much per tons register ; and
the British vessel so built carried one-third to one-half more
tons burden than her registry admeasurement. This the ship-
owners attempted to meet by a declaration that " the ca-
pacity of ships built abroad was equal to that of English."
This was a mere miserable quibble. Now, taking the
proportionate rate of capacity, it appeared from the best
returns which could be obtained, that the cost of build-
ing was, during the last six or seven years, as follows :
per ton British register :—ln London 201. ; in Hull, 17/. ;
Newcastle, 161. to 17/. ; if wood-sheathed, 121. to 15/. ;
Nor way, fit only for timber, 10/. ; Baltic, 121. to 13/. ; if
fit only for timber, 91. to 10/. ; Holland, France, and
Hamburgh, 131. to 16/. per ton. If coppered, ISZ. to
20/. Undoubtedly there was here a difference in the coat
price ; but this was more than accounted fur by the com-
parative durability; the time they each commenced the
voyage, and the difference of the number of men. An at-
tempt, and a most unworthy attempt, had been make_ by
the body of ship-owners, to show that in no one of their
particulars did the British ship enjoy an advantage. First,
to prove that the durability was not greater, they had given
what appeared to any one not conversant with the subject,
a fair comparative statement taken front Lloyd's books.
Now, what was the truth of this? Why, it was the most
unfair that could be ; and showed anything but the truth.
British ships were registered at Lloyd's the moment they
were off the stocks ; and if any accident happened to them
they were instantly effaced. A foreign ship was only re-
gistered when she came into this country, and no ac-
count was taken of accidents which might have happen-
ed to her : so that very probably half the foreign
ships quoted by the ship-owners as a proof of their
longevity, might have ceased to exist altogether ; 2dly,
with regard to the time :—A certificate was given by
two brokers on this subject ; but it was not the better for
that. He would appeal to any man—any member in the
House who, like himself, was in the habit of employing
shipping—whether the foreigners were not, proverbially,
dilatory in their voyages. Lastly, with regard to the dif-
ference of the number of men. Here a statement in figures
was given, in which it would have been difficult to have
erred unknowingly ; but these Gentlemen actually went
against their own figures ; and after giving a calculation,
which showed that there are five men employed to every
100 tons of British shipping, and six to every 100 tons
foreign, actually told us that there were only four to every
100 tons foreign.—(Hear.)—lt remained now to see,
whether what the shipowners said ought to have occurred,
had really occurred ; and whether we were uudersailed lW
foreign ships, as according to their calculations we ought
to be. The House had already heard the immense increase
of British ship-building in 1824, 1825, and 1826, since
the Reciprocity Acts had come into force. Now, what
was the statement as laid upon the table of the House, of
the British and foreign tonnage entered in those years?
British Tons. Foreign Tons.
ISIS 2,457,779 704,511
1820 2,270,400 408,401
1822 2,390,238 419,694
1824............ 2,361,219 694,880
1825 2,786,844 892,601
1826 2,476,047 643,922

From this account; it did not appear that foreign Shipping
bad increased in proportion to ours since the alteration in
the law, although he certainly expected it would ; bet this
was only a further argument against the assertion of our
being undersailed. He would now turn to the state of the
Baltic trade. What was the return of the number of ships,
British and Foreign, that had passed the Sound ?
British. Foreign. British. Foreign.
1821... 2,819 6,358 I 1821... 3,540 6,978
1822...3,097 5,386 1825. .5,186 7,974
1823...3,016 6,187 1826. .3,730 7,335

Comparing 1826 with 1824 and preceding years, it did
not appear that we had lost any thing of our relative pre-
tension. It was not, then, the fact, that we were under-
sailed by foreigners. If the contrary were true, why did
they not obtain all the carrying trade of the world ? How
happened it British shipping retained so large a share of
it ? He would appeal to any merchant, whether he did
not always find it his advantage to give the preference in a
neutral port to a British ship. A statement had been
made in 1823, by the ship-owners, that in that year, out
of 208 vessels arrived at Hamburgh between the Ist of
January and let of June, only 12 were British : that was
before the alteration in the law. W hat was the case even
in 1826 ? By a return he held in his hand, out of 802
vessels, 700 were British. Did this look as if the car-
rying trade was lost to us? He had said thus 'such, to
show the fallacy of the statement of the shipowners ; but
for a moment admitting them to be correct, he would ask
the Gallant General what he proposed doing? Re-enact
the Navigation Laws ? Was that his remedy? And
what must follow? Of course retaliation, by those powers
which would be attacked by our doing so. And sup-
posing that such barbarous measures were actually com-
menced in this war of prohibition; which would of course
be carried to the extreme length by both parties, who were
likely to he the greatest losers ? This country, which pos-
sessed an immense commercial income, and had such an
enormous capital employed in shipping ; or that country,
whose marine was yet scarcely formed, whose extent of ca-
pital employed in this branch was very trifling?. He had
now shown that the Gallant General, and those who sup-
parted him, were wrong as far as their own interest, and
the interest of the shipping itself, was concerned, in
their exclamations against the reciprocity acts. But he now
turned to the wider field—the general interests of the
people of this country, and of commerce generally. When
the shipowners talked of sacrificing the trade with Prussia,
as being of little moment, were they aware what that trade
was ? Did they know what the amount of British goods
exported to that country was ? Was it a question of a few
thousands? In 182 S, according to the account laid on the
table of the House, the imports into Prussia of British pro-
duce amounted to 7,465,0001. —(Hear.)---And was this
immense amount to be sacrificed—to what, too ? To a
supposed good which the very parties interested could not
show to be one. And did the country pay no tax for the
shipowners already ? What was the difference between the
amount of duty on Canada and Baltic timber? For whose
supposed interest was that ? and what was the amount?
By the returns laid on the table, it appeared that the diffe-
rence between the duty which was levied on Canada tim-
ber and that which would have been levied on Baltic, was,
in 1824, 1,226,000/. ; 1825, 1,409,079 t. ; 1826,
1,278,591/. This was a tax on the country for the be-
nefit of that class. He was far, however, from opposing
their reasonable demands, when those demands could be
complied with compatibly with the general interests of the
mass of the nation._(Hear. ) The duties on hemp, on
linens, on iron, on copper, might be further reduced. That
was a just claim, and such a one he would support. This
was not the time for entering into the question of the na-
vigation laws; but if he did so, he must say that they had
been from the beginning prejudicial instead of advantage-
ous to the British commerce, and even to British ship-
ping; and he could fortify his opinion by quoting that of
the most illustrious persons, all of them cotemporaries of
the introduction of the system. Sir Roger Coote, Sir
Josiah Child, and after them Sir Matthew Dukes, who ex-
pressly-recorded their opinion of those laws as unfavourable
to this country. He had, he now thought, sufficiently an-
swered the gallant General and the Honourable Member
for Northumberland. Nothing but the importance of the
subject could have induced him to do so ; but he considered
the present attack as.not merely one upon the principle of
the alteration of the navigation laws, but as one on the prin-
ciple of free trade generally ; and he conceived that on such
an occasion, when an attempt was made (if he might borrow
from the eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite)
to " arrest the march of human improvement and beat back
the tide of . civilization," it behoved every honourable
and independent man in that House, more especially
if connected by circumstances with the commerce of the
country, to stand forward to oppose it. He should never
he found weaning, lie boped, on such an occasion, and how-

ever feeble he l';elS aware was his voice, however little was
his support, the .Right Hon. Gentleman should have all
he could do.—(flear.)—But more than that, he would
venture to say, thatif the Right Hon. Gentleman only per-
severed in hia course, if he only persisted in his liberal
policy, the voice of the country would be with hint—his
country's applause would be his weed ; and he would
enure the Right Hon. Gentleman that—Nec quiriquid ha-
bet fortune tue majus quam ut possis, nee nature tua
me-
liuB_quam ut,velis servare quern plurimos. (The Hon.
Gentleman sat down amidst loud applause from both sides
of the House.)

A MEMBER under the gallery made a few observations,
which did not reach those who were in it.
Sir. J. YORKE said, it became him, as a British Ad-
miral, to defend the interests of British commerce. Be
was not a learned man, but he had, he thought, been able
to form a correct opinion of the question before the House,
and must confess that, notwithstanding the ability, dis-
played by him, he could not concur with the young and
Hon. Member who had just sat down. That Hon. Gen-
tleman, from his connection with Northern shipping-
houses, could sail ships cheaper, no doubt, than those who
had British bottoms only at command ; but that very fact
was sufficient to convince him that matters were not going
on well for the commerce of the country, particularly when
he saw a Broom at the mast head.—(Loud and continued
laughter and cheers.)--But when lie saw British seamen
walking about unemployed—when he saw British ship-
ping rotting in our docks—when lie saw foreign brokers
tendering, at reduced rates of freight, a fine Prussian, a
beautiful Dane, and a charming Swede—(a laugh)—he
could not agree--delightful as was the prospect held out
—in opinion with those who thought, that to effect the
prosperity of the country was not practicable with such
means. He should vote for the motion of the Gallanr Gene-
ral, because, in such a case as the present, the support of a
British Admiral ought not to be withheld ; and he thought that
Hon. Gents. ought not, on such an occasion, even though they
did sit on the Treasury Bench, to suffer their jaws to remain
locked. He entreated of the House to look at the question
as it stood on its own merits, and not to attend to the ar-
guments of the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the
Board of Trade, or of any other Hon. Gentleman who had
the power to make the worse appear the better reason. The
proposition to repeal the Navigation Laws would, 30 years
ago, have been enough to send a man in office about his
business. He therefore again repeated his advice, that Ho-
nourable Members would not he led by.speeches, but decide
on that truly British question like a British House of Corn-
mom.

Mr. HUSKISSON rose amid loud cheering, and spoke
to the following effect.—l shall not attempt to follow the
Gallant Officer through that which he has said respecting
the question before the House, but I shall leave to Hon.
Gentlemen to decide how Far, in point of fact, the words
he has adduced in support of the motion, did really con..
duce to that object. The Hon. and Gallant Officer
has drawn upon the stores of his own fancy, while hi
called upon the House not to be led away by the argu-
ment of others.—(Hear.)—However, before I proceed to
the main question, I trust I shall be allowed to make my
unfeigned acknowledgements to the House, for the indul-
gence with which I Lave been favoured, by the frequent
postponement of this question, in consequence of my una-
voidable absence from indisposition. I regret the cause of
that postponement exceedingly, and the more so, because,
at the same time, another question of great importance, the
Corn Laws, was under discussion, in the course of which,
frequent reference was made to my name, and to my opinions
on the subject. I admit that, in thus referring to me and
my opinions, Hon. Members of this House have only done
their duty—for if it became necessary to refer to my public
conduct in this House, it was always done under the con-
viction that, on a future occasion, an opportunity would
be afforded me for explaining and defending my opinions
and conduct. While I feel, therefore, nothing but thank-
fulness to this House for the indulgence I have received at
its hands, during my absence, I must say, that I do net feel
equally pleased at the manner in which allusion has been
made to me in another place, where, 1 will say, a most
unprovoked attack has been made upon me, and in which
my character and my public conduct have been referred
to in a manner perfectly unjustifiable, because it was
done in a place where I could not be present to defend
myself.--(Cheers.)—l am speaking of a place, where,
under no possible circumstances, in sickness or in health,
will it ever be in my power, at any future-time, to meet
the individuals making that attack, face to face.-,-(Cheers.)
.—lt may have become the feelings of the individual to
whom I refer, to allude to tee as a wild theorist, ready at
all times to introduce innovations calculated to produce
imminent danger to the country. It may have been deemed
justifiable'by that individual to state, that I have palmed
on die House, measures of the greatest importance upon

false pretences.—(Che,ers, and cries of " Order, order,"
" Chair, chair.")
Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM rose to speak to order.
It appeared to him that the Right Hon. Gentleman was
out of order, inasmuch as he was referring to that which
had taken place in the other House of Parliament.

Mr. HUSKISSON—If allusions are to be made else-
where to my conduct in this House—(Cheers)—ifiny cha-
racter is to be attacked—l will not say where—hut no
matter in what place or by whom that attack is made—l
must, in this House, be afforded an opportunity of defend-
ing myself. (Loud and continued cheering.) It has been
said of me, in the place to which I allude, that I have
passed through this House measures of great public im-
portance upon false pretences, and that I have been guilty of
that which would be neither more nor less than political
fraud. —( Hear.) There is an old observation, that those who
are must practised in tortuous courses themselves, are ever
the most ready to charge that species of conduct on others.
--(Hear, hear.)—l know not how far I am at liberty to
refer to the charges brought against me ; but this I will
say, that I have now, for more than thirty years, had the
honour of a seat in this House ; and that, from the first
moment of that period to the present, I have looked upon
myself as subject to that moral responsibility to which
every public man must hold himself liable. To that moral
responsibility I am quite willing to submit my connection
with this and the other measures which, as a public ser-
vant, it has become my duty to bring forward, for
that which I intended to be the service of the State.
Further it would not become me to say—it would be ar-
rogance in me to say more ; but I must say, that, with re-
spact to the individual to whom I allude, I have attended
to his public character and conduct for five and thirty
years--I have marked all his proceedings--I have read
every publication of his that has issued from the Press, and
with which he has favoured the public, down to his last
Pamphlet on the Corn, Laws—(A laugh)—l have read
them all—(Laughter)—and, in saying that, I say more
than, perhaps, any other man in the country can say.--
(Long continued laughter.)--Among the many blessings
which Providence has showered on this country, in the
course of the long war, which continued for so many years
of the period to which I have referred, it was not one of
the least, that we have escaped from the calamities which
would result from that individual's being clothed with the
power to inflict on us the wild theories of his disordered
imagination—theories, which were, and ever will remain,
incapable of practicable application. —(Cheers and laughter. )
I now turn to the subject more immediately under dis-
cussion, begging pardon of the House for this di-
gression, and thanking it most sincerely, for the hear-
ing with which I have been favoured, while treating of
matters principally personal to myself. --(Cheers. )—I,
for one, rejoice most sincerely, that the Gallant Officer, my
Hon. Friend and Colleague, hasbrought forward his motion,
not only because it affords me an opportunity of stating my
own sentiments and opinions, but because it has given
to the Hon. Member for Northumberland a means of dis-
playing his extended and enlightened view of the subject,
and of those talents which hold out a promise of a distin-
guished political career. It has also afforded to the Hon.
Member for Dover an opportunity of manifesting an extra-
ordinary degree of knowledge, on a subject of such vital im-
portance to the country, as that under consideration, and
in a manner that must have afforded unmixed pleasure to
the House.---(Hear, hear.)—Among the other statements
which fell from my Hon. Colleague was this—that the
tables of this House have, for the last two yeara, been
weighed down with petitions from the distressed shipowners
of Great Britain, to which his Majesty's Government have
never condescended to pay the slightest attention. It was
too hard to bring such a sweeping charge against his Ma-
jesty's Government—for what is the state of the case ? A
great number of petitions were last year presented to this
House on the subject. What became of them? For the
moat part, the Hon. Gent. presenting them were content
with moving, that they be laid upon the table, and be
printed. I, however, from the situation which I filled
in the councils of the country, felt it my duty to recom-
mend inquiry—(Hear)—and, with that view, I did, of
my own accord, bring forward a statement, exhibiting the
state of the commercial marine of the country, with which
our power and safety are so intimately connected.—(Hear,
hear.)—ln making that statement, I availed myself of the
opportunity to bring before the House my principles re-
specting the Navigation Laws. I also compared those
means with those now possessed by other countries—coun-
tries alien to us—and likely to become, some day or other,
the opposers, if not the enemies, of our maritime power.
The statements I made, have been, and are, before the pub-
lic ; they have been alluded to by the Gallant General, who
brought this subject on the present occasion before the House,
and they were made in a way that will sufficiently warrant
any Hon. Member in holding me responsible for their con-
tents. To those statements, however, much misrepresentation
has been given out of doors; these misrepresentations have
been, in many cases, of so gross and extraordinary a nature
as to force upon me the belief that they have been wilfully
made, and so I must consider them. Sir, I trust that an op-
portunity will be this evening afforded me, by permission of
the House, and that my physical strength will enable me
to set myself right, with respect to those misrepresentations,
and, what I bold to be of far greater consequence, to set
in a right point of view the Government of the country,
and the late Parliament, by which that Government was
authorised in its proceedings. I trust I shall be again
allowed to overthrow, if I may be allowed the expression,
that which has been already overthrown by the lion.
Member for Dover. I know I can do so ; I know I can
sweep away every calumny that has been directed against
me personally, by those who have put them forth. Let
not the authors of those calumnies fear that I am about
to retort upon them after their own style of low and
vulgar abuse. No such thing. I am only about to
purify my own hands from aspersions which, I know,
cannot rest upon my character—from aspersions, which, I
know, cannot affect me. Those who used such weapons
against me in an unjust cause, may be assured that I will
not use such weapons in a just one. If, however, I ab-
stain from personal' abuse, in retorting the libels that .have
been uttered against me, I cannot, in justice to myself, or
in justice to the State, pass over the unfounded arguments
and statements, the sophistry and the false assertions, of
those Gentlemen. With respect to the Shipowners them-
selves, in consequence of their peculiar situation, distressing
as, in a great measure, it has been, I must hold them in
entirely excused for much of the language they have made
use of. But, I must say, that their sentiments and their
declarations have not been and cannot be supported by
proof. Sir, I am fully aware of all the disadvantages under
which I approach the discussion of this subject in its de.
tails. They have been commented on by the Member for
Dover, who addressed you at some length, and with much
ability. I am also aware that, in a case such as this, many
Hon. Members have been forced to yield to the solicitations
of their constituents. I know that, even amongst those who
are not immediately connected with the Shipping interest,
there has been a most active canvass carried on by the delegates,
and that ex-partestatements, such as I wis h and expect to ex-
pose this evening, have been made, toinfluence the minds
of many Hon. Members of this House. I urn also aware
that any thing connected with the Shipping Interest is so
interwoven with our maritime state—with the state of the
navy--and, therefore, with all that we consider the pride
and glory of the nation, that it is easy to gain listeners to
statements of alarm and danger when those important ob-
jects are concerned. Sir, I know farther, that many have
been incessantly labouring and endeavouring, for months
past, to enlist the best feelings of Englishmen, through
what they call maritime innovations, against all improve-
ments that have been made, and are making, and to direct
them against those who form his Majesty's Government.
Sir, notwithstanding all those considerations, and making
every allowance for the many Members of this House who
are, in a manzrr, obliged to vote in favour of the Gallant
General's motion, in deference to the wishes and the judg-
ments of their constituents--conduct, be it remembered, to
which I ass' far from imputing any blame—l feel it my ditty
to state fully, and to state fearlessly, the grounds upon which
I now stand, trusting that many who hear me, will imparti-
ally and dispassionately form their judgments upon the state-
ments I shall make, and the facts as they shall appear.
Nov, Sir, I feel myself somewhat at a loss how to proceed,
not that any difficulty has been created by discussion in
this House, but in consequence of the manner in which this
question has been treated out of doors, by those who have
brought forward their arguments through Members of
this House—l feel, I say, somewhat at a loss in what man-
ner to deal with them. It appears to me, that they have
a logic peculiar to themselves—a logic—l know not to
what I can compare it, except to that which prevailed in
the middle ages, amongst those who were then called
philosophers. Certainly, it is not upon facts that they
ground their statements, nor from facts that they draw their
conclusions. It seems to me, indeed, that they put facts
studiously out of sight; and they have gone a step farther
than was gone in a debate upon a question somewhat re-
semblingthis, during the last Session of Parliament, when it
was sought to persuade the House to change its' policy
in reference to the silk trade. Oa that occasion, the course
pursued was this :--It was assumed, that if the measure,
with reference to the silk trade, were carried, that trade
' would be altogether ruined—it would be destroyed root
and branch--,-and that one of the great sources of industry
and wealth in this country would thus totally disappear.—
Now, Sir, if I had been prepared to admit the premises,
nothing would -have bees more natural or more rational
than the inferences. We were told of the millions that had
been embarked in that trade, which must be lost—we were

told of the Ave hundred thousand men, women, and childrolt
subsisting by it, who would be deprived of eusployntent,
and left to starve or become burdens on the parish—and vie
were told of a thousand- other consequences that would tos-
turally arise out of these. And as I thought it necessary
to proceed with my plans, I was described as a hard hearted
metaphysician, who was prepared to contemplate all these
miseries without a single compunctious feeling. Wen'
the House did me the honour to agree with me in con-
sidering that all this superstructure was raised without anf
foundation ; that there was no proof to support the in-
ferences drawn ; and it considered that the measure ought
to be allowed to take its course. Now, it is with no little
satisfaction that I have to state, that, during the last year-'
a year of peculiar pressure, difficulty, and distress—no one
branch suffered so little—(Hear.)—no one branch was rn
so thriving a condition—as the silk trade of this country'
I will say more—l will say that this has been the result of
that free competition to which I looked for the improveraenS
that has taken place. I speak from the reports of the ma'
nufacturers themselves, and at this moment they are 10
only fearless of the rivalry of France, but are actually
porting to France the silk manufactures of this country
So far, then, for this topic, and as to that which, on the
occasion to which I have referred, alluded so much to Ban'
Jana handkerchiefs, I believe I have authority for stating'
that the silk-manufacturers of this country have made, and
are making, Bandana handkerchiefs, to export to India'
But these ship-owners go a step further—they have not
only prepared us for the dangers which, during the last
Session of Parliament, were prophesied, with respect to the
silk manufactures, but they state, positively, that these re'
sults have taken place, which, in the other instance, were
only anticipated ; and they declare, that the shipping
interests have already gone to decay. lam not stat-
ing that which I am not authorised to state, because
have read all the petitions that have been laid Iwo
the table of the House of Commons, with reference
to this important subject, and there is not one of
them which does not assert, that foreign shipping htis
creasing to an alarming extent, and that British ,hipping,,
has decreased in proportion. Then, of course, the natures
consequence of such increase of foreign, and decrease 01
British, shipping will be, that foreigners will supersede rhel.
British in the foreign trade of this country. If so, tow
conclusions are we to arrive ? If the fact be true, the in'
ferences are just; and, if so, it is our duty to consider hoW
we can remedy the evil, and to see if that evil be the result
of the measure referred to, or by what other course that
evil is to be obviated. ' Then, I say, this question, is a mere
question of facts. If the facts be thus, we have only one
course to adopt ; but, if the facts be not so, I will call on
the House to say that no inquiry is necessary, that net ,
question is to be entered into, and that the appointment of
a Committee would be at least an ideal proceeding, which
could have. no other grounds than that of inducing the
House to cast a doubt and a suspicion upon the fitness of
pursuing 'the course which his Majesty's Government
thought the interests of the country called upon them to
bring into Parliament. Ihe Gallant General states it was
not his fault that this question was not brought form
earlier in the present Session. I think it would have been
better for his purpose if it had been brought forward earlier,
because the necessary papers which were not laid on the
table of the House till the latter end of-March, or printed
until the middle of April, would not then have been here
for me to refer to. I will not say of the petitioners that
they were aware, that when these accounts were brough!
forward, all their statements would be overturned ; but i•
will say, that the allegations made in their petitions were
made at random. No doubt the persons by whom thel
petitions were signed believed those allegations to be Wel
founded, because we know, when parties upon whom de,-,
volve the task of what is called "getting tfp a petition,
raise. an outcry upon any great public question, it is no dif:'
ficult matter for them to get those who sign such 'Nadel°
to believe what they are told ; therefore, -for aught I knort
to the contrary, the petitioners did actually and i
give credit to the statements to which they affixed
66r
affixed thele
names; yet I confess I find among those allegations
some which a little surprise me, because it al3-
peals to me that the credulity of those
signed them must have been largely drawn 111)°'''
inasmuch as, of their own personal knowledge,
i
ought to have been aware how incorrectly some of thete
statements were made. Those petitions, as I have state,
I have deliberately perused, and to some of them I feel t
necessary to allude. The House need not fear that lam
lu
I about to read all these petitions. I shall content re,g
with referring to one or two of them, to show how vatic'
they are in reality worth. The first, which was sent in. On
the 16th of February, from the place which has the honottr
to return you, Sir (the Speaker) to Parliament (the Port
of Scarborough), states the value of ships to have &o 11"
nished twenty per cent. since the year 1825. This nor
have been the ease; but it proceeds to state also, the great
alarm that exists at the increasing number of Baltic yes;
sels entering all British ports. Now, this is the statemen
made by the inhabitants of Scarborough, and their all',
gation is, that, in 1826-, the entrance of foreign vesselsh!''
increased to an alarming degree. Now, in referring to the
returns to which I have alluded, I find the coMParatisde
numbers of the years 1825 and 1826 therein stated ; ane.
according to those returns, I find that, in the year 182''
there entered into the port of Scarborough 19 British Irev
sels of 2,451 tons, and 17 foreign vessels bearing 991:1 tons,
and I also find that, in the year 1826, the year thatth
created so much alarm among, and so overwhelmed wi
despair, those inhabitants of Scarborough, 17 British pee'
Fels of 2,349 tons, and two foreign vessels of 119 tons en-
tered that port. So much then for the petition from Scar-
borough, and so much for their knowledge and estimatioo
of what they signed. The next port I will go to is the
l
port of Greened, a larger port than that of Scarborough
--hat the petition from Greenock contains similar one"
gations, and, as the House will perceive, founded on
similar basis. Those petitions declare that the British
trade will soon be totally destroyed ; how far this dela*.
tion is correct, I will not presume to say, but as they'll°
proceed upon the assumption that the increase of foreie
shipping has been alarmingly beyond the increase of Brr,
tish shipping, I will shew by the returns to what credit
this assertion is entitled, as far as regards their knowledge
and experience. In the year 1825, there entered into thoe
port of Greenock 201 British vessels, bearing 51,0 a
tons, and 21-foreign vessels of G,SOO tons ; in the yea*. 1807
the year when a termination to British vessels of all kir)°,
was.contemplated and • prophecied, I find the quantity
tonnage was 51,000 British, and 2,300 foreign. So Vie
then, for this petition from the inhabitants of Greenock'
If 1 go on to the other ports from which petitions gape
been received, I shall be enabled to exhibit similar state-f
ments from similar returns, and the House will judgent
the value that ought to• attach to their allegations. il°,"di
this course of proceeding would be unnecessary, and teni"
th!
occupy too much of the time and the attention of
House. There is, however, one other petition to whic the
will allude, because it refers to that topic which has been
made use of in another manner, as bearing upon the poorer
classes of the community. It emanated from persons cop-
nectcd with the Port of London, and employed in
departments, and as labourers about the shipping ; and
states, that in the year 1825, they were in a pros Per?
us
state, with plenty of employment, but that in 1826,0 wine
in a great degree to me and to my measures, whieli Pre;
meted the influx of foreign ships, they were in great wan
of employment, and, consequently, suffered great- distress.
Now, Sir, I find by the returns to which I have so fre-
quently had occasion to refer, that, in the year 18261
302,000 tons were brought in by foreign shipping ; en,
that in the last year, the year 1826, the tonnage entere"
by foreign shipping was only 215,000 ; so that, as a inafr
ter of course, those petitioners ought to have had more
ployment during the past year, than during the Yee,
previous : is it not, therefore, evident, that the effe47
complained of, must have proceeded from other c.auselt;
Yet these petitioners were overwhelmed with disineY,
use their own words, and to the circumstances I have 01
they have
referred all their
ha
difficulties.reo_i3u
tit is aee
Perhttp:te
taimceddetaining
the use
sary for me to exhibit the facts, as it is with facts 1 era
dealing, and to show how utterly groundless are
~,t th-o
charges made against the system, which it is my
defend. I must now go through those facts in detail, "'"
cause I must vindicate Parliament from the charge of Ole°.
tributing to the ruin of the shipping interests, by peels--
ing in the measures which it was my task to introdnneL
Last year, it is true, I made my statements, and all the r'-‘,
turns I then alluded to, have been since produced. If a%
Honourable Member will compare what I then stated w 1„,
those returns, he will find that no one can, with joati;i:
accuse me of exaggeration, but I have been accused by
individuals, for purposes best known to thernselvo--74
some individuals out of doors. I have been greatly 01%4
presented, and, perhaps, with some effect, as having gar"e4
and mixed up those returns, so as to mislead the eounnle,
It has been asserted, and I believe I use the very 1en.,..`";
that I have been " guilty of mixing the Irish and Coasii
Trade together, for the purpose of producing a false
instead of the real, with a view to promote the foreig;
trade, and to injure the trade of the country." Sir, as tbni
statement is calculated to make a great impression out
d-
doors, and to revive a clamour which had nearly sbsideroo,
n,
it was my duty, before I noticed to call for those retur
which would put it out of the power of sny individual a
longer to avail themselves of so baseand pitiful an sigh
comparative state of the British trade with ".4
foreign trade. The House must:' bear in mind, that w"
the foreign trade, up to the year 1823, was included

hole of, Irelandi and .why was-this? It was through a
mistaken .policy, which it was my duty and object to see
terminated. Up to that • year, the trade of Ireland was
Considered as a foreign trade, and subjected to all its re-
strictions : therefore, up to:that year I was forced so to con-
sider it. And now, Sir, the statements I have before me
have been taken from the Restoration up to the year 1814,
and from that year to the present ; and what effect have
those principles of reciprocity had since that peried, with
the single exception of the. year 1825, to this last year?
The year 1825, be it remembered, was a year in which
trade was materially depressed and injured by speculations
o°,f an extraordinary nature, and to an extraordinary extent.
et, in the year 1826, a greater amount of British shipping
entered into, and cleared out of, the various British ports,
than during any year since 1814. Here, then, is my
first proof of the efficacy of the system which it was
'fly task to introduce. Let Hon. Gentlemen look at the
columns of those returns from 1814 to 1826, and they
will see that they stand higher in 1826, than at any
other year since the Restoration. But, inasmuch as I
separated Ireland from the foreign trade, and consi-
dered her as a part of this country, which it was so ne-
tessary to her welfare and our honour that I should do, I
did not include her in my estimate, and I now hold in my
hoed the returns of our trade with all foreign ports, Ire-
land being exeepted, and here those returns are more fa-
vourable. In the year 1826, our exports in tonnage ex-
Ze4ll anY year since 1814. What then is to become of
charge that a ruin to our foreign trade was to be anti-
'red, fur I admitted that the year 1825 was to be con-
ered a year of extravagant speculation, and the decrease
h,the employment of our British ships was naturally to
expected. Yet, in this very year, there was not only a
;lecrease in British, less than that of foreign; but I have
.O
make this most triumphant statement, that in the fol-
!°witig Year there was, in the British, a positive increase
'l-It° all "r Ports. In 1825, the decrease of British ship-
ping was one-tenth, and the decrease of -the foreign two-
sbe,venths' being nearly one-fourth. So, then, what is to
--‘.c° 41e of the argument which seems so p
the lausible, but
ishich the House willperceive had no foundation
te year
ndation ?In
ni
1826, the depression of British trade was not in
. parison with that which fell upon foreign. When it
said that the system of reciprocity attacked our interest,
I will peg of Hon. Gentlemen to look down the columns of
these returns, and, out of the fourteen years, to refer to the
four antecedent to those of reciprocity. I was also told,
tied •
it was quite unfair to take the averages of any particu-
rB Year. I admitted it, and, instead of taking the year
c. 23, I took the averages of the many years pre-
,:"4lg, and compared them with that of the pre-
,- • I have been, therefore, an obedient disciple
tbf_ the Henourable Gentlemen, and I have taken
It mode of proving the efficacy of my own theory.
4' happened that, in the last year, there was a dimi-
il'oo tinko the amount of 209,000 tons, and therefore it is,
plainly proved, that, whether one year only, or an
lerage of years, be taken into consideration, there has
a coniiiderable increase in British shipping over foreign
reets• In order to exhaust every mode by which an at-
criticsli can be made upon the present system, some very acute
would find out, that the number of shipping and the
ttr"unt of tonnage specified, included that engaged in the
.arle with Ireland and with our Colonies in North Ame-
Zea", 'which ought not to be included,when the comparison
hji. With respect to our foreign trade merely. But even
foe -e
I was willing to meet them, and accordingly called
f' r ,eturns of the amount of British as compared with
terrelPlthips, which had traded to the ports of the
Po he as well as those which had traded with the ether
aaf T°f,E urope, exclusive of the Mediterranean, with the
-h'iluies, with the West Indies, with America, also the
all'a-erl and amount engaged in the fisheries, and, last of
the
!RI which I am sorry does not go beyond three years,
amot of shipping and tonnage engaged in the coast-
-41 trade.un
Neither are the latter jumbled up, as has been
t
eien' with the amount of the tonnage engaged in our fo-
r ei;trade• - I will now go through these; and first, with
' i,„7-4 to the return of British and foreign ships which
of the out of all foreign ports for this country, (exclusive
4t''S colonies in our possession) it will be seen, that the
lait4l,°t in the year 1826 exceeded that of any year since
t•Nr',,,excePt the year 1825. The increase in oi.ir favour,
te,;" 'me to the papers on the table in the foreign trade,
ng, en aver ige of four years, exclusive of the year 1825,
am- ne out to be no less than one-fourth—(l-lear)--
if we look to the trade of Europe for a period of seven
oiaas; and long antecedent to the reciprocity treaties, we
Sillefirld that, in the year 1826, the increase has been.
-,uoo tons. I admit that there has been an in-
t'ere.,.e. of foreign shipping also, but is it not in the na-
things that such should he the case; and are
jetato allow ourselves to be carried away by a feeling of
the s", because, while our own shipping is increasing,
pee that of foreigners doing so likewise?---(Hear.)—
assel the charges which were made, Linade, it my busi-
a,hieg examine into the nature of this foreign tonnage,
tae has been so spoken of.- I was bound to.do so, for
sie'rr
eePutationwas at stake, and that ,was of as• m milt or
And Consequence to me, than any other conside.ration.
etr,oh4w, from what description of vessels does this great
ere
'tit of foreign tonnage proceed? One-fourth of them
1, toncler 50 tons burden, and by far the greater part do •
11r°11,""ed 100. These are the vessels which carry on the
little 'pal trade between France and this country, and every
our `"el which into Dov,r, Souti:aniptue, and
fttliti)lber ports on the South Coast, with eggs, poultry,
onr ;‘,l the many other little things found so useful in
RitC-Ports, help to swell the great amount of tonnage
"er
hi
our lit-Al
Our trade is menaced. Is this then the nur-
fii; ' Of o • •so seamen , ? (Loud cheers.)—No, but
r 01
"
"4 k:4 'se's, which trade to the extremes of the earth—
n;f:44 might as well compare them as compare the hors-
gel- a Paddington stage with that of the mail which
t'' Edinburgh.—(llear, and laughter.)—At the same
rorbei• thi'l species of craft supplied our coasts with many
", and Hon. Gentlemen have no notion to what
extent this trade is carried on. The Hon. Member for
.ain:hiauberland (Mr. Liddell) would be astonished at the
Nell! of eggs imported in the last y H
ear. e might sup-
beg ""at they amount to a million or two, but I
4e to inform him that in that period there were sixty-
,,,t,tnillions of eggs imported from France, the duty on
dune amounted to 22,000/. When I was absent, and
Ptii.3 one of the discussions on the Corn Laws, my Hon.
alluded to the trade which was carried on in bones,
100-°l° the Scheldt Ihey are imported here to the value of
1)44-'""., and about 40,000 tons of miserable little ship
eiflPloyed in this trade. Is then, I ask, a gallant
,1111,0; kruP to go Hamburgh, and wait there, searching for a
41'ea -„,„°' bones from one ace to another, until she eni-
ttn -
brine home here argo of manure for our agricu ••
insets And now, •what do I deduce from the employ-
°f these 40,000 tons?—why, that manure is a va-
liroiiie article to our agriculturists, and that otherwise they
\the d not lay Out their money on the refuse of humanity;
Ociri,efu'e, we have a right to presume on having 4 or
And 7,130 quarters of corn in addition to our usual harvest.
is also to be recollected, that what is grown addi-
-044.'3' in this way is carried by our coasting vessels, and
(tr. by this means, a most valuable trade is increased.—
,thear, hear.)_ ___And now, with respect to our trade with
ten: Ports in Europe; in 1814 it amounted to 540,000
tec,, n 1826 came up to 878,000. In this branch
):thave an increase of three-eighths ; and are Gentlemen
vte be satisfied with such an increase as this? I do say,
ever, that it is not this, but the trade with the Pacific,
and distant countries, which is the most beneficial to our
efifoY• Thete has been, then, I say, a very little increase
there!li reign vessels, and but for those of the United States,
would be none whatever. Our foreign trade with
countries out of Europe stands on a footing equally satis-
setoey ; and I trust I have demolished every thing like the
44ett rtion which has been made, that by jumbling all toge-
ire; I succeeded in confounding them.--(llear, hear. )
e turn to the foreign trade permitted with places un •
char our own controul, and here it is that the heavy
ge lies against me,
which tlhiaitlmruennheaceds7sarriilgyhatntdn urne--
,ZIY opened that trade,
y
Z-41:, to ourselves, to foreign Powers ; huts even if I
it done that, I have not in the least degree injured
the extent of British trade, or the amount of Bri-
fZ,. 'l4ipPing. As respects the trade to the West Indies, one
1,8"1 certain, that, in the last year, and while that trade
Ras °Pen to others, the amount of British shippin g en-.
bed th than in any of the six pre-
e e e,l had been greater
1a0,,6 Years. (Hear, hear. )_Then, as to our trade with
111 „America, how does that stand, why that, in the
554:eh.% 151,000 tons, it now amounts to 391,000 tons,
e,x 14-1 in the lastea, r it has exceeded that of every other
.825. With respect to the African trade, which
ti.oo)ie _
most
valuable description, the increase has been
'4''ttsooo to 26,000 tons. I am at a loss to find any
apt „e la our trade where there had been no increase, ex-
'eep „__-"e in which there has been a decrease—namely; the
toied7
fishery. That is, however, very easily, in my
'spell be accounted for. It must be recollected, that,
tot-"d Y we sup lied all the other nations of Europe with
that, late Ply, those other countries have endeavoured
re4;PPIP themselves; and France,. amongst others, has
the pNlidiciowily, in my opinion, applied bounties for
ehotedtl'P°4e. If we had continued our bounties here, we
laid have been met, for other countries would have
1/41a °n duties, which would have more than counter-
heceu" them, and those bounties had ceased here, not
Fired,
and
wished they should, but because they had ex-
11"idese !I Parliament did not think fit to renew them._
Of hit was also to be borne in mind, that a new mode
g had been adopted in this country, and that, in-

stead of a vast consumption :of whale oil, lighting by gas
was in general use. And now, as to Ireland, in that
country there has been a great increase in trade, not only
to the Baltic, but to the colonies, and at that I exceedingly
rejoice, not solely on the account of the increase of trade,
but on the presumption which I think may be fairly drawn
that if timber, to three or four times its former amount,
be consumed in that country, its comforts, and the desire
to enjoy them, are increased in proportion. I have now, I
think, gone through all the details of this subject but
one, which still remains,sand on which a strong case, or,
at least, cry, has been raised against me. The cry has
been raised, that by my measures the Baltic trade has
been diminished. I have, therefore, called for the jour-
nals of this trade ; the result you will see. In the year
1784, and if one argument be more conclusive than an-
other, those journals furnish it, the more especially as
they distinctly prove that there is a greater quantity. now
imported than before. In the year 1784, the quantity of
timber which came from British North America was 784
loads ; from the Baltic 105,000. In the year 1825 we
imported from America 407,000 loads, and from the Baltic
270,000.—(Hear, hear.)—Every one knows that the
whole importation from Canada is limited exclusively to
British vessels, so that, if we did not get a single plank from
the Baltic, the consequence would be the employment of a
greater quantity of British shipping than ever was engaged
in the Baltic trade. This is, in itself, consolatory, as it
shows how much the British shipping has increased. But
here it may be said, that the Baltic trade will not now,
employ any British shipping for years, and I will, there-
fore, invite the attention of the House, and particularly
of the Hon. and Gallant Member, to the statement I am
about to make. I say, then, that I have done with the
Baltic trade what I have done respecting other matters.—
I have taken and compared it first fora period of five, and
then for a period of ten years, and have then compared it
with the last portion of both periods. - In the first period
I found, that the average in British ships was annually
45,000 loads, in foreign ships 61,000 ; foreign ships having
thus an amount one-fifth more than ours. Then I compa-
red it for the 10 years, and found the average to be, in
British ships 55,000 loads, in foreign 59,000, and in the
last year the quantity imported in British vessels amounted
to 100,000 loads, in foreign 112,000, so_ that, in all
cases, the balance appears to be in favour of the foreigner.
But, in this unfortunate year of fatal reciprocity, it stands
thus—British 88,000, and foreign 68,000.—(Hear.)—
Then, shall I be right in wasting the time of the House,
and my own strength, in proceeding any further upon the
subject ?—(Hear, hear. )—I thought I bad done .with
figures, and I shall not go into the number of ships which
have been built both here and iu the British colonies. I
shall only say, upon that subject, that over-trading has
depressed the prices, a circumstance that will occur in
every branch where there has been over-trading. I was,
however, near forgetting one material point—the amount
of the coasting trade. This I have been accused ofjumb-
ling with the aggregate of foreign trade, by those sapient
persons who set down its amount at 2,500,000 tons. I
am very sorry that the returns respecting it have not been
in the hands of Members, and shall take care that they
immediately have them. However, in 1823, this trade
amounted to 7,899,000 tons ; in 1924, 8,110,000 ; in
1825, 8,340,000 ; and, in-1826, 8,306,000 tons.—
Thus, this trade has grown with our growth, and is of
the greatest advantage to the towns along our coasts-
Cy, then, any one say, after this, that our maritime in-
terest is dimished ? And this coasting trade is, I contend,
much better, for the purpose of forming both good sailors
and a shipping interest, than that of Holland with our eastern
coast—than those of the Baltic and of France into all our
coasts. For it is carried on all the winter,:and calculated to
give both strength, and skill, and boldness to our mariners.
When the facility of ship-building is spoken of, our trade
with Norway is dwelt upon ; but that trade can last only for
a very few months; and as to their entering into competition
with us, let it only be recollected that the principal articles
with which they are supplied for this purpoise, are also
furnished by us. Then, their ships are laid up for months,
while, during the same period, our vessels produce greater
benefits to us than theirs can possibly do for them during
the months in which they can compete with us; and as
the duration of a ship's life is of value, is its lying in har-
bour during tempestuous weather to be accounted nothing?
And now, with regard to paying respect to information
obtained—God knows from where or whence—l certainly
(when I gave my answer to that memorial from the ship..
Ping interest, about which so much has been said) did
not say all those things, but I gave the conclusion which I
had drawn from the knowledge and the consideration of
them. Another matter remains to be defended which I
recommended to Parliament—the Act passed in 1825, by
which the Crown was enabled to open the trade of our
Colonies to friendly nations, under certain conditions.
For this I was abused by the shipping interest; it was'
called a measure tending to diminish the trade with our
sugar colonies.; but 1 thought it would be better not to
keep our great possessions in North America as a mere
sugar island. I know that the time has been when our
Colonies were refused 'permission to make even a nail, or
to weave a yawl of cloth for themselves. Inthe attempt to do
so, we saw incipient rival manufacturers, but upon great
political views we have deemed it better, and we think
our colonies will be more attached, by the adoption of a
more liberal system, which became more necessary, when
all otlizz countries were departing from their old course--
For the interest of Great Britain—for the interest of the
navy, we felt ourselves bound to allow the nations of the
North of Europe to navigate to our Colonies in their own
vessels. The reason is, the principal object of our. Navi-
gation Laws were, next to securing our own trade, to pre-
vent the carrying trade from falling into the hands of any
one particular country. This trade had been opened to
the United States in 1822, and that (the carrying) trade
they carried on with most maritime Colonies except ours,
and the consequence was, that their tonnage was nearly
equal to half of the whale British tonnage, and in taking
in Cuba and the Spanish Colonies, exceeded that of Great
Britain. Therefore, on the soundest principles, and on a
view of the best interests of this country, it must be ad-
mitted that it is desirable to put the countries of Europe
on a fair footing of competition with the United States in
this particular. I did not wish the commerce of the
United States to be injured, but, without prejudice to
them, it was only fair that the trade of other countries,
I mean such as treated us upon principles of equal favour,
should be put upon the same footing. 1 hey were not sa-
tisfied with this, and perhaps it is fortunate that they were
not ; the result may be, that a part of the 100,000
tons of American shipping, may be supplied in our
Colonial Ports, by the shipping of Hamburgh and
other places, and, if so, I feel to treat the charge as alike
beneficial to the interests of the Colonies, and favourable
to the maritime power of this country. It will have the
effect of cementing the communication between this country,
our colonies, and other states. Sir, I am sure I may say
this without being accused of any disposition to break
through that communication which happily subsists be-
tween England and the United States of America; whilst I
pursue British interests in justice towards ourselves and
our colonial territories. Why, Sir, if these colonies are to
be merely supplied from this country with articles of manu-
facture and merchandise, I say that they will not be able to
maintain themselves, but must be ruined by the experiment.
I have been frequently reproached by the organs of the
shipping interest, for allowing the island of Newfoundland
to be supplied with articles of foreign produce free of prohi-
bitory duties; and I have been told, that this course will
not only injure the supply of British articles, but that it is
detrimental to the shipping trade of this country. While
I admit that it may be a comparative injury to some trades
—for instance, the biscuit bakers—l cannot allow that it
produces a detrimental effect on the shipping interest. On
the contrary, I am satisfied that it has not injured, but
promoted and advanced those interests, to open the
trade of Newfoundland ; and that English navigation has been
maturely henefitted by that anomalous measure. Ships clear
out, and, because they are not laden with a return cargo di-
rect in British merchandise, the inference is that neither our
commerce nor our shipping interest is benefitted. But
this is a false inference. In the first three months of the
last year, British ships, to the amount of 6,000 tons, went
to that settlement from Hamburgh, and carried with them
8,500 barrels of flour, and 31,5001b5. of biscuit ; so that,
instead of injuring British trade er shipping, by the adop-
tion of this course, I have promoted the interests of both,
by opening the trade with Newfoundland. I now come
to the Sugar Colonies, and I trust Hon. Gentlemen will
duly consider with themselves for a single moment the nu-
merous, complicated, and conflicting interests, which a per-
son in my situation has to reconcile. The sugar colonies are
in this situation. As it respects this country they have a
monopoly of the sugar trade, but that is not worth much,
owing to the extension of the Colonies of late years.—
Within a recent period, various additions have been made
to these Colonies, among others Demerara ; and they
now actually supply, annually 60,000 hhds. of sugar more
than we want, or can find any demand for in our mar-
ket. For this the Colonies can only find a vent in foreign
markets, and the price which they there receive, must de-
pond upon the price of other sugars in these markets, and it
is scarcely necessary to point out the way in which the, price
of the commodity in the foreign influences the price in the
home market. The consequence of all thie gut thin mono-
poly is worth just nothing at all to the Colonies:. We
compel the sugar grower, by artificial regulations, to pro-
duce sugar at a rust above that at which sugars can be
produced at other places, and, consequently, they are
obliged to sell at a higher price, anti we thus place the

population, for whom the planter is bound to provide,
in a situation cruel in the extreme. It now becomes a
consideration, whether with safety we can allow the Colonies
to be supplied with articles of trade and manufacture from
foreign states, which articles we are unable to supply as
cheaply as can those foreign states. I admit, Sir, that the
case would be a somewhat difficult one, if we were able
to consume all the sugar grown by the Colonies, for
then there would be a real monopoly on their part,
whereas at present the monopoly is only nominal. Suppos-
ing that to be the case, the price of sugars here would be so
much higher than elsewhere, and the counterbalancing ad-
vantage would be so trifling, that the country would not en-
dure it. But such is not the case. In relation to the pre-
sent motion, I am free to say that the state of the Colo-
nies is a question with which the shipping interest is closely
connected; while the general interests of the country are
also concerned. If we were so foolish as to make a futile
attempt at preserving our shipping, in preference to, and
at the expence of our Colonies, the result would be, that
our Colonies would be ruined, our industry paralyzed, and
that the shipowners themselves could not fail to partake of
the general distress, which must inevitably accompany an ex-
periment of that kind. Sir, it has been made a matter of com-
plaint against us that we have opened the trade of the East
Indies to foreign shipping; but it is a complaint with as
little foundation as the rest of the charges brought against
us. Do Hon. Gentlemen think that the East Indies is a
little island which can be guarded by a fort? De they
forget that if we persisted in the exclusive system there,
there are other. ports in that quarter of the world ? Yes,
even on the Ganges itself, which, if we did not open ours,
would, nevertheless, be fully opened to Foreign Powers at
our expense. The system pursued in the East Indies has
been stated to be an innovation. Let me be allowed to call
the attention of Hon. Gentlemen to a treaty, bearing date
in 1797, by which the trade with British India is opened
on terms of equality to countries in amity with our own.
After this I should hope that the charge of innovation will
be abandoned. Sir, when we reflect on the amazing in-
crease of British shipping, during, and up to the close of
the late war, and consider the amount of tonnage thrown
out of employment at its conclusion, it must be
admitted that the difficulty was - great, under these
circumstances of sudden change, to find employment
for that shipping. Sir, if we had not altered various parts
of our Navigation Laws—if we had not amended the sys-
tem of marine duties—if we had not adopted the ware-
housing system, this country would never have been able
to find anything like adequate employment for such a mass
of shipping as was diverted by that event from the chan-
nels of its previous occupation, and the distress now com-
plained of would have been still greater. Early in 1814,
as soon as peace was concluded, I find a memorial was laid
before the Board of Trade, signed by Mr. Buckles, who has
since rendered himself so active as the chairman of the
ship-owners, calling on us to re-establish an extensive ware-
housing system in this country; and threatening us, if
we did not adopt the suggestion, with the loss of our trade
and commerce. Sir, the arguments contained in that me-
morial afforded potent reasons for the adoption of the
system which it indicated. It was clearly proved that it
was necessary to abate the extravagant duties with which
commerce in this country was shackled, and give an
adequate encouragement to foreign merchandize. Such
were the arguments contained in the document to which
I have alluded, and, perhaps, some will think it unfor-
tunate that the advice was not immediately acted nn.--
Be this as it may, the Committee of Trade, to whom
the memorial' was 'addressed, acted, perhaps, tardily, but,
without doubt, wisely. They adopted the suggestions
offered them, and the consequence was, that our ship-
ping found employment in foreign trade, which other-
wise would not have existed as regarded this country.—
Sir, all practical persons have admitted, that the dues and
charges imposed in our ports upon foreign shipping, were
so great and burdensome, as to exclude them almost entirely
from our harbours. 'ln short, it was au instruction
given to the masters of foreign ships, which had occasion
to pass down the Channel, on no account whatever, and by
no means, to venture into an English port. No, Sir, not
for the safety of the cargo—not for the preservation of the
lives of the crew. Such were the directions given by fo-
reign owners to their captains. They were observed, and
the consequence was, that it has been proved that ships
have been wrecked upon our coasts, property lost, and
lives sacrificed, because the foreign merchant was afraid to
meet the expence attendant upon taking shelter in a Bri-
tish harbour,—(Hear, hear.)—Sir, I put it to the House
whether what I have now stated does not alone, and in
itself, afford a sufficient reason for the abolition of these
charges. But looking at the matter in another point of
view, if we had continued them, how could we have talked
of a warehousing system ? Therefore, I trust, that the
charge in respect of these dues will be tabandoned, and
that neither the House nor the country wiliefortt•inomeist,
grudge, the one hundred and thirty thousand pounds paid
out of the Exchequer to persons possessing -beneficial in.
terests in various harbour lights; but thataeon the con.
trary, whatever further expence Amy be. necessary,on this
head, would he gladly. continued. Concessions, had been
made in. favour of Portugal and ,of the.. Brazils, some
years before ; and it was only an extension of the same
principle, and doing an act of justice to other Powers, to ad.
mit them into our ports on the same footing. To listen to
arguments which have been publicly urged in other places,
and to Gentlemen who have addressed the House, it might
be believed that the blame which had been attached to the
new system ought to fall exclusively on my head. Sir,
this is unjust, no such thing is the case. Neither for the
reciprocity system the-warehousing system, or the changes
which have been made in the navigation laws, ant I ac-
countable ; and of no one of these measures can I claim to
myself the merit—they all originated at periods and with
persons totally unconnected with my official career. The
treaty with Portugal, in 1810, was the first instance in
modern times of foreign ships and goods being placed on
a footing of equality with our own. In 1815 the same
system was applied to the United States of America; and
for neither of these measures, which form the germ of
the existing system, am I responsible. I have the autho-
rity of my bitterest opponents for 'supposing, that when
we commenced the present system with any one state—
for instance, Sir, when we began with Prussia—it became
necessary to extend it to all; I mean to all those states
which were ready to confer on us equality of benefits. I own
it is with some surprise I have heard it stated that these
measures are in contradiction to our previous system of com-
mercial policy, and altogether of very recent introduction.
Sir, all the measures which now regulate our commerce
with foreign countries, and a great pal t of which were in-
troduced in 1821, had the sanction of a Noble Lord, and
were introduced by a Right Hon. Friend not now in the
House. They were all introduced before my acceptance of
office ; and I can claim (as I deserve) no other merit than
that of having, with some industry, and a conscientious
anxiety for the good of the country, followed them in their
legitimate consequences.—(Hear.)—l shall now advert to
another great and glaring misrepresentation, and one into
which some of the more candid of my opponents have, no
doubt, unconsciously fallen. It has been. the fashion to
talk of dictation on the part of Prussia towards this coun-
try ; a dictation of so gross a character, that it has been also
added, it ought not to be endured. And we have been told
that if, in other times, any Power. had dared so to interfere
with our commercial regulations, with our monopolies,with
our maritime superiority, that the thunders of British
cannon would have answered the attempt. Sir, this is
a mistake. Prussia asked nothing from us, directed no pro-
hibitien against us individually, as anation. England is not
even named in the obnoxious regulation. If a general mea-
sure is adopted, to England and France alike, we
have no peculiar reason to complain. However, we ap-
plied to Prussia, and the answer returned to our remon-
strance was this—" we can't protect-out navigation and
our trade against your monopolies, except by the adoption
of a sytem of discriminating duties, similar to your own."
When we are told of dictation, I should be sorry that we
should live ever to see that day when Englishmen shall be
disposed to look on the rights, privileges, and independ-
ence, of any, the smallest state of Europe, as less sacred
than their own.—(Loud cheers.)—l should be sorry to
see that day when, because we possess an irresistible
maritime ascendancy, we shall not recognise the exist-
ence of those rights in other States to which we our-
selves lay claim. By doing so, we should not only be doing
a great injustice, but we should be preparing the only
possible way, by means of which the downfal of British
maritime rights might finally be accomplished.—(Hear.)
Instead of pursuing such a course, let us maintain our own
maritime rights, by acknowledging those of others. The
moment we fail to do so, our own rights will be assailed by
all, and then, first, will they be in danger.--(Hear.)--Till
then, Sir, I thank God, that they stand upon the firmest
footing. But how was the case with Prussia?—this
Piussia, which, according to our opponents, we ought to
have treated in so cavalier a manner, as not to recognise
her commercial interests, or arrangements ; but after exclud-
ing ourselves from commercial intercourse, to risk with her
a war, on equally unjust and untenable principles. She
has been represented as a place with which our commerce
is almost nothing. It may be true, that Prussian ships.
transport timber, and do not directly carry back our manu-
factures with them ; but let it be recollected, that our
manufactures find their way to Hamburgh, to Holland,
and other places, and are then distributed by the medium
of the great rivers of Germany, through almost every part
of that country. While I am told of the insignificant nature
of our trade with Prussia, I answer it amounts to nearly
seven millions ; and I ask, are you prepared to risk this

intercourse—to throw away this connection with a State
which, like Prussia, by means of the Elbe, the Weser, the
Oder, the Vistula, and the Niemen, commands not only a
great part of Europe, but conveys your productions
through these arteries into the heart of Asia ? Are we to
throw these advantages away, because their ships may not
return from this country laden with cargoes of British
goods, in the place of the productions which they have
transported to our shores? Sir, I contend that our inter-
course embraces a most beneficial trade to the country. I
am aware our opponents say, " don't you see they are your
rivals and your enemies, and that you will soon have no'
trade with them at all?" Sir, to those who would per-
suade us that Prussia is inimical to the interests of British
commerce, I answer—look at the Prussian tariff?—exa-
mine it—turn it over, and, from one end to the other, you
will not find a single prohibition.—(Hear, hear.)—l hope
I may soon be able to say the same of the tariff of this
country.—(Loud cheerings.)—This proves that there is no
unfriendly feeling existing in that country towards British
commercial interest, for not a single article of British fabric
is prohibited. Sir, -not only is there no prohibition, but
there is not an article
.of British produce enumerated in
that tariff, on which a duty is charged that exceeds 15 per
cent. Before the reciprocity system was adopted in this
country, the Government of Prussia was assailed year after
year, by its landowers, its. manufacturers, and its shipping
interests, calling upon them to shut us out of their ports.
Under these circumstances, the Government of Prussia
plainly told us they must shut us out, if we would not let
them in.—What could be fairer than this? True, we
might have opposed the principle, and we might also have
been now at war with the whole of the north of Europe.
Or, if we were not in estate of armed hostility, we should
have been in a state of_ commercial hostility with that
country; and the consequence must have been that our
commercial interests would have been ruined ; our manu-
factures destroyed ; and our shipping interest annihilated.
—Sir, I implore Hon. Gentlemen, when they talk of the
appointment of discriminating duties, and of protection on
the raw material, to look at the state of our manufactures,
and to observe the rivalry to which they are exposed by the
productions of foreign countries. The obvious effect of such
duties and protections as are demanded, is to increase the
cost of production, and, consequently, the price of our ma-
nufactures.—How, then, can we stand the competition of
other countries, not only in the foreign, but in the
home, market?—ln France, a rival manufacture of
cotton has been established, which, within the last
seven years, has managed to produce one-fourth of the
entire consumption of that kingdom. In 1817, France
imported 60,000 bags of cotton ; last year she imported
216,000. How stands our woollen manufactures?—
They can scarcely meet the competition of France, in
South America, and other open markets. If then, you
call for discriminating duties, you must be prepared to see
the decay of your manufactures, the consequent defalcation
of the revenue, and the extinction of all the resources of
the country, and, among the first, of the shipping interest
itself. Sir, in my view of the case—and I have been in
the habit of looking with considerable care and anxiety at
all the great interests of the state, not separately, but in
connection with one another—it is impossible that what
directly tends to increase our bade, to give activity to our
manufactures, and to augment our commerce, should not
have a direct tendency to increase our navigation, and, in
that way, support our maritime superiority. Impede the
progress of these great interests, clog your trade with re-
strictions, throw difficulties in the way of your manufac-
tures, by means of discriminating duties on the raw ma-
terials of which they are composed ; paralyse your com-
merce by again introducing the old obstructions ; and you
will not only destroy the prosperity of all those branches,
but you will undermine your shipping interest and with it
will be destroyed the naval power of England.—(Cheers.)
These are the reasons why I wish the ship-owners, instead
of taking a narrow and selfish view of the case, to look at
the general result : that is a point which, in the system
of ftee trade, should be considered, not by the ship-
owners only, but by all the various interests of the
State. Sir, I believe that the system of free
trade is much misunderstood, and I wish that some
Hon. Members of this House, who think it a sufficient
evidence of their patriotism that they are opposed to the
policy of Government in this respect, would have the good-
ness. to tell me what they mean by the expression, fre-
quently used, of the misapplied, and, I do believe, very little
understood—the System of Free Trade. By the help of a
little mutual understanding upon this point, much time
now wasted in useless discussion might be saved. I should
feel particularly gratified, if Hon. Members who oppose
me, when they have answered this simple question, would
further tell me, what system they are prepared to recom-
mend, as contradistinguished from, and in opposition to,
that of free trade, to which they are so much opposed?
Would they recommend a monopoly ? would they have a
commerce conducted by chartered parties, or sanctioned by
bills, or regulated by prohibitions ? Will they be pleased
to declare whether they would have the House revive the
1500 statutes which I have, within these few years, had
the good fortune to persuade Parliament to repeal ?—(llear,
hear). Would they have that complex, and oppressive,
and vexatious code of laws, re-enacted, that formerly re-
gulated the customs and the navigation of this country ?
Laws so absurd and intricate, that it has been well said
that the most acute and experienced merchant always
required to have his lawyer at his elbow, for fear of
contravening them; and that, even with that assistance,
he could not get on without feeing the Custom-house offi-
cer—not so much with any sinister views in exercising that
species of bribery, as with the view of preserving himself
from those difficulties and embarrassments into which, un-
der such a system, he must have been every moment in
danger of being unwittingly entrapped. Now, Sir, again
I ask, is the re-establishment of that system what these
gentlemen call " free trade ?"—(Loud cheers.)--I do nut
know—l cannot guess—whether it is or is not what they
would so designate ; but, as I have already professed my-
self to be unable to distinguish the principles, or to identify
the character of the commercial policy which they would
substitute in the room of that at present existing ; again
I entreat them to explain themselves, and to answer the
question I put to them.—(Hear.)—lf they would only do
this, if they would only be prevailed upon to favour us
with this reply or explanation, they would at least pro-
vide us with some little fund of amusement.—(A laugh.)
—But whether, Sir, they may be disposed to oblige
us or not, I would entreat them, at all events, not to
flatter themselves with the visionary expectation that
it is in their power, or in the power of any other set
of men, be they who they may, to stop the career of
civil and commercial improvement.—(Cheers.)—That
England should be stationary in wealth or greatness, while '
all the surrounding countries are advancing in enterprise,
in industry, in arts, and navigation, and in all those means
and resources which increase the powers of empires, and
multiply the enjoyments and the happiness of mankind—
that England alone should be stationary in such a state of
things, is impossible. I say that England cannot stand
still, be the power opposed to her advance in improvement
what it may, so long as there exists among us a free press,
so long as we have the benefit of a free discussion in Par-
liament, in a legislative body influenced by public opinion.
—(Loud and continued cheers. )—I put it to those Gentle-
men—l put it to every body who hears me, as a bounden
duty common to us all—to endeavour each of us, by every
means within his power, to contribute to the improvement
of our country. And by improvement, let me add, I
mean that wise, and, rational, and temperate, and ju-
dicious cultivation of our means—that cautious, yet
intelligent, developeneeit of our resources, which is
in itself, the surest protection that can be provided for the
advantages we already possess, and the best safeguard
against the dangers of that innovation which Gentlemen
contemplate with so much alarm. Why, Sir, it has been
by perseverance in this very course of action that England
has become what she is—the first and mightiest Power in
theet
ww
eo
ir
el dp. to those among us—
to the memory of every thing which has advanced the
o—ssi(bCleheethresre.)—couldwboeuladnysaimong us, who are dead
grandeur of England, by upholding the glory of her flag, (for,
to those who are sensible how mainly and how intimately
her natural greatness is dependent on her maritime su-
periority, I need not address myself) ; I would say to those
who consider questions of this nature with the narrowed and
most sordid views, that we cannot afford, as matter even of
mere calculation, to suffer England to be in arrear of any
nation in the world in the political cultivation of her means.
These, Sir, are the principles which have actuated me in
the situation I have the honour to hold ; and, so long as 1
continue in it, I have no doubt that I shall continue to be
actuated by them. In the discharge of the duties attached
to it, I trust I hall continue to receive that which has as
long been extended to me—the support of this House—
(Cheers)--and having their approbation, and the favourable
opinion of the most enlightened and sagacious of my fellow-
countrymen, to sanction the course I have adopted, I can-
not but feel sufficiently consoled for any vituperation, or any
mis-statements, to which I may have been occasionally
exposed, in • other quarters less qualified to judge, and
leskcandid in their judgments. I am afraid, that I have
already exhausted the patience of the House ;—(cheers)—
and I conclude, by declaring, that I have heard no one fact
laid down, in the reasoning adduced to support the motion
before you, which can prove the case that it was necessary
for the other side to establish :—that, consequently, in the
absence of all facts, the inference which it is endeavoured
to press upon the House, must fall to the ground ; that we
have no basis on which to proceed, to countenance the sys-
tem it would recommend for our adoption, and that, there-

fore, I shall give to the motion of my Hon. and Gallant
Colleague my most decided negative.—(The Hon. Gentle-
man sat down amidst deafening cheers.)
Lord MILTON, in expressing his intention to vote
against the motion, animadverted on the animus with which
it was brought forward—as if to overthrow at once that
liberal and enlightened system of commercial legislation, for
which the Right Hon. Gentleman was so richly entitled to
the best thanks of his country.
Mr. PEEL, after declaring that had he still remained in
office, his mind would have been equally made up to vote
against this proposition—eulogised the course which had
been taken by his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson),
and stated his conviction, that the undoubted distress of the
Shipping Interest, was not a distress peculiar to that body
alone, but arising out of the same general causes of violent
excitement and speculation in 1824 and 1825, which had,
more or less affected since every other interest in the
country.—(Hear.)
Mr. CURWEN said, he had promised his constituents
to support this motion whenever made, The able speech
of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade had
certainly removed very many of these prepossessions with
which he had that evening entered the House ; but if his
Hon. and Gallant Friend pressed his motion to a division,
he (Mr. C.) must support it, and redeem his pledge, though
his judgment was certainly with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. —( Laughter. )
Mr. ELLISON said, in deference to the wishes of the
great body of the constituents he represented, he would sup-
port the motion of- the Gallant General.
Mr. A. BARING thought that the Right Han. Gen-
tleman had pressed rather too heavily on the suffering
shipping interest of this country. He could not concur in
all the favourable views which his Right Hon. Friend was
pleased to take of the prospects of the country, either as to
its shipping or trading interests.
General GASCOYNE shortly replied ; but amidst such
tremendous cries of " Divide," that we could only collect
that he looked upon the question rather as adjourned than
determined, but would not divide the House on his motion,
which was accordingly withdrawn.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Twenty Minutes past One this
morning.