Star.
London, England, 1828-06-18 00:00:00

doutst,_
or Inc

as rearm which be held in his hand would fully jos.'
tify. In fact, the law complained of had existed in
the. Provinces, and was found necessary to be ex-
tended to. the Presidencies. The object of this Go-
vernment wet to do all they could to promote the
interests of the natives of India, though at the pre-
sent period they could not elevate them to the level of
Europeans. In place of the commercial men of Cal-
cutta complaining of the cost of pilotage and moorage,
it appeared that the Government expended above six lacs
of rupees more than they bad charged ; nor could the
charge be considered as a direct tax. The tolls on canals
were most complained of, but without any colour or
reason to support it. In India there was no duty upon
wills, or probates, or other transactions under five
pounds. The Hon. Member then went through a va-
riety of items, and said,. that though public meetings
were prohibited in the Town Halls, that that was not
:he case at the Exchange and other places. In other
aspects the people of India were particularly favoured
its the duties on spirits, wine, and other articles. Tax-
ation never was the great object of the British Govern-
ment in India; as stated by the HonourableMember for
Montrose. The Stamp Tax was only laid on in place
of other taxes, and other taxes were altogether reduced.
At one period there were no less than 572 species of
articles taxed, and all these were since either done away,
modified, or applied to improvements in the country.—
Looking at the real condition of the people of Calcutta,
he thought that they enjoyed such inestimable advan-
tage', that there could be no necessity for the proposed
Committee.
Mr. TRANT opposed the motion for a Committee,
but admitted the advancing intelligence and informa-
tion 'of the natives of India, as well as the progressive
;rapt orement of the state of society there.
Mr. ASTELL was decidedly opposed to the motion
of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He thought
that. many of the complaints put forth by those who
styled themselies'the advocates of India were extremely
ill founded. He contended for the legality of the im-
post which had been petitioned against, and vindicated
generally the Government of the East India Company.
There was no real impediment, he observed, to British
settlers going out to India, for none able and willing to
he of oseahere were refused the facilities of going out.
The Honourable Member then proceeded to notice the
demand for a free press, which he strenuously com-
batted. and concluded by expreising his determination
to resist to the utmost the motion then before the House.
Mr BROUGHAM said, he was favourable to the
appointment of a Committee, and if the motion were
prci'ed he-would vote for it. He thought they should
sot put off to a Late period the consideration of the state
of India as to her laws and polity ; on the contrary, he
thought the sooner the attention of the public and of
Parliament was called to these matters, the more at-
tentiire consideration would they receive. If the im-
position of a Stamp Duty in India were illegal,
there was a tribunal to decide it ; if any doubt,
existed upon it, then it might be a fit subject for
the consideration of Parliament—but not till then, and
theft only. Acts of Parliament were net generally very
deer, and be did not think that in the case of the Stamp
Act,it was quite so clear as was imagined by his Hon.
set- Learned Friend (64. J. Macintosh). With respect
to alive pees, in 'lndia he did not think it a panacea
for all evils, but he did think it would greatly tend to
mitigate them. Public meetings also might be safely
permitted in India. liable. however, to such regulations
as might becolsittlerul necessary. He thought, how-
ever, that it would be better to delay the further con-
iderati..n of the subject till the nett Session.
Mr. T. P. COURTENAY said he had no doubt that
it was intended to give to the Supreme Presidency the
fidipower. of imposing taxes is, India, by the clause of
the Act to Which so 'much. reference had been made.
Hkineent, bosieier, ere deal with this subject in the most
librrat meaner Healey Inv). - -
Mr. R. GRANT said be was not called upon to give
anYopiniesifits the desultory subjects which had just
bete hrhugbt.berore the notice of the House. But as
tea/re:Pickle/4 the premises were clear, and the con-
ehisient itizr.• If the illegality of the law pererdbilleful,
thrCofoniitiee cot not alter it. '
t4,-401:CANTOteli, reply. •ftiereao4li the
Nelda lared4Leed Allsleylon the liberalipini* which
krtsd.wileellAexpressed ; and generally he fit happy
at the, tone and spit it which this discussion had *Ai-
%led: Arifatir;proo to him that the affairs' of India
. •
would hencelinth be snore liberally regarded, end that
free institutions would at length be permitted to prevail.
in-India. Under such circumstances, and with the as.:
stance of support whiehhe received of taking up the'
satopet essly next Scission, be would withdraw his Mo.
neetestilheßatitioe was then ordered to be printed.
• .1: :
• 011prill tHIPPINCI.
NtIeTIIIGASCO. E wished to call the attention of
theilouse to. what the real nature of his motion was,
bottom it had hero, much misunderstood, both in that
Nose.' and nut of it. With 'that view he must begin
tOafate whit the taature of it was not. It was not a
pineal inquiry into the state of trade; nor did he mean
to aliplit it AI 1. c;ommercial, question, but as an ab-
whet ,nave? queotion. He should do so, not because
he thought that 'those whose cause he bad advocated
hq year were less deserving of relief, but because,'
twill failed last year, he would not presume to
bag- forward t he same question so soon after having
bast defeated. He was confident that the distress of
spite intetent vihich -he had then advocated was as
great now as men, and that if there was any difference
apmt, it outs that their distress was greater than
belie*. Me 'meld maintain that opinion, notwitin,
neittling the cheers of those who held the contrary,-fee'
ews:thoroughly satisfied that if the case was inquired
laws would be found that in the time which had
tine* elapsed, their =condition had been aggravated, not,
*ovate* The principal argument against him was,,
'hit there bad been a redundancy of ',hipping, 'which
he.to great speculation, and the speculation to great
Tboseitreveitt least she arguments which had
mo=t effect. Now, if he could prove to-night that such
retputclaucy did not exist, he believed it would be ad-
meted that the inferences drawn from that redundancy
abaut As abandoned. He would now treat the sub-
ject* as as stbstract naval question, abstaining as much
as paisible from the commercial question which be
had brought forward last year; and the first con-
sideration that presented itself was, whether the

shipping of this country had or bad not increased?
all former 'periods the employment of ships and
shipping hid increased after war. Looking back to
the period of ,1768, to go no further. he found that
there was no instance in that, or in any of the in-
telinediate wars, up to the period of the last war, in
which, taing an average of five years, in each; the'
shipping had not annually increased after the war ; but
that had unfortunately ceased to be the case after the
late war. He would prove that, en the contrary, the
employment of shipping and men bad annually dimi-
nished, and that Oat gradually, except for the first few
yPart. In the yeas ending the 60 of Januasy,lBl7,
the returns were—.

of the
come
would
frs,iitto
Sc • of
until

1

'. I. . -

Ships and Shipping. Tonnage. Seamen.
1817 25,864 2,784,000 178,000
1822 24,642 2,519,044 166,333
Being a diminutiori, in the Ave years of peace of. .
..;
Ships aid Shipping. • Tonnage. geaMeih".
1,222 _ 264,956 11,667
During that lime it was to be observed, that there had
been a considerable increase in the imports and exports,
to the amount of eight or nine millions, as compared
with the preceding year. What he next wished to im-
press upon the attention of the House was, a compari-
son of the last two years, taking in tile whole of the
British Empire, including the Colonies. In the year
ending January. 1826, the returns were—
Ships and Shipping. Tonnage. Seamen.
1826 24.62.5 2,635,000 167,636
1827 23,195 2,460,500 151,415
That statement referred to the whole of the British Em-
pire, when that which formed the basis of her naval
establishment was diminished in the reverse proportion
to the increase of her trade. It had been said on a

- .
former occasion, that if the interests of commerce and
navigation should happen to clash, there was no doubt
but that the preference should be given to navigation,
as it was upon that our existence as a naval power and
the retention of our colonies must depend. He would
next call the attention of the House to the statement in
the Returns as it affected the United Kingdom of Great
Britain arid Ireland, not including the Colonies. This
statement was as follows—
Ships and Shipping. Seamen.
1526 20,409 149,894
1527 19,035 130,494
He did not mention the tonnage, because there was al-
ways a proportion observed in these accounts between
the tonnage and the seamen; so that having the one, the
other was to be directly inferred from it. It appeared
from the above statement, that there was in the last of
_ _

these years a diminution of 1,434 ships and 19,400 sea-
men. He knew that he should be told to look at the

note under that statement, which stated that many of
the vessels that remained on the list had long ceased to
be in existence ; but he would ask, when the ship was
broken up did they throw the men overboard? The
argument of 1827 was, that the great quantity of ship-
ping had led to speculation ; but it was now stated as a
fact, that the number of ships was not so great as had
been relied on in that argument. But he would ask
why, if the number of ships had increased, was the
number of Mee diminished ? They h.td always iaulti•
plied at the rate of six men to 100 tons, and they, still
took their statement on the old criterion. But he would
maintain, that there were not five men to 100 tons, and

chat upon the whole estimate there was a loss of upwards
of 40,000 men. He would show that now there seas nol
in general more than four men to 100 tons, and never
more than five. The statements therefore upon which
Government bad gone mostbe incorrect; and if noother
good resulted from his motioettbat good'woirld attend it
at all events. The error of the -statement would appear
distinctly on referring to the,SiimprapnwPffice.—
Every seaman employed, whether .a 'pre.ntsce or not,
was obliged to pay 6d. .a month-towards. -the sup-
pon of Greenwich Hospital. UpOn-the arrival of any
vessel in port, the Captain was obliged•to
.deliver up
on oath a list of the crew, specifying the length of time,
that each had served. He knew of no better:criterion'
than this, for those who collected the dint,: as well as
he, believed that it was regularly and NAT .collected.;
Why, thin, should they not adopt that best criterkim,
instead of multiplying at the rate of six to 100. tone?
During war, vessels were compelled to observe the pro,
portion of six and sometimes seven- to 100. but now*
appeared from the Sixpenny Duty.Rpffiee that they bad
only collected from 115,274 men. The calculation was,
that every seaman on an average was ein-Ployed eight
months in the year, and paid 4s. duty; but it appeared
from the return that there was a reduction of 1,1001. or
1,2001. in the last year, as compared. with the former.
Looking at all the accounts, it would be found that
there was . a diminution 'of from SO to 40,000 seamen•
since the war. It would be unfair to include in the
number of shipping' Clearectout of sbine of our ports,
some of the steam easels, in particular, which be had
ascertained madeterenty-five or thirty voyageklis the,
year; sti.diatif the' amount of- the tonnage of each•
was tonitiPlied by ..the number of voyages, it would
swill the amount Of tonnage in :the general aCcount to
eight It nine thousand tons fie etch weasel. He did not,
therifaie, look at the diminution of-oar sbipping--6w bat:
hesejefied particularly to call the attentiortotibe..Hoose
to eras, the diminution of the.nwrober of men. It was
'a matter worthy of serious consideration, that while
our shipping trade to the East Indies, and the trade
of the Colonies, was increasing, our shipping trade was
rapidly declining.. There were employed in our colonial
shipping trade 23,000 seamen, who never came tothie
country, and who could not be available for the service
'of the Royal Navy in case of emergency. He knew that
in his view of the decrease of British shipping he should
be met, first by the mention 'of the note of the registrar
of shipping—that many of the ships included in the list
were not in existence—but whether they were so at the
date of that list was not of consequence to his argu-
ment—whether they had ceased to be rated in 1824 or
in 1825 was immaterial, it was still a diminution since
the war. Now this diminution would be more 'observ-
able if we looked at the state of our shipping engaged
in the trade with America, and the shipping of that
country engaged in the trade with us.' In the year 1816,
just after the war, America had only 91,000 tons of
shipping engaged in her intercourse with this country.
In 1826 it had increased to 185,000. In 1816 our
shipping engaged in the American trade amounted to
45,000 tons. In 1826, it was reduced to 37,000 tons,
being a diminution of 7,000, white, in the same
time, the shipping of America had more than dou-
bled. This was an imporfant fact, and deserved
serious attention, for there was little doubt, that if
there should be a general war, America would be
pitted against us. The calculations upon which he
went were from very accurate sources. They were
those of last year and from Liverpool ; but as nearly
four-fifths, or five-sixths, of the whole American
trade came to Liverpool, the statement of the re-
mainder made little difference is the general. cake-
Lido's. If they looked to the difference in the number
of men employed, it would be' found that there had
been an increase in the number of seamen employed by
America of 16,200, while there bad been a diminution
in those employed in the shipping trade of the United
Kingdom of 16,400. Thns, whatever was the state of
the trade with the Colonies and Foreign Countries, he
found a most alarming diminution in the number of
men in the shipping trade in the United Kingdom ;
and whatever might be said, it was a fact. that that
which was the basis of oar naval power was gradually
mumbling and diminisbiog. It was a fast which
could not be denied, that considefable numbers of 'our 1
men were employed in the shipping of America. He bad
;not the menus of knowing the exact numbers. but he
thought it was not too snail to state them at 20,000.
The reason of this preference amoneour Men fur the
ItAsirericaa service was, that the,Ansesicans gave much
Uhler wages. • InJact, the great losses sustained in the
tarrying trade by some of our ship-ewners were such,
iberweretebliged to diminish all their espouses,

:.:~:

• •

. dle
' •

..•,

' '

,

and wages amongst the number, to the lowest possible
scale. The numbers as well as the wages of the crew
were diminished, and one effect was, that none but
able seamen were employed, so that mot one in ten
were employed, and -there we►e very few. apprentices,.
so that no provision was made for any exigency which
our navy might require from time to tiMe. He would
not trouble the House with going further into this sub■
Ject at present, but conclude with a motion, stating
the facts to which he had averted, and pledging the
House to an inquiry the next Session. The Honourable
Member then moved—

"That it appeen by the navigation statements, contained in the
Annual Finance of the present year, 1829, now upon the table, that
there was registered fer the British Empire—
Ships or Vessels. .Tonnage. Seamen.
1826 24,625 2,635,644 167,636
1827 23,195 2,460,500 151,415
•••=1111M•1•1111 MNIM,Nr.=., Mai........
Diminution of 1,430 . 175 t 144 16,221
_

" Also, that k appears by the same Finance Account, that in 1826,
for the British United KingdOm there were—
Ships or Vessels. Tonnage. Seamen.
20,469 2,382,069 149,894 1
1827 19,035 2,150,464 130,494
Being a diminution in the Trade of the United Kingdom of
1,434 221,465 19,400
" That this House will, sarifin the neat Session of Parliament,
proceed to inquire into the causes of this apparent diminution of
ships, tonnage, and men, in the commercial navy of this country."

Mr. T. P. COURTENAY said, that if, in opposing
the Motion, he abstained from following the Gallant
General minutely through his bill of details, he hoped
neither the Gallant General nor the House would im-
pute it to any denial of the importance of the shipping
interest, whether it was viewed as a branch of the trade
of the-country, or as the foundation tithe Royal Navy.
The discussion of this subject would open the investi-
gation of many questions; but as 'this motion could lead
to no practical result, it was not necessary to enter into
these questions, which would greatly interfere with the
dispassionate consideration of the present subject.—
During the ensuing recess, his Right Honourable Col.
league (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) and himself intended le,
give their whole attention to this very important and
controverted question. They felt it their duty to take this
course, as they were aware of the difference between'
opinions-formed as members of a party and. under the
awful responsibility of office. It was. their intention;'
therefore, to treat the Colonial Question, the Shipping
Question, the general principles of. Trade, and all the
otherquestionr that belonged to their department, with
the same iinpertiality, .it their minds were a sheet of
blank: paper—afear4.
.The Gallant General had made
out no case in support of his motion. • He had shown:
Ahem. was a diminutiorrof British shipping since the
peace, but not any stickihtent diminution as rendered
the course he proposed necessary.. What object could
be gained by this motion? The pledge was not to be
redeemed till the next Session; .-This was a course the
. House had never adapted bud Once; and that was on
the CathelicAination. :No benefit could result from
this Motion) -unless..the:.House went at once into the.
Cotrithittee. He shouldi therefore, meet the motion by
the previous question.. Idb*Cliuld not avoid remarking,
thattheopallant Genetl4,in the'.coMparison he had
drawn between the yearalBg6 -and 1827, bad failed in,
his point, because hebaduot shvarwhow tar the result
was influenced by The ciriutestaotemirked by the note i
of the Registrar. .Geueral; thrtt...ooSeqoence of many
vessels not having ..theer proper.. registry, they. would
'have been struck out of the former flits. The Gallant
.General had acknowledged that the 'only seamen' now
eMplOyed were able seamen; if we bad, at least;
twice the number we bad Use year before Lord Howe
,gainecthis splendid victory. •The Gallant General hied
forgotten to state that the year 1827 was the greatest
in amount of shipping
.1410 the geese, The Right
Honourable Gentleman having. re•stauld his objections
to the motion, apologised for detaining the s House,
when so many others •more competent were anzious• to
Address it. •
Mr. G. ROBINSON expressed his surprise at hear,:
ing 'that the Right Hon. Gentleman refused to agree
to the motion upon the ground that no practical men.-
sure was recommended. When -the ship-owners 'IAA
year put forward their, prayer to that House, he would
venture to say, that they were treated as no other re-
spectable bodyof men were ever treated by a Govern.
went before; and be thought it too much that they
were now again to be told. that nothing was to be done,
and that inquiry should again be refused. The Right
Hon: Gentleman had certainly said that he and his
Right Hon. Friend were about to take into their con-
sideration the allegatiods pat forward by the' ship-
owners,--and to go into a dispassionate investigation of
-their- case.' So far he had beard the Right Honourable
,Gentleinan with satisfaction. .But, although so much
might be dope, what security had the ship-owners that
ihnie.,4ee w 0 RiOt.lion. Gentlemen would be in office
anotb: jeer N.AA laugh.)—lf• he appealed to the ex-
perienceof ..t0 last eighteen months, he saw very little
ground for coofidence on that point, and he, therefore,
called upon the House to bind itself to inquiry before
another year passed over. It must be remembered that
the subject was one
.in which the maritime ascendancy
of this cou an was involved; and, if they refused to en-
tertain it.new,,..itmeight. hereafter be forced upon them
when' it wool* be:too- late to repair what they had it
now 'in their power to `prevent. The Hon. Member-
then contended (Imitate operation of the present law was
visible in the -diminished number of ships built, and en-
tries made for foreign ports during the last year. It
was not enough for them know that our own ship
were employed, but they *etc employed profitably. Ia
considering the interests of another great body in the
country, the growers of eorn,the House had made it a'
part of their consideratiorrywhat was the price at which
corn could be profitably sold? Now he knew thit al
most all the carrying now undertaken by the British
Shipowner was done, almost at the certainty of a loss.
lie would never belcoetented to see'one interest in the
coontry protected, while another was left to compete
with the foreigner as it could. He regretted that
last year the application. for inquiry had been mixed
up with political considerations; with which it ought
never to have been connected. The Shipowners had
shown no hostility to the late Right Hon. Secretary for.
the Colonies; the worst they hadever said of him was,
that he was mistaken in his views, and that if these
views were persisted in, the shipping of the country must
be destroyed in a great measure. The system of reci.
procity as it now operated was ruinous. There was no
doubt of its advantage in those instances white foreign
gauntries had been induced* to act upon it also. But it
was well known that America and all the great. Euro-i
lean States were acting upon a system of ho'tility and.'
prelusion towards us which must produce the most in..
jurious effect* In the debate of last year the Honour
able-Member for Dover had the confidence `to state to
the House that ships could be built as cheap in this as
in any, other country—(Hear, from Mr..Thcnson.)—'
The Honourable Member by that cheer seemed to Main-.
tain that assertion. He had advantage of having
been connected a ith the shipping interest softie years
longer than the Honourable Gintleman,and he would
undertake to say, without •meining ;the slightest per-
sonal disrespect, that never was ail assertion Wile to

I.

that House so utterly unfounded and mistaken-4 Hear,
hear.) Ths Honourable Member then vindicated the
Ship-owners against what he described as .the 5140"
genuPPLAttickPxnde upon them by Mr..flueltisposkin
the preceding Sersien;and called upon 'the Muse. nat- -
to negative the Resolution. '
Mr.LIDDEL said, that he would not follaw ale;
example of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sit ,
down, by entering upon the very intricate and difficult •
calculations which he had brought forward in his speech:
The Hon. Member concluded sotne'Yurther observe-
tions, by supporting the motion. 'He earnestly hoped
that some means might be devised to restore the ship-
ping interests to their pristine situation :—they had
been reduced to their lowest level, and exposed to a
most unfair and ruinous foreign competition. He