The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-05-30 00:00:00

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

A meeting was held in the Sessions-house, on Friday,
to consider the proposal recently made by her Majesty's
ministers to repeal the Navigation Laws. The meeting
was convened by his worship the Mayor, and was ap-
pointed for twelve o'clock. Before this time. however,
a great number, of influential gentlemen, merchants, and
others, arrived at the court. Among them were Messrs.
Eyre Evans, H. Littledale, John North, T. Brocklebank,
Josias Booker, A. Tobin, Thomas Moore, John Bibby,
Alderman Chilton, Thomas Robinson, Alderman Hough-
ton, George Lonthean, Abraham Tapley,. Thomas Bold,
W. R. Sandbach, Geo. Kendal, J. Tyrer, Robert Benn,
Wm. Ashley, Robt. Ashley, T. Moss, Charles Cotes-
worth, Wynne, Richd. Sheil, A. H. Wylie, C. Raw-
lins, J. Aikin, J. Lockett, Sinclair, G. Grant, Laid-
law, Challinor, Dawson, Chas. Robertson, Z.
Nelson Wood, J. Bramley-Moore, &c., &c. The pro-
ceedings were opened by the Town-clerk's assistant read-
ing the requisition calling the meeting.
The MAYOR said he need not tell them the present
meeting was a very important one—important as bearing
on the interests of this town, and important as affecting
the British navy. As he was aware that some difference
of opinion prevailed on this subject, ho should refrain
from offering any opinion of his own. He concluded by
adverting to what transpired in the House of Commons
when Mr. Cardwell was proposed to act on the slavery
committee, and thought that the insinuations which had
fallen from Lord Palmerston on that occasion were an
insult to the country, and to the town of Liverpool and
her merchants.
Mr. JAMES ATKIN rose to propose the first resolution.
He was provided with documents demonstrative of the
fallacy of the measure now under the guidance of the
President of the Board of Trade, and who he considered
chargeable with incompetency in the mode in which he
had collected his statistics, on which the reasons for re-
pealing the navigation laws were founded. Alluding to
the loose system which characterised legislators of the
present day, and the bungling way in which acts of par-
liament are framed, he quoted the words of an eminent
Glasgow house, once possessing its thousands, but now
become bankrupt :—" We have been ruined by acts of
parliament." It was not a mere matter of pounds shil-
lings, and pence that they were met to discuss. They
were met to prevent those laws which had been sanctified
by great statesmen being expunged from the statute
books. Mr. Aikin proceeded to take a review of the
grounds on which the parties bringing forward the ob-
noxious measure founded their views, and showed that
since the war British tonnage had increased from two-
and-a-half millions to four millions. This increase was
gained under the operation of the present laws, and was
an evidence of the soundness of their principle. Under
these laws had existed a navy, which had been the means
of saving England, whilst all other countries were em-
broiled in war. He left the opinion of a captain in the
royal navy as given in Parliament, for the consideration
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially those
gentlemen present, who considered we were at present
sinking under the burthen of taxation—the opinion in
question amounted to this, that the royal navy was not
supplied from the commercial marine, and that to be
efficient it should he a permanent establishment. The
speaker then went on to show the partial manner in which
the question had been treated in the House of Commons.
The first three witnesses examined before the committee
were officials of the Board of Trade. Men were appointed
to get up this measure who had previously expressed an
opinion respecting it ; no jury in any other court would be
allowed to sit under similar circumstances. Mr. Akin
reviewed the evidence of the persons summoned before
the committee ; on the question, one was a gentleman
from Manchester, who deposed to his having been com-
pelled to allow two cargoes of sugar to remain at Java for
want of British ships to bring them over. But the fact
was that at that very time British ships were being taken
up at £5 per ton ; Dutch charging £6. Referring to the
great first cause of the measure, the intimation from
Prussia, and the invitation from America, he said, the
treaty with the first named power was about to expire ;
the terms of renewal were very simple, Mr. Labouchere
had merely to propose to continue a treaty under which
'Russian tonnage had increased more than British. He
ivrent into many details to show that under the pre-
sent law the British commercial navy had flourished, and
igiat free trade principles. however sound they might be
in general, were not adapted to navigation ; that to apply
them would be on our part a voluntary handing over of
a benefit which we held full possession of to our niegh-
'bours to share it. He rebutted the charge of incompe-
tency that had been brought against the masters of the
commercial marine, and drunkenness of the crews, and
proved the slander by showing that British ships could
effect insurance at a less rate of premium than those of
any other nation.
MR. BROCKLEBANK, who expressed his opinion as a
shipowner, that should the law be repealed, there would
be an end to British prosperity, seconded the resolution.
Mr. WYLIE rose to propose an amendment. He con-
sidered the principles of free trade applicable in the
present case. There was no reason why the shipowner
should enjoy a monopoly. He said it with no offensive
intention ; but still he would remark that the gentlemen
on the platform were shipowners. Mr. Aikin had alluded
to the injury done by the advocacy by the government of
the slave questions. He was not prepared to•cover the
faults of ministers. He believed the West Indies had
been ruined by a false philantrophy.—Whilst this gentle-
man was speaking, great uproar arose; but the Mayor de.
sired he might be heard, and he continued, occasionally
being interrupted by cries of " question,"—With respect
to our commercial navy being the source whence the royal
navy is manned, he said the latter consisted of 18,000
men, of which 12,000 are able seamen : not more than
one-tenth of these came from the commercial marine.
He then went on to paint the horrors of the press-gang,
which he said was still the law, and appealed to the legal
gentlemen present. (This was contradicted by some per-
son in the meeting.) As an instance of the injurious
working of the navigation laws, he said he had a cargo
lying at Marseilles, some time ago, from Africa ; but there
being a better market for his goods in England, he di-
recte a French broker to bring them to this country.
The Frenchman knew more of our laws than he did, and
informed him that it could not be effected, and he was
compelled to loose the choice of his market. He went on
to say that he considered it was an artizans question, as
the repeal of these laws would provide more employment.
He agreed with Mr. Aikin that British ships excelled
those of other countries, and read some statistics showing
that in 1846, out of 3,779 entered in the port of Hamburg,
995 were Brititish, and only 455 belonged to port. He
referred to the working of the reciprocity act, and adduced
further statistics to show that a liberal policy in commer-
cial matters, as well as shipping or other interests, was at-
tended with beneficial results to all, and concluded by
wishing the navigation laws were repealed, as the means
of filling our docks with ships, and affording employment
for our artizans. The amendment was to the following
effect :—" That this meeting has learned, with much sa-
tisfaction, the intention of her Majesty's government to
propose the total repeal of the navigation laws." It went
on to state them to be a fruitful source of loss to shipown-
ers and others.
Mr. BOULT seconded the amendment.; andin doing so,
made a lengthy and eloquent speech, in which lie decried
the effect of the Navigation Laws, and considered the
fears as to the consequence of them being repealed, as
cowardly in the extreme; he would liken them only to
the imaginary alarms of the Duke of Richmond, who
feared the consequences of the passing of the corn law
would be to cause the land to go out of cultivation. The
effect had been to compel the farmers to get a better
knowledge of their business, and the shipowners must
follow their example. With respect to what was said
about our commercial navy being a guarantee for our de-
fence in case of a war, he could only say, he prayed to be
delivered from war under all and, every circumstance. We
had suffered more severely fram that than any other ill.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH stpported the amendment. He
was no shipowner, but he advocated the repeal of the laws
referred to as the means of good to all.
Mr. JOHN AIKIN rose in support of the motion, and
was received with cheers. He said—Having been a Free-
trader, and, I trust, a consistent one, ever since' I
paid attention to, or have been capable of thinking on
political subjects, such as the great one which this day
occupies your consideration, I rise as a Free-trader, to
differ from and denounce the Free-trade principles ad-
vanced here. I will not call them Free-trade principles ;
but as the word libel has already been used, I will call
them libels upon Free-trade—libels upon the doctrines of
Adam Smith, Huskisson, and those of the most enlight-
ened Free-traders, as well as practical statesmen. (Ap-
plause.) Let us consider for a moment how far Mr.
Labouchere's proposal carries out the principles of Free-
trade, if it is not inviolationof every principle of Free-trade,
and with what propriety any gentleman who is a Free-trader'
can rise in this meeting and say that he approves of it.' He
proposes to remove protection from British shipping, and
yet to keep restrictions upon it. Now I have always
thought that Free-traders objected to any interfmnce by
government, and certainly not less to restrictions than to
protection. By restrictions you violate the very princi-
ples of Free-trade, but by removing protection and re-
taining restrictions, I say you do more—you violate the
principles of common justice. (Loud applause.) Mr.
Labouchere proposes virtually to throw open the carrying
trade to all foreign ships, but he proposes to retain and
re-establish restrictions on British ships, which will to-
tally disable them from competition. (Applause.) Is it
the language of a statesman to say that, thus fettered, we
should enter into competition with the world for the
carrying trade ? I don't know whether we should
regard it as an insult to the mercantile interests of Great
Britain, or as a proof of the ignorance and incapacity
of the man who utters it. Mr. Boult has stated that
English captains are not so well paid as they ought to be;
and I would like to see every British captain and every
British sailor better paid for the faithful discharge of their
duties than they are at present. But it is the interest of
a shipowner, under all circumstances, to secure the best
master, and a difference of a few pounds per month is no
comparative consideration. Is not this the case, whe-
ther the navigation laws are repealed or not ? (Hear,
hear, and loud applause.) That is not a question affect-
ing the principle of the navigation laws ; and to come
here occupying the time of the meeting by introducing
irrelevant matter of this kind, is, I think, hardly justifia-
ble. (Applause.) Let us for a moment consider how it
will or how it will not affect the wages of the British sea-
man. You impose restrictions upon the building of
British ships—you tax the raw material of which they
are composed, and yet propose to admit foreign-manufac-
tured ships, free of duty, to enter into open competition
with them. A fine free-trade principle that ! A fine
doctrine for free-traders to come here and advocate to-
day ! Who would build a ship where the materials are
taxed, when he could build elsewhere with more advan-
tage ? Again you violate the principles of free-trade when
you dictate to us the kind of labour with which we are to
man our ships. If we are to get everything where it can
be got cheapest, why should we not do the same with la-
bour ? (Applause.) If you are free traders, carry out
your principles—Abolish, the duty on the raw material—