The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-05-16 00:00:00

amount to confiscation of the property of the Bri-
tish shipowner. We say for that purpose; for not
only was the selection of members of the committee
grossly unfair, the proceedings of its chairman and
the vice-president of the Board of Trade, those of
a partizan, but it closed its sittings, leaving the
bulk of the witnesses in favour of the Navigation
Laws unheard. We are promised shortly a mea-
sure, as the result of that committee's (inzcomplete)
inquiry ; and again we have the astute staticians of
of the Board of Trade concocting, by a series of
returns, a case in favour of the enemies of British
industry. To the indefatigable exertions of Mr.
G. F. Young, the shipowners of the kingdom are
under the deepest obligation for drawing attention
to the glaring dishonesty of the returns in question.
„ .

The series of " statements" to which Mt Young
points, as unfairly concocted to serve a purpose,
are contained in parliamentary paper No. 588, of
last session, presented to the late House of Com-
mons on the 30th June, 1847, "by her Majesty's
command, purporting to elucidate questions relating
to shipping, which had arisen out of the evidence
given before the select committee then sitting on the
Navigation Laws (Mr. Milner Gibson, vice-presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, chairman), and which
are evidently intended to support the testimony
just previously given by Mr. G. R. Porter, the then
head of the statistical department of that Board.
That, however, to which he how particularly directs
attention is marked number four in the series, and
is entitled "a statement of the tonnage of British
ships that entered the ports of the United King-
dom from different foreign countries and British
possessions in each of the years 1824 and 1846;
distinguishing the tonnage employed in the trade
with British possessions, and which is protected by
the Navigation Laws from the tonnage employed in
the trade with foreign countries, and which is un-

protected from competition with foreign ships."
We cannot give the whole document, but shall
briefly state the results at which the concoctors of
the statement arrive. In the " protected trade"
they place the tonnage from the Coast of Africa and
Cape of Good hope, St. Helena and Ascension,
Mauritius, British India, British North America,
Australia, West Indies, Fisheries, Jersey, Guernsey,
&c. ; and the tonnage from all other countries they
refer to as " unprotected." The " protected" ton-
nage was in 1824, 893,007 tons, and in 1846,
1,735,924 tons, showing an increase of 842,627 tons,
or 94.37 per cent. The tonnage, asserted to be
"unprotected," was in 1824, 904,223 tons, and, in
1846, 2,558,809 tons, showing an increase of
1,654,586 tons, or 182.98 per cent—nearly double
that of our " protected" trade. The object here
was clearly apparent ; and it is not to be surprised
that the return in question was eagerly seized upon
and triumphantly quoted by every journal and par-
tizan opposed to the Navigation Laws. We now
turn to ?dr. Young's crushing exposure of the dis-
honesty of the whole statement
And now, Fir, to the disproof of this bold but un-
founded ' statement.' 'Will it be believed that the ton-
nage employed in every one of the trades enumerated in
the column described as ' unprotected trade' is actually'
protected in a high degree, and in some cases to an extent
amounting to exclusion as absolute as that of the colonial
trade; and this by the very laws which are invidiously
and, I must add, insidiously represented as applicable
alone to the `protected trades,' enumerated in the oppo-
site column ? Yet such is the indisputable fact, as an
examination of the Act of Navigation will instantly con-
fi rm. I take the trade with China as an illustration. It
is denominated an unprotected trade, and as such is de-
scribed as having increased from 28,270 tons in 1824 to
54,593 tons in 1846. Now did the compiler of this docu-
ment ever hear of a single foreign ship entering the ports
of the United Kingdom with;n the whole period from
China? Was a single ounce of tea ever imported from
China for the consumption of this country except in
British ships ? Does he doubt that the owners of Ameri-
can ships would eagerly avail themselves of permission to
compete with British shipping in this valuable trade?
What is it that prevents them ? The law—What law ?
Why the Navigation law ! How then, I ask, could the
compiler of this statement' have the effrontery to make
her 'Majesty tell her Parliament and people, that the trade
with China is an unprotected trade, and that therefore it
flourishes ? Sir, be must know well that the case is the
same with many of the states of South America, and with
all that do not possess merchant shipping of their own.
Knowing that by the Navigation Laws, goods, the pro-
duce of foreign countries, are not permitted to be import-
ed into this country to be used therein, except in British
ships, or ships of the country of which such goods are the
growth or produce, or in which in some cases they may
be found, he cannot but be aware that this restriction,
varying, it is true, in effect, in proportion to the tonnage
possessed by each country, but acting as an exclusive pri-
vilege to British ships in some, and ensuring to them a
proportion of all, does constitute a great, an efficient, and
a valuable protection ; and I confess, that with this know-
ledge, notwithstanding my experience of the reckless as-
sertions of political ecoromists, and of the successes they
often achieve by the matchless boldness of their assump-
tions, it does amaze me that any public functionary of
station and information should have ventured to speculate
so lamely on the credulity or carelessness of his oppn.:
nents, as to have expected that such a misrepresentation
could possibly pass undetected or unrebuked. I repeat,
because I have proved, that the trades described as un-
protected for the purpose of depreciating the Navigation
Laws, are all really protected by those very laws; and
having thus demolished the fact alleged, I leave the
worthless inference deduced to your discriminating judg-
ment and impartial conclusions."

This ought to be sufficient for ever to damn these
laboured statistics, as utterly unworthy of credit.
Mr. Young adds, however, another prostrating
blow :

" But I cannot, Sir, suffer the occasion to pass without
exposing briefly the distortion of facts for the purpose of
misleading and deluding the public, of which these state-
ments are also full. One illustration may suffice, but it
shall be a crushing one. The inward entries from France,
which in 1824 were 82,650, will be perceived to have in-
creased in 1846 to the enormous amount of 556,821 tons.
Well, indeed, if this were an unprotected trade, and gave
employment to such a tonnage, might free traders cite it,
as the statistical department of the Board of Trade' has
done, as conclusive evidence of the tendency of their sys-
tem to develop and extend the naval resources of the
country. Sir, I have received, while I write, a return
laid before parliament, during the present session, on the
motion of Lord G. Bentincic, (Parliamentary Paper, No.
28,) and just printed, which tests the real value of this
monstrous statement, and must, I think, make the cheeks
of its concoctors tingle with confusion. By this return it
appears that the steam vessels entered inwards from
France, in 1846, were 47 in number; their tonnage, 7101:
and that they.were manned by 698 men. These are all
included in the ' statement ;' while, can it be believed ?
they are absolutely made to figure as 228,189 tons of the
British shipping declared to be engaged in the trade with
France, and advanced to prove the' inefficiency of protec-
tion, and the propriety of repealing the Navigation
Laws !! ! One vessel alone, the Magician, of 95 tons, is
actually made to represent 14,208 tons ; and another, the
Prince Ernest, of 145, to stand for 24,215 tons, the
astounding exaggeration being produced by the calculation
including the repeated voyages, which in the former of
these cases were 148 in number, and in the latter 167.
Sir, I will not comment on this discreditable and almost
incredible attempt to deceive the public on the
important Question on the Navigation Laws; but I en-
treat you not to forget, when you are examining these re-
turns, that if you find in the depreciated column 14,000
tons of British shipping engaged in the trade with India,
you look at the exponent of perhaps 14 magnificent ships
of 1,000 tonseach, exhibitingin substantial truth theprow d
results of our maritime commerce, raised and sustained
under the protective policy of our Navigation Laws;
while, if your eye should glance at an equal amount of
tonnage in the opposite and vaunted column, you may,
perchance, but be required to take as of equal value for
naval security, some beggerly steamer of less than HO
tons."

Have we, with this evidence before us, been one
iota too severe in denouncing this boasted " statis-
tical department" of the Board of Trade as an en-
gine ready prepared and constituted to mislead
statesmen and the country, with respect to the most
vital questions upon which they are called upon to
decide? We have here an instance of a committee
sitting for the purpose of deciding the fate of one
of the greatest bulwarks of our country's greatress
—her merchant marine—the nursery from which
her fleets are manned—the source of the supremacy
of the British flag in every sea. The chairman of
that committee was the vice-president of the Board
of Trade, notoriously a hostile partizan; the chief
witness was the head of the statistical department
of that Board, as notoriously an opponent of the
Navigation Laws; and to back up his evidence
comes, in the nick of time, this unfair and glaringly
incorrect document. Can it he tolerated that such
an agency, capable of being thus used to pervert
and misrepresent facts so important, should be
kept up at the public expense ? Any impartial man
will unhesitatingly say "No."

On Tuesday, a fire broke out at Upton Hall, Cheshire,
by which a shippon was destroyed, and damage done to
the extent of 4150.
Mr. Charles Furnivll, professor of music in this town,
has written an opera, in three acts, entitled Minona, for
w!lich also he composes the music, arid intends bringing
it before a Liverpool audience the first opportunity.
YORK-STREET. IN YORK-STRE. Yesterday evening a fire
broke out in the cellar of a labouring man in York-street,
but the timely arrival of the fire-brigade soon put a stop
to the devouring element.
ROYAL. MERSEY YACHT CLUE.-111e opening cruize
has been fixed for Saturday, the 27th instant. The day
for the first sailing match of the season has been fixed for
Tuesday, the 13th of June.
At the monthly meeting of the Wallasey commissioners,
on Thursday, the by-laws which prohibit bathing on the
sea beach, in the township, were rescinded by a majority
of twelve to four.