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

remove all restrictions—allow us to employ what men we
please—and then we may not complain. But, at present,
you appeal to the British seamen by a trick. No; I will
not call it a trick ; for I have too high a respect for the
gentlemen to believe that they so intend it. But their
measure would be destructive of the trade with British
seamen and artizaris ; for, whatever would diminish Bri-
tish shipping, would so far diminish the demand for their
services. It is quite evident that the tendency of the abo-
lition of the navigation laws would be, to transfer the
building of ships to foreign nations, where they can be
built cheaper, and to have those vessels sailed by
foreign seamen, under a foreign flag, seeing that they
have all the privileges which you enjoy, without the dis-
advantages which burden your own—without the inter-
ference of theories, which, however sound in themselves,
become injurious when applied imperfectly, and irrespec-
tive of circumstances—(loud applause)—which would lead
to results as wrong as that to which the astronomer
would be exposed whose calculations might be right
so far as they went, but erroneous by the omission
of .any allowance for disturbing forces. (Loud ap-
plause.) Your application of free trade would be as erro-
neous as the calculation of such one-sided astronomer.
(Loud applause.) Though Mr. Wylie appeared indignant
at the imputation that he had come here with imperfect
information, I have no hesitation in stating to him that I
believe he has come with imperfect information. (Ap-
plause.) I say so that there may not be attributed to him
another motive. He is either deficient in information, or
he has withheld so much of the truth as would have led
you to a conclusion totally opposite to that which he en-
deavoured to establish. He said that the quantity of
British tonnage entering the port of Hamburgh from
other nations, was in excess of foreign tonnage. Does he
intend by that to prove that the navigation laws should be
altered ? I am at a loss to trace the connection between his

facts and the inferences he would draw. Thecircumstance
of British vessels thus preponderating in Hamburgh is in
consequence of the operation of those laws he would so
rashly repeal. Every one conversant with the trade to
Hamburg knows this to be the case. I presume that he
would wish to prove that English ships, under equal com-
petition, can beat foreigners ; and I am only surprised
that Mr. Wylie, a gentleman of such great commercial
experience, should have been led into error on this point.
He ought to be aware that British vessels have a prefer-
ence in carrying to Hamburg, and to most other ports in
Europe, in consequence of the navigation laws, which
give to British vessels the option of the English and con-
tinental markets. whereas the foreign bottom can only
carry to the continental. (Applause.) And it is on this
account, as my father has shown, that the importers of
sugar prefer British ships, although they may have to pay
a higher rate of freight for them. As Mr. Huskisson's
name has been mentioned, and referred to as a free-trader,
I give you the following quotation from a speech of his :
"Entertaining these opinions, I am as ready as any man
can possibly be, that it is our duty, on all occasions, to look
to the peculiar nature of this state necessity ;—and that.
whenever the interests of commerce and navigation cannot
be reconciled, the feeling which ought to be uppermost
in our mind should be,—(l sir, have no hesitation in sta-
ting it to be my feeling)—that the interests of commerce,
in all such instances, ought to give way, and those of navi-
gation have the preference." I, therefore, would call upon
you, gentlemen, as consistent free-traders, as the admirers
of Huskisson, whom Liverpool may be proud to have had
as her representative—and whose monument stands
amongst us—to carry out the principles of that great man.
(Applause.) I would like to have questioned Mr. Wylie
about the increase of British shipping in America between
1824 and 1844, because taking the year 1846, and compa-
ringlit with other years, there is a much larger increase of
American than of British tonnage. (Hear and applause.)
It is a most singular fact, that Mr. Wylie should have
read the per centage increase, and not have given us the
figures. I hope he won't lead you to suppose that there is
an actual inceease, when there is a decrease. (Hear.)
The return comes down to 1846, and as I have said, the
comparison is largely in favour of American tonnage,
though the per centage increase is larger on the British,
being on a smaller quantity. But Mr. Boult asked the
question, why are the principles of free-trade not to be
applied to ships ? Why should the ship-owners have a
monopoly ? I answer him also in the language of Mr.
Huskisson, lest the ungracious and unmanly insinuation
should be offered, that I am a ship-owner, and an inter-
ested party, I therefore quote one who was impartial, and
whose opinion will have weight. Mr. Huskisson says :
" The house, sir, is aware, that our navigation laws have a
twofold object. First, to create and maintain in this
country a great commercial marine ; and, secondly, (an
object not less important in the eyes of statesmen,) to
prevent any one other nation from engrossing too large a
portion of the navigation of the rest of the world." I ask
him if Mr. Labouchere's proposal would carry oui the
principles of Mr. Huskisson or those of free trade ? (Ap-
plause.) Protectionists wili vote against it because it
alarms them, and free-traders should vote against it be.
cause it is unworthy of them to sacrifice their principles to
this pandering concession. But, whatever difference of
opinion exists on the navigation laws, there can be but
one consistent course for all commercial men, and men of
all parties to pursue, in reference to Mr. Labouchere's
proposal, and that is—to reject it. That proposal is the
matter we are now here to discuss. If our opponents have
pointed out defects in the navigation laws, I will not
enter upon them ; if they can prove these defects, let
them be amended—(hear)—but every man inthis room,
and every man who has thought on the subject, must con-
demn the measure of Mr. Labouchere as most unsatisfac-
tory. It is not a measure which the intelligent of either
side would substitute for our present laws. I say, let the
navigation laws rest upon their own merits ; if they are
sound and politic, continue them ; if they want amending,
amend them ; but whatever may be our differences re-
specting them, there is but one alternative left,—let all
unite in rejecting Mr. Labouchere's measure. (Hear.)
Let it go forth that free-traders denounce that measure as
inconsistent with their principles. We have all a simple
duty to perform : to tell the government that Mr. La-
bouchere's proposal will not do for us ; that we will not
have it. (Loud applause.) The question embraces more
than class interests, or the freight of sugar—it is our na-
tional defences. I believe it inconsistent with true policy
to discuss this question upon the short-sighted and narrow
ground upon which Mr. Wylie put it. Suppose that
he gets his commodities a little cheaper, and that we
place the question on that narrow ground, it is only sub-
siituting one interest for another; and perhaps Mr.
Wylie can inform us what fractional part of a farthing per
lb. he would thus save on his sugar. (Laughter.) If he
and Mr. Boult had read Adam Smith, Deacon, Hume. or
Mr. Huskisson, they would not have deemed it necessary
o have to ask the question why shipping should be treated
as an exception to the general rule of free-trade. Nor
would it have been necessary for me to day to have risen
to answer that question. (Loud heers.)
Mr. C. RAWLINS rose in support of the amendment.
He said the name of Adam Smith and other celebrated
writers had been quoted for a special purpose ; but if that
eminent man's writings were impartially consulted, it
would be found that he did not approve of Navigation
laws. Mr. R. then read a passage as a set off against one
adduced en the other side from the same book. He did
think that some men, generally liberal, allowed their
judgment to be warped, when personal interest was con-
cernee.. He had worked with Mr. John Aikin for a period
of five years in the cause of free trade, until Sir Robert
Peel cane forward with his tariff to abolish the little mo-
nopolies.
Mr. MACLEAN, the secretary to the Chartist Associa-
tion, here stood up in his place, in the centre of the court,
and treated the free-traders to gentle castigation ; after
which the amendment was put, when about a score of
bands were held up in its favour. The original resolution
was carried with an overwhelming majority.
Mr. F. SHAND moved the next resolution. He, with
allusion to what had fallen from Mr. Heyworth, said that
the sugar colonies of Great Britain were utterly destroyed
by an unjust act of Parliament, and he saw no reason why
one interest being ruined, others should be pulled into the
vortex. Mr. Labouchere seemed to think that as com-
mercial destruction was around him, and especially in one
interest, he must complete the wreck of other interests,
so as to produce a perfect level: If we went on upon this
principle, we should soon become a nation of paupers,
with a debt hanging over us of £800,000,000, and no
chance of ever paying it. If Mr. Labouchere's measure
meant anything, it meant the transfer of our shipbuilding
yards to foreign shores, the destruction of our artisans,
and of that preponderance in the commercial marine of
the world which we had hitherto possessed. If that pre-
ponderance were lost, how could we preserve the pride of
the " inviolate isle ? " (Cheers.) The legislation thrust
upon them, affecting navigation, was confessedly experi-
mental. As they had been termed merchant-princes,
though some of them, like other princes, were now poor,
let them be true to their title of nobility, and, like the
mailed barons at Merdun, exclaim, with one voice,
" Nolumus leges Anglice mutari." (Loud cheer,.)
The resolution was seconded by Mr. GEORGE GRANT,
and was carried, with but five hands shown in opposition.
Mr. JOSIAS BOOKER, in proposing the third resolution,
said that the question involved the security of the nation.
Ministers of the present day applied themselves more to
theory than to facts. One of Mr. Labouchere's pretexts
for treating our colonies as he had done was, that our
sugar colonies had in some instances, in the recklessness
of their despair, expressed a wish for the abolition of the
navigation laws. The cost of producing sugar in our co-
lonies was four times as much as that incurred in slave-
labour countries. He was himself a genuine free trader;
but he was only for free trade with reciprocity. But our
free trade granted everything, and gained nothing. No
one had been advantaged by it but the leader of the free
traders. The system had reduced to beggary three-fourths
of the East and West India proprietors—the result of the
differential duties. Mr. Labouchere ascribed the evil to
" over speculation • but hopes had been excited which
had not been, and could not be realized, and most res-
pectable firms, worth, twelve months ago, their hundreds
of thousands, and who never embarked a penny out of
their own business, have been compelled, by the operation
of an insensate legislation, to stop payment. (Hear, hear.)
The speaker here quoted some of the evidence he had
given before a committee of the House of Lords a few
weeks ago, showing the advantages which the mercantile
marine of the United States had over England under the
present navigation laws. The Americans were not bur-
thened, as we were, with national and local taxation and
rates. Our colonial empire had, in fact, cost us
£800,000,000, (the amount of our national debt,) and we
were now asked to give it up to other nations, and without
any equivalent whatever. Let the Americans, if they wish
to come into our colonies, pay a fair equivalent ; that is
to say, one-half of the original cost. (Hear, hear.) We
could run races with any nation with a given weight, but
not beyond that weight, and he called upon them not to
accept an unequal challenge. (Cheers.) It had been
stated, and truly, that he who, by superior skill and in-
dustry, added to an acre of ground one bushel of wheat,
became, in so much, a benefactor to mankind : but what
was to be thought of those politico-economical adventurers
who, after tampering with agriculture, would take away
employment from 80,000 artificers and labourers engaged
in connection with ships in this port? (Hear, hear.)