The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

_ . • appeared that the ratio of progress had fallen from 111
per cent. under protection to 61 per cent, under free trade ;
,ORDS. while the relative proportions of the official and real va.
our Ist Edition lastweek. lues indicated a diminution of profits. .Addressing him-
.-_,SUMPTION BILL.—Lord self more immediately to the object of his motion, it had
ion for the second read- been held out to our shipowners, he said, that other no-
'-.-. of WELLINGTON, tions would be induced, and, if necessary, compelled, so
ive acts of the far to adopt our system as would admit of their fairly corn-
the necessity of modifying peting with foreigners in the foreign trade, and thereby
man Catholic Relief Act, obtaining an equivalent; but nothing of this kind had
as would prevent the been done ; other nations, instead of imitating our exam-
Earl of INIALmEs- ple, were profiting by onr folly. He pointed out the ex-

INTELLIGENCE

tornan (

ated States in particular had benefited
system. The condition imposed upon
n respect to the manning of their ships
circumstances impolitic, as well as unjust
to principle; end, in conclusion, he ob-
,lthough the illusion under which we had
. not, he believed, long continue, his motion
was not intended to subvert the present system, but to
enforce it.—Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed that, considering
the importance of the recent alteration in the navigation
and the numerous petitions received from ship-
rs describing their distress, which they ascribed to
ion, it was proper that the house should not
cnit,sgA called separate without a full consideration of the condition of
ssly insulted and the shipping interest. This cry of distress was as old as
of CLANRICARDE the measures of Mr. Huskis3on—in which Mr. Herries
-onitted, yet he had participated—when the most appalling predictions of
:ling of Ireland ruin were uttered by the shipowners; and Mr. Labou-
-4
Itt cited agai
wnst chore cited a speech of Mr. Herries, in reply to a ship-
rd
_ -ners petition presented by Alderman Waithman, em-
- arguments which he (Mr. Labouchere) would op-
motion. The amount of tonnage entered in-
, _ outwards in this country in 1850 was 570,000
tons over that of 1849, and although there had been a
trifling diminution of British tonnage in 1850 as compared
with 1849, this arose from new branches of trade having
'led to British ships. The removal of absurd re-
''ad, in fact, been a source of gain to all the
trades which had been for the first time
~.g had not been adverted to by Mr.
was a most important part of the question.
entleman had laid much stress upon the fall in
.fights ; but this fall had been going on for years past ;
and if, under the new system, shipowners could afford to
carry goods cheaper, the community was benefitted. The
number of ships built in London in 1848 was 10; in 1849,
17; in 1850, 30. The quality of our ships had, moreover,
greatly improved. With respect to the degree of reci-
procity with which our concessions had been met by other
nations, he premised that we had avoided great evils by
the change ; but other nations, he contended, had fol-
lowed our example, and with some of the great States we
enjoyed substantial equality. Negotiations are going on
with others—France, Belgium, and Spain—from which he
ently expected beneficial results. If the motion
.ng, its object was to retaliate those absurd
which some nations had put upon our ship.
ping at Less cost to us than to themselves. He still thought
the Crown should possess this retaliatory power, to be
exercised on fit occasions ; but hitherto the conduct of no
foreign State had been such as to justify its exertion.—
Mr. G. F. YOUNG denied the fundamental allegation of
Mr. Labouchere—the general prosperity under free trade,
in which the shipping interest participated. No such ge-
neral prosperity existed in the agricultural interest, the

y Our c

WYLE, and the
supported the bill.—The
st twelve o'clock, upon the Britis

) rAich the'Tl

ILSEA, adjourned until I w

'pugnat

served that

7eedul wish the adjnu-ned
es' Assumption Bill. It
Winehilsea, Lord Lynd-
.de, the Lord Charm"!lor,
-1 . r

as opposed 1)3
of Neweastl

Lard I ~,,,laws

, and I that alterat

bodyir

)rOceed

pose to t

an attempt to obtain

e Queen

lit belonged aloi

as the supreme head
1 by a ma

was ca

—Content

been opet
strictions

!sent, 26

The n,

ent was given, by cam-

opened to our shippit
Herries,

ICARDE, after a short dis

hat be would move, as
3 on the Ecclesiastical

he jurisdiction of that

emoting from t

confi.

I restrictions

Lue snipping inreresr, nor, ne oeneveo,
the manufacturing interest. He insisted upon the slow
'vance of British tonnage and the accelerated progress of
ice the date of free trade. If the United States

foreign, si
and this c

ntry kept t

r respective courses, the former

worn(' possess a larger mercantile marine
than Great Britain. The shipbuilding trade, which Mr.
Labouchere had represented in a highly prosperous state,
Mr. Young asserted to be most deplorably depressed.
He spewed the injury which British shipping experienced
in the East from the competition of the large fleets of
American vessels from California, which had reduced
freight so low that the capital of the shipowner was
In conclusion, he declared his conviction that

sorbed
the Br

and that, if the cheapest mallet principle
this country could never maintain
a great mercantile marine.—Mr. J. WILSON observed
that the speech of Mr. Young was in contradiction of the
motion, for he traced the mischief upon which be had ex-
patiated to the reciprocity policy of Mr. Huskisson ;
whereas the motion sought to carry out that principle
From documero-

was to 1

foll Owed out,

ry evidence Mr. Wilson drew conclusions
inconsistent with those of Mr. Herries and Mr. Young,
and from a contrast between the American and British
trade, he made it appear that the latter was less (m-
-ei
kTION