the goods were purchased, or from which they could only be or most usually were exported. By the Navigation-laws' Amendment Act, and by the Warehousing Act, these enactments were altered. The enumerated articles, as they are called, may now be imported either in British ships, in ships of the country of which the goods are the produce, or in ships of the country or place from which they are imported into England, and, by the Warehousing Acts, they may be imported in any ships whatever. Another mode by which British navigation was protected was, by imposing upon foreign ships charges for lighting and port dues, beyond those imposed upon British ships. That regulation had been abrogated with those countries with which we had entered into treaties of reciprocity; and it was not unworthy of attention, that this had been a costly permission to foreign, as well as an injurious permission to British, navigation. The amount of duties thus remitted to the foreigner had been paid out of the Consolidated Fund; and since 1825, had reached the sum of 261,000l. The amount would have been still higher, had it not so happened, that some individuals had not claimed the dues to which they were entitled as the owners of lighthouses. In the last Session of Parliament, an Act had been passed for paying 160,000l. to the Corporation of London for the claim to charges upon foreign shipping, which they had remitted. He would not have blamed the Government for redeeming those dues, if the Corporation of London had been entitled to them in perpetuity; but the fact was, that they were contingent on the Reciprocity Act, which he now called upon the House to repeal. If the House should deem it expedient to repeal that Act, it would have purchased from the Corporation of London in fee, duties to which that Corporation had only a contingent title. Another mode in which protection was extended to navigation was, by the imposition of discriminating duties on commodities imported into this country in foreign ships, beyond those imposed on the same commodities imported into it in British ships. These discriminating duties had been abrogated, so far as regarded all countries with which we had entered into reciprocity treaties. And as they had constituted the most important protection which British navigation possessed, he would briefly explain their nature and effect. It was obvious, that there could not be two prices for the same article in the same market. Now, if that were the case, and the same species of article were imported in a foreign and in a British ship, as the foreign ship was liable to heavier charges than the British ship, the British shipowner obtained in freight the difference between what he and the foreigner had to pay in charges. Discriminating duties, prudently imposed, contained nothing unfriendly or unjust to foreigners; and those which our Legislature formerly imposed had not operated unjustly either on foreign or on British intercsts. At the instigation of Prussia, as Mr. Huskisson had candidly admitted. at the time, our discriminating duties, so far as Prussia was concerned, had been done away with; and the British shipowner, burthened as he was already, had been told, "You, the heaviest taxed of all nations, must carry on trade in free competition with a nation the least taxed in the world, and in which all the commodities for provisioning ships, and materials for building them, were very cheap, or you must give up navigation altogether." That the expenses of navigation had been increased by the disqualifications to which he had just alluded, no man could doubt; never was testimony more concurrent than the testimony which had been given on this point last Session, before the Committee on Trade and Navigation. It appeared, that upon the cheapest calculation, the expense of building a ship in this country was not less than 127. a-ton; while upon the highest calculation the expense of building a ship in Prussia did not exceed 81. a-ton. Thus in the production of our ships the cost was fifty per cent more than that which fell upon the foreigner. In the cost of navigating the ship the disparity of expense was still more visible. Our wages for seamen varied from 40s. to 60s. a-month, the average being 50s. a month. In Prussia the average was 25s. a-month. In point of wages, then, Prussia had an advantage equivalent to 100 per cent over the British shipowner. In the cost of provisions the disparity was even still more striking. Not only was the cost of victualling a ship dearer in England, but from the habits of our people they required a more plentiful supply of better and costlier diet. laws of Great Britain prevented the shipowner from provisioning his vessel with The recital was omitted in the new consolidating act. If he looked at the most expensive or at the most trifling articles, even toys, he found that there was no article produced by the skill or industry of British artisans which did not meet with legislative protection, save British shipping only. This was a gross act of injustice to the British shipowner; for the Legislature not only took away from him the protection which it granted to every other class of the community, but inflicted upon him an exclusive burthen. For the protection of the British landowner, the shipowner must build ships of wood the growth of this country, and a heavy duty was accordingly imposed on foreign timber;-for the benefit of the British artisan, the shipowner's property was liable to forfeiture if he expended more than 40s. a-ton, in repairs in a foreign country; foreign grain. Such grain was stored in British warehouses, but the shipowner was prevented from taking it out by the protection which the Legislature thought fit to give to the agricultural interest. He did not blame the Legislature for giving to the agricultural interest that protection. It was, in his opinion, wise to do so, for when he claimed protection for the interest with which he was himself personally connected, he could not be so absurd as to deny it to others. If he was right as to the causes of the disparity of expense incurred by the British and foreign shipowner, it was unjust in Parliament to expose the British shipowner unprotected to such a competition as he had just described. That injustice was of a double character. As subjects of the same Government, governed by the same laws, and exposed to the same burthens with the rest of their fellow-subjects, the for the benefit of Ireland, and he by no shipowners were entitled to the same pro- means objected to this enactment of the tection as was afforded to the other in- Legislature, the shipowner was prevented terests of the community. In every spe- from importing grain and provisions from cies of article which was requisite for the the north of Europe;-for the benefit of production of ships they were peculiarly the British navy he was compelled to nataxed. Let any man turn to the consoli-vigate his ships by British sailors, to whom dated duties of the customs, and he would he must pay 50s. a-month, when he could there find, that the duties upon the impor- get foreign sailors at 25s. a-month, and tation of all foreign articles intended for then he was calmly told to go and comdomestic consumption were heavy. Af-pete with the foreign shipowner. "Sir, we fording a protection to the home manu- cannot." Sooner or later, the conviction facturer greater even than was afforded to which he had just stated in the briefest the agriculturist. The duty on wax can- terms which he could use, would force dles, for example, was 120 per cent, on itself on the attention of Parliament, or, tallow candles 100 per cent; on tin ware if not, that British navigation would sink the duty was 100 per cent; on manufac- into utter ruin. If it was no longer netured steel the duty was twenty per cent. cessary for the purposes of defence to enIn the more important articles of our pro- courage our commercial navy, he hoped duction, the duty on cotton goods was that with such a conviction, would come ten, on woollen fifteen, on silk thirty per a conviction of the necessity of releasing cent, and on linen forty per cent. Among the shipowners from their present disqualithe many productions of British manufac- fications. Let the House be consistent ture he had been unable to find one which and be just. Either repeal the Navigation was not protected against foreign compe- Acts and the Registry Acts-either leave tition. In the 6th of George 4th, which them to build and navigate their ships as contained various prohibitions on impor- cheaply as they could-or give them a protation, there was an express recital, that tection equal to the disqualification imposed those restrictions were not for the benefit upon them. Whilst protection was given to of the revenue, but for the better en- every other interest, no protection was given couragement of trade and manufactures. to the shipowners. It had been admitted It was said when the consolidating act of by Mr. Huskisson,-and the position had last Session was introduced, that it was been affirmed by every minister who had only intended for purposes of revenue, succeeded him,-that, in all cases where and not for purposes of restriction. He the interests of commerce and navigation did not know how it happened-he did came into collision, the interests of comnot suppose, that it was intentionally, but merce must give way, and those of naviit was an ominous circumstance, that this gation must be protected. He recollected well, that when this doctrine was first | productions imported in British ships into advanced, the House was indulged with Spain had nearly driven British shipping flourishing anticipations of the advantages out of the trade with Spain. In the three which the general interests of the country years between 1823 and 1826, one house, would derive from this new system. But which he knew, loaded sixty-four sail of Brihe should be able to show, that the con- tish ships for ports in Spain, but did not cessions made by our Government had load a single Spanish ship. But, from 1826, failed in producing the consequences when the discriminating duties of Spain which had been promised. Not only had came into operation, they had loaded injustice been done to the British ship-thirty-eight Spanish ships, which had owners, but also injury to the interests of British navigation. He thought that he should be able to prove, that none of the benefits anticipated had been realized that foreign nations had not been incited by our example to relax the severity of their restrictions against us, but, on the contrary, they had increased them. In corroboration of this statement, he would beg leave to draw the attention of the House to a few lines from the speech which Mr. Huskisson had made in introducing his measure for giving the authority of the Legislature to this reciprocity system. In July, 1821, the United Netherlands,' said Mr. Huskisson, 'passed a law allowing a premium ' of ten per cent upon all articles imported ' in Dutch vessels. Prussia had also 'raised the dues on our vessels, and had 'intimated, in a manner not to be misI taken, that she would more fully adopt 'the retaliatory system if we continued our present policy. We must, therefore, 'adopt a perfect equality and reciprocity ' of shipping duties. Its effect, he was 'persuaded, would lead to an increase of 'the commercial advantages of the country. He had no doubt that when 'England abandoned her old principle, the United Netherlands and the other powers who were prepared to retaliate, 'would mutually concur in the new ' arrangement.' Now, had the United Netherlands given up that premium of ten per cent? No such thing. Far from those expectations having been realized, we were now proceeding to retaliate upon the Dutch the discriminating duties they yet kept up, and there were yet other countries equally hostile to our commercial policy, on whom we were not prepared to retaliate. This was the first falsification of the prediction of Mr. Huskisson. The Spanish trade proved the same thing, for the enormous discriminating duties which the Spanish Government had imposed on all procured freights averaging 27. 12s. 10d. per ton, whilst the British ships which continued to sail had been reduced to fifty-one in six years, obtaining only an average freight of 13s. 6d. per ton. He knew a recent instance of a Spanish and English ship taking in their cargoes alongside of each other, in the river Thames, and although the English ship was, through the preponderating influence of the merchant concerned, loaded, it was at less than one-third of the freight obtained by the Spanish ship, and for this reason, that the goods landed in Spain from the British ship would be subject to a duty so much greater than those landed from the Spanish ship, as to render a shipment in a British bottom almost impossible. This had been repeatedly urged upon the Board of Trade, but the right hon. Gentleman answered, that it was not worth attention, as it only affected some half-dozen ships; but, on referring to the documents in the Library, he found, that no less than 14,000 tons of Spanish shipping had cleared outwards in the preceding year. The same was the case with regard to France, and on that subject he would quote the very edifying report on the commercial intercourse between England and France, which had been recently presented to the House by Dr. Bowring. The hon. Member read various passages of this Report to show, that British commodities were yet subjected to very heavy discriminating duties in France. This, then, was the return which England was to receive for tendering the right hand of fellowship to every country in the world! The hon. Member continued to read further extracts from the Report, for the purpose of showing the determination of the French Government to give every encouragement to home production. Here, then, was an exposition of the commercial policy of France, supplying an irrefragable proof of the error of those parties who declared with so much confidence that, if we once H passed the Reciprocity Bill, France would | King of Hanover, yet it was a fact that a immediately be found competing with us duty was there exacted on British ships in the race of liberality. Had Prussia which was equal to the whole amount of treated us with greater liberality than the freight received by them for sailing France? He was unwilling to trouble from this country to Hamburgh, from the House with details, and would, there- which duties Hamburgh ships were wholly fore, only allude to the efforts which it exempted. It would be necessary for him was well known that country was making to go into some statistical details; but to establish a cordon not only round her his apology was, that this case was foundown territories, but round all the states ed upon statistics, which he averred to be of Germany, for the express purpose of mistaken, and, therefore, he asserted that excluding British productions. He could the Parliament and the country had been not avoid mentioning another fact con- misled in the regulations which had been nected with navigation, as affording an adopted. He averred, that the shipping instructive elucidation of the liberal dis- interest, contrary to the statements which position of Prussia towards this country. had been so confidently set forth as to its The principal article of export from this prosperity, was in a very depressed and country to Prussia was salt; and yet it declining state, partly owing to the effects was a fact, he believed, that not a single of the reciprocity system, and partly, as cargo of salt was carried there in English he acknowledged, owing to other circumships, though, in conformity with the stances, by which our navigation must stipulations of the Treaty, English ships have suffered to a certain extent, but were only to be subjected in the Prussian which in themselves rendered it the more ports to the same charges as Prussian important that the hand of encouragement ships. Such being the fact, how was it and protection should be held out instead to be accounted for? By the circumstance of being withdrawn at the very crisis when of salt being a royal monopoly, and con- it was most needed. He averred, that the sequently being permitted to be imported total of British tonnage had not increased by none but native ships. Thus the only since the passing of the Reciprocity Acts. article which it was worth our while to The shipowners felt, that they were ruined, send to Prussia, the Government of that although from the circumstance of a few country, notwithstanding the treaty of ships being yet built, some persons argued reciprocity, would not allow to be carried that the trade must be prosperous. He there in English vessels. What, too, had said, that our shipping engaged in foreign been the conduct of America with respect trade had not increased in proportion to reciprocity? It had been, indeed, found with that of other countries; on the conimpossible to carry the tariff fully into trary, that in the countries with which we effect, and it consequently received certain had reciprocity treaties it had diminished, modifications; but were they favourable while the foreign tonnage was augmented. to British commerce? Were they framed He also asserted, that British shipping in the spirit of liberality, and did they was deteriorating in quality, and was exhibit a disposition to extend the com- losing the estimation in which it had been mercial intercourse between the two coun- held in the various quarters of the world. tries? On the contrary, those modifications He first said, that British navigation was were calculated to exclude from America, in a depressed and declining state. To as far as it was possible, considering the prove this proposition, he should quote a situation of that country, arising out of the few of the answers given to questions put conflicting interests of the southern and to Gentlemen examined before the Comnorthern provinces, British productions and mittee which sat to inquire into trade and manufactures, for the purpose of giving navigation last Session, and he would encouragement to the productions and assure the House that he had selected manufactures of America. He would these opinions rather from the testimony only mention another instance of a similar of individuals whose opinions were opkind, having reference to the town of posed to his views than leant towards Stade, situate on the river Elbe, in the those who concurred in his notions on the Hanoverian dominions, on the opposite subject. The hon. Gentleman read exside of the river to Hamburgh. All ships tracts from the evidence of Joshua Bates, going to Hamburgh must pass that town, Esq., James Cook, Esq., Mr. John Astle, and though the King of England was of Dublin, Mr. John Spence, of Sunder gages passed, said, that he never knew a single instance of a mortgage upon a ship being redeemed. The next statement which he had to make possessed a good deal of importance, and in impugning public documents and statements which had been very confidently made in that House and elsewhere, he knew that he was taking upon himself a responsibility which, he trusted, he should be able to justify. The hon. Member then read the following statements. Tons. In 1817, the tonnage belonging to the .. If, therefore, no losses had occurred, But, according to the returns, it was.. 3,854,308 2,635,644 Thus remained the aggregate loss On registering ships de novo there ap- land, Mr. W. Richmond, of North Shields, The tons In 1827 it appeared the returns made .. 8,463 130,329 2,460,500 624,226 Since then there had been built 3,084,726 655,645 |