HC Deb 23 June 1825 vol 13 cc1347-9
Mr. Huskisson

moved the third reading of this bill; and then proceeded to state, that he had a clause to propose by way of rider. By the law of this country at present, no British ship could be repaired except in the ports of this country, unless the owner could show that the ship had met with some accident which rendered the repairs in a foreign port necessary; and then, so jealous had been the law on this subject, that he was only to have repairs done to a certain amount per ton. At present, in consequence of a combination among the shipwrights, carpenters, and other persons employed in building and repairing ships, it was impossible to get any ship repaired in the Thames. For Several months past there had been no work done in the port of London, in consequence of those combinations which had been entered into, not in reference to the rate of wages, but in reference to the mode of employment. During that part of the year, in which the men were most actively employed, the ships had been lying idle and going to decay, because the necessary repairs could not be procured. If these parties entered into combinations with a view of dictating to the masters the mode of employing their capital, and of imposing a certain line of conduct on other shipwrights; if they listened to delegates, and had permanent sittings; it was high time to show them the folly of their proceedings, by enabling the ship-owners to procure those repairs for their ships elsewhere, which were refused them in London. That this was not a combination for a rise of wages was evident, from the president of the delegates having told the master ship-wrights, that it was a contest between capital and physical strength, and that the latter must succeed. It became the House, under these circumstances, to protect those who were suffering under this combination. He should propose, then, to add a clause to the bill, allowing, for a limited period, ship-owners to have their ships repaired in foreign ports, and it might be hoped that in a short time these deluded men would see the folly of their proceedings, and the danger to which they were exposing their best interests. It was, in his opinion, highly necessary that some measures should be taken to check the present state of excited feeling and perverted disposition of the mechanics of this country, which would otherwise become one of the greatest moral evils the country could suffer. He should propose by the clause therefore, that during the next two years, on any ship-owner showing, satisfactorily, that he could not get his ship repaired in the port of London, owing to a combination among the shipwrights, it should be lawful for the privy council to grant him permission to get his ship repaired in foreign ports. If this measure were adopted, and it was the most gentle way of dealing with these deluded men, he did not doubt but they would soon become sensible of their error, and that capital and industry would be again directed in the most beneficial manner, both to them and to the country. There was also a combination among the seamen out of the port of London, and some other ports, particularly Newcastle and Shields, and he meant to apply a similar regulation to them. He was one of the last men to wish to infringe on the Navigation laws, but, under present circumstances, he thought it was necessary that a power should be given to the privy-council, to allow ship-owners also to man their ships with foreign seamen.

Mr. Ellice

entirely concurred in the measure of the right hon. gentleman, but, he regretted that it was not carried further. He could not understand, why a ship-owner should not, at all times, be allowed to have his ship repaired, at the cheapest place.

Mr. Robertson

opposed the measure. The House was about to give up our Navigation laws, and sacrifice our maritime superiority, because some of our people combined, and it did not know how to put a stop to this combination. He had always opposed the measures of ministers; for he foresaw they would lead to discontent. They had thrown open our trade, and had allowed ships to come here with cargoes, and afterwards to engage in our trade. The people of this country saw the cheaper labour of the continent poured in on them. They could not live as the people on the continent lived. They wanted more comforts and higher wages; and they entered into combinations to obtain those higher wages. If we now employed foreign shipwrights and seamen, we should drive our own men away to the ports of the Baltic, or to America. In his opinion, every branch of industry in this country ought to be protected. The House would not do this, and proposed rather to grind and oppress the people. The trade of the country was going to decay, under the new regulations of his majesty's ministers. He would put down combinations; but he would not allow of the introduction of foreign seamen, to the ruin of our maritime superiority.

Mr. Hume

thought the hon. member completely misunderstood the nature of the measure. Nobody in that House wished to reduce the pittance of the labourer. When individuals interfered to prevent other persons from taking work, or following their own inclination, the law should give them protection.

Mr. Bright

contended, that this clause introduced an entire new principle into our law, and wished it should be postponed, and made the subject of a separate measure.

The clause was agreed to, and the bill passed.