PETITION OF SHIP-OWNERS OF LONDON FOR A DUTY ON FOREIGN SHIPPING.

HC Deb 02 May 1826 vol 15 cc780-4

Mr. Robertson

presented a petition from the Ship-owners in London, setting forth, That the Petitioners' most anxious attention was directed to the first application to the House from certain merchants of the city of London, in which they submitted their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system applied to commerce, and expressed their objection to every restrictive regulation of trade, not essential to the revenue, against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection, and praying for relief; this petition was followed by other petitions to the House from many of the manufacturing districts praying for the repeal of the restrictive laws; that the petitioners soon found that the relaxation of the navigation laws was in contemplation, and a new system, which struck at the very root of the principle on which they were founded, was to be brought forward; the petitioners therefore lost no time in entreating the House to bear in remembrance, that the experience of centuries bad shown the advantages of adhering to a system which, by encouraging shipping and navigation, has so greatly contributed to the strength and general prosperity of the empire; and they further submit with due deference their firm conviction, that the ancient system cannot be departed from in any material respect without causing a diminution in British, and an increase of foreign, shipping; that in the latter part of the year 1822, the petitioners again received an intimation that it was in the contemplation of his majesty's government to recommend to the legislature the enactment of a law, adopting the principle, that the vessels of foreign countries should be allowed to import into this country all articles whatever that may be legally imported, on payment of the same duties only as are paid by British vessels importing similar articles, provided that British vessels are allowed to import goods into the ports of the country to which such foreign vessel may belong, on payment of the same duties as are charged on similar importations by vessels of such country; that the petitioners again called the attention of the House to that measure when in progress, and they now solicit their attention to the situation in which that act has placed them, to struggle in a fruitless competition with foreign shipping, under the delusion of reciprocity; the petitioners are sensible of the intimate connection that the shipping bear to the great question of national security; and they are likewise sensible, that while this system continues, of the impossibility of their ever being placed on a footing of real equality or reciprocity with foreigners by any remission of direct taxation, whether on the materials used in the building and equipment of ships, or in the shape of charges incidental to navigation; the foreigner enters this system under the term reciprocity, with an advantage of at least fifty per cent on their capital employed, and sixty per cent on the sailing expenses, and in seamen's wages the proportion is still greater, viz.: British seaman, Baltic voyages, from 70s. to 75s., average 72s. 6d. per month; Dutch seaman, Baltic voyages, from 28s. to 75s., average 28s. per month; Russian seaman, Baltic voyages, from 24s. to 26s., average 25s. per month; Swedes and Norwegian seamen, Baltic voyages, from 12s. to 20s., average 17s. per month; Russian seaman, Baltic voyages, from 15s. to 20s., average 15s. per month; the petitioners, therefore, submit with confidence to the House, that, as regards navigation, there is now no reciprocity of expenses between British and foreign shipping; that when the restriction or protection was taken away, the security of this great maritime state was removed; that the balance of actual benefits must, under such a system of unrestricted competition, devolve on those countries whose shipping can be built, equipped, and navigated, on the cheapest terms; that, thus exposed to such an unequal contest, the British shipping will be gradually annihilated in the trade with Europe and America, as is manifested by the degree in which foreign shipping have increased over British tonnage since the new system commenced; in it there is nothing to guard or protect the British shipping, neither have the petitioners any means to prevent them from being superseded, the only obstacle now is the actual want of tonnage on the part of foreign countries to carry on the whole; the British have no hidden secrets to carry on navigation, neither have they any machinery nor power of any description, that is not common to the foreigner; the question resolves itself into one of investment of capital, and the expenses of navigation; therefore the idea assumed, that British capital and British industry will surmount all obstacles thus imposed, is altogether visionary; for, whenever the stimulus to employ capital and industry is removed or destroyed, when no returns are to be expected from either, the capitalists already embarked may continue to struggle, the property may change hands and diminish; but without some prospect of gain none will be found that will either employ their capital or industry in so hazardous and precarious a pursuit: that when the House consider the many great advantages and facilities held out to foreign countries to procure an increase of tonnage, and the close connection which subsists between them and the wealth of this, the natural inclination to employ capital and industry to the best advantage, is it not a moral certainty that it will soon find its way to build and navigate foreign ships? there is still another advantage in investing capital in foreign ships, they have not only the great command over the supply of England, but when this market is glutted with goods that the freights fall, they have then an opportunity to change their voyages to other countries, and leave the British market until the freights rise again; before the remission of any duties on their cargoes, or any other remission of their expenses was made, the foreigners had a most decided advantage over the British; that the House must have perceived that those classes who petitioned for the removal of all restrictions on trade have invariably opposed having it applied to themselves; and it must likewise be obvious to the House, that unrestricted reciprocity or unrestricted freedom of trade, if made to bear on one of the great resources of national industry, must eventually ruin it, or the same principle must become general to all the others, for in vain will the agriculturist contend that the expenses of cultivation are raised by taxation and contingent causes, over which he has no control, to double the amount of those incurred by his foreign rival, and is therefore entitled to protection from their competition; this is no more than the petitioners have an equal right to maintain; the manufacturer may urge that he has a large capital embarked under the protective law, and claims protection for native industry; the capital invested in shipping has been invested in the same faith, and claims an equal exemption; should the antiquity of protection be pleaded, the petitioners can adduce the more ancient law; should wealth, vested in land, claim a privilege of exemption as necessary for the general good, the petitioners may contend, that the manner of employing their capital leads to national security, which is of more importance than national opulence; that the ancient navigation system has been sanctioned and supported by the most eminent British statesmen; that it has been cherished as the great bulwark of our independence, and as the means of extending commerce and power in the four quarters of the globe, therefore, if consistency is maintained, the new system of free trade must extend to all classes, when the reuslt will be found equally destructive to the whole; that the petitioners never can conceive that the House would sanction such a measure (otherwise than under the influence of the most erroneous representations) as that of the carrying on the navigation and commerce of this country with an equal indifference whether such navigation and commerce were carried forward by natives or by foreigners; the petitioners submit, that they were singled out as the body on which the dangerous experiment was to be made; that they were literally stripped of all national protection in the direct trades with foreign countries, while other interests have either been fortunate, or have had more attention paid to their representations, and have escaped from the evil of such a reciprocity; that the petitioners anxiously hope the House will see that protection, in degree, is necessary to all native industry, and earnestly cherish a hope that they have a fair claim to be again placed within the pale of British protection; the petitioners submit, that since the peace they have been struggling against ruinous rates of freights and depression of capital in a greater degree than either agricultural or manufacturing interests, and by the new Navigation act, the American intercourse, colonial, and warehousing acts, foreign vessels are permitted to engage in various branches of the carrying trade, which, previous to the passing of those acts, had been confined to British shipping; the petitioners therefore most humbly solicit the House to take into their mature consideration, the great advantages given to foreigners by the alterations made in the Navigation and Colonial laws, and by the remission of duties under the Reciprocity act, and give such protection to British shipping as to the House seems necessary and just.

Ordered to lie on the table.