§ General Gascoynewished to call the attention of the House to what the real nature of his motion was; because it had been much misunderstood, both in that House and 1417 out of it. With that view he must begin to state what the nature of it was not. It was not a general inquiry into the state of trade; nor did he mean to argue it as a commercial, but as an abstract naval question. He should do so, not because he thought that those whose cause he had advocated last year were less deserving of relief, but because, having failed last year, he would not presume to bring forward the same question so soon after he had been defeated. He was confident that the distress of those interests which he had then advocated was as great now as then; and that if there was any difference, it was that their distress was greater than before. The principal argument against him was, that there had been a redundancy of shipping which led to great speculation, and that speculation to great distress. Now, if he could prove that such redundancy did not exist, the inferences drawn from that redundancy must be abandoned.—He would now treat the subject as an abstract naval question, abstaining as much as possible from the commercial question. The first consideration that presented itself was, whether the shipping of this country had or had not decreased. In all former periods, the employment of ships and shipping had increased after war. Looking back to the period of 1763, he found there was no instance in that, or in any of the intermediate wars, up to the period of the last war, in which, taking an average of five years, the shipping had not annually increased after the war. But that had unfortunately ceased to be the case after the late war. He would prove, on the contrary, that the employment of shipping and men had annually diminished. In the year ending the 5th January, 1817, the returns were—
During that time there had been a considerable increase in the imports and exports to the amount of 8,000,000l. or 9,000,000l.—What he next wished to impress upon the attention of the House was, a comparison of the last two years, taking in the whole of the British empire, including the colonies. In the year ending5th January, 1827, the returns were—
Ships and Shipping. Tonnage. Seamen. 1817 25,864 2,078,400 178,000 1822 23,199 2,050,944 166,333 1418 That statement referred to the whole of the British empire; when that which formed the basis of her naval establishment was diminished, in the reverse proportion to the increase of her trade. It had been said on a former occasion, that if the interests of commerce and navigation should happen to clash, there was no doubt but that the preference should be given to navigation, as it was upon that that our existence as a naval power and the retention of our colonies must depend. He would next call the attention of the House to the statement in the returns, as it affected the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not including the colonies. This statement was as follows:—
Ships and Snipping. Tonnage. Seamen. 1827 24,625 2,635,000 167,636 1828 23,195 2,460,500 151,415 It appeared from the above statement, that there was in the last of these years a diminution of one thousand four hundred and thirty-four ships, and nineteen thousand four hundred seamen. He should be told to look at the note tinder that statement, which stated that many of the vessels that remained on the list had long ceased to be in existence; but, when the ship was broken up, did they throw the men overboard? The argument of 1827 was, that the great quantity of shipping had led to speculation; but it was now stated as a fact, that the number of ships I was not so great as had been relied on in that argument. But he would ask why, if the number of ships had increased, was the number of men diminished? They had always multiplied at the rate of six men to one hundred tons, and they still took their statement on the old criterion; but, he would maintain, that there were not five men to one hundred tons, and that, upon the whole estimate, there was a decrease of upwards of forty thousand men. He would show that now there was not in general more than four men to one hundred tons, and never more than five. The statements, therefore, upon which government had gone must be incorrect. The error of the statement would appear distinctly on referring to the Sixpenny Duty Office. Every seaman employed, whether an apprentice or not, was obliged to pay 6d. a month towards the support of Greenwich hospital. Upon the arrival of any vessel in port, the captain was obliged to deliver upon oath a list of the crew, speci- 1419 fying the length of time that each had served. He knew of no better criterion than this. It appeared from the Sixpenny Duty Office, that they had only collected from a hundred and fifteen thousand, two hundred and seventy-four men. The calculation was, that every seaman on an average was employed eight months in die year, and paid 4s. duty; but it appeared from the return, that there was a reduction of 1,100l. or 1,200l. in the last year as compared with the former. Looking at all the accounts, it would be found that there was a diminution of from thirty thousand to forty thousand seamen since the war. It was a matter worthy of serious consideration, that while our shipping trade to the East Indies, and the trade of the colonies was increasing', our British shipping trade was rapidly declining. In 1816, just after the war, America had only ninety-one thousand tons of shipping engaged in her intercourse with this country. In 1826, it had increased to a hundred and eighty-five thousand tons. In 1816, our shipping engaged in the American trade amounted to forty-five thousand tons. In 1826, it was reduced to thirty-seven thousand tons; while, in the same time, the shipping of America has more than doubled. This was an important fact, and deserved serious attention; for there was little doubt, that if there should be a general war, America would be pitted against us. If they looked to the difference in the number of men employed, it would be found that there had been an increase in the number of seamen employed by America of sixteen thousand two hundred, while there had been a diminution in those employed in the shipping trade of the united kingdom of sixteen thousand four hundred. Thus, whatever was the state of the trade with the colonies and foreign countries, he found a most alarming diminution in the number of men in the shipping trade in the united kingdom; and, whatever might be said, it was a fact, that that which was the basis of our naval power was gradually diminishing. It was a fact which could not be denied, that considerable numbers of our men were employed in the shipping of America. He thought it was not too much to state them at twenty thousand. The reason of this preference among our men for the American service was, that the Americans gave much better wages. In fact, the losses sustained in the carrying trade by some 1420 of our ship-owners were such, that they were obliged to diminish the wages to the lowest possible scale. He would conclude with moving, "That it appears by the Navigation Statements contained in the annual Finance Accounts of the present year, now before this House, that there were registered for the British empire,
Ships and Shipping. Seamen. 1826 20,409 149,894 1827 19,035 130,494
ships or vesesls. Tonnage. Seamen. 1896 24,625 2,635,644 167,636 1827 23,195 2,460,500 151,415 being a diminution of 1,430 175,144 16,221
§ "Also it appears, in the same account, that the ships registered for the United Kingdom in the year
| Ships or vessels. | Tonnage. | Seamen. | |
| 1826 | 20,469 | 2,381,069 | 149,894 |
| 1827 | 19,035 | 2,150,464 | 130,494 |
§ "That this House cannot view this diminution without concern, and will next session inquire into the causes thereof."
§ Mr. Courtenaysaid, that if he did not follow the hon. general into detail in the statement which he had delivered to the House, it was not from any disrespect to him, or because he undervalued the importance of the subject; but because he considered the present period was too late in the session to enter upon the subject with the hope of any practical result. It was the intention of his right hon. colleague and himself to go into a full consideration of the subject during the recess. It was impossible that either he or his right hon. colleague could have sat so long in the House, and voted so often on these matters, without having formed an opinion upon them; but as members were sometimes impressed with opinions formed by party connexions, it was the intention of himself and his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to take a review of, and to make up their minds on, the whole system of our trade and navigation, as if they had never before given an opinion upon them, and as if their minds were, as respected them, a sheet of blank paper. If he were to enter into any controversy on the question at present, it would, he conceived, interfere with that dispassionate view of the subject which it was their intention to take; and, therefore, instead of going now into a discussion, 1421 he would move the previous question. If the hon. general had made out a case, showing that the decay of our commercial marine was likely to have an immediate and injurious effect on the service of the royal navy, the House would be bound to act, but he had made out no such case. The course which he took of pledging the House to the consideration of the subject next year was one which could answer no practical effect.
§ Mr. Robinsonsaid, that the right hon. gentleman, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, had objected to the motion of the gallant general, that it offered no practical plan to the House. This, he conceived, was no answer to the motion. He contended, that the House was bound to entertain it. After the treatment which the shipowners had received last year, it was too much to say, that there was now no ground whatever for receiving the motion before them. But the right hon. gentleman had told them, that he and his colleague would give the subject their best attention during the recess, and would inquire whether the statement made was founded on fact. He was glad to hear this, as far as it went; but it should be recollected, that these were the assertions of men in office, who might not be in office next year. He appealed to the experience of the mutations in the government for the last eighteen months, whether much reliance could be placed on the declaration of a minister in one session, that he would take a certain course in the next. He would not go into any lengthened detail, but there were a few remarks which he felt it necessary to make. Instead of looking at the number of vessels employed, a better criterion of the state of our trade would be, to see what was the situation of the building trade, and whether the number of vessels built was on the increase or decline—whether steps were taken to supply the places of those which were going to decay. The ships already built were obliged to be used, at a profit or otherwise, to prevent their rotting in docks; but men did not build new ships, unless a prospect of employment was held out. Now, what was the state of ship-building in the last three years? In 1826, the number was one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine; in 1827, one thousand seven hundred and ninety; and in 1828, one thousand two hundred and eighty-five. It also appeared that in 182 5, the total num- 1422 ber of vessels registered in Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland, was twenty-two thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; in 1826, it was twenty-six thousand two hundred and thirty-four; and in 1827, the number amounted to twenty-one thousand, seven hundred and ninety—nine. Here was an apparent diminution; and in Ireland, there was likewise a considerable falling off, during the last year. In reference to the present subject, he might advert to what had been said upon the corn question, with respect to a protection; as the same principle was, in his opinion, applicable to either. They had inquired at what price the corn-growers would be able to produce their corn. Now, he would never admit, that one class of the community was entitled to a protection which would be denied to another. In such an inquiry they ought particularly to guard against being led away by looking to the number of vessels employed, while the number that had been built was not taken into their calculation. Those who had a property in the vessels employed were losing money every day. This question had been last year brought before the House under very disadvantageous circumstances; as it was imprudently mixed up with political considerations. Certain misguided friends of the measure had thought proper to throw out insinuations against a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), which the ship-owners were far from imputing to him. The very utmost that the respectable portion of that body had ever attributed to the right hon. member, was a mistake of judgment. Thus far doing him justice, he would tell the House not to suffer themselves to be carried away by his eloquence, when he sought to prevail on them to refuse a consideration to such a subject. Government were prone to turn a willing ear to applications from other quarters, although they did not show the same favour in this instance. During the present session they had pronounced, that there was no ground for inquiry respecting the wool trade, and yet they had granted one. This they did, hoping to satisfy the landed interest, but the landed interest would never be satisfied. If the resolution should not be acceded to now, he trusted they would, next session, appoint a committee of inquiry. He must ever deprecate the bad policy of the reciprocity system. While the country was guided by this principle, the great states on the 1423 continent, and on the other side of the Atlantic, were pursuing a system of exclusion towards ourselves. Such was the ambition of America to gain a maritime ascendancy, that it was rare to see a British flag in the ports of the United States, how common soever their vessels now were in the harbours of Great Britain. In saying this, he was not actuated by any feeling of jealousy with respect to that country; but he thought we ought to have a paramount regard for the interests of our own. During the last discussion, he had heard much from the hon. member for Dover, that excited his surprise; but there was only a single assertion to which he was now inclined to advert. It had been said, that a vessel for British service could be built as cheaply in England as it could be abroad. This he distinctly denied; for a more unfounded allegation was never made within those walls. He had lately seen a letter mentioning, that an oak-built vessel had been launched at the port of Dantzic, which only, cost at the rate of 3l. per ton. The northern-built vessels were got up at one-third less than the expense of ours. In such a competition, this country, to use a familiar expression, must go to the wall. There was another singular anomaly in the system. Although it put a prohibition on the employment of foreign seamen in navigating our vessels, it at the same time admitted foreign vessels to compete with us at home. The ill effects of this policy, they would find it very difficult to repair. Was it not evident, that foreign ships coining into our ports must, pro tanto, displace so much of the British shipping interest, and consequently injure so much British capital? It was neither ingenuous nor just to lay hold of the Scarborough petition, which happened to be erroneous in its details, and of a few other statements a little exaggerated, as specimens of the representations made by the body in general from whence they came. The motion was not intended to mislead the House, but to lead to a fair and candid inquiry into a question in which a vast amount of property was involved.
Mr. C. Grantremarked, that this was the first time he had ever heard a regular speech in reply to a Debate that had taken place twelve months ago. It had also afforded him some surprise to hear from the right hon. gentleman, that it was the intention of government to 1424 establish a full examination into the question during the recess; but whatever satisfaction this might give to the gallant mover of the proposition, he felt convinced that the government would not consent to any alteration. The present policy was certainly united with the name of his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson); but he could not admit, that it remained for government to pursue an opposite course, when he recollected that all his right hon. friend's operations had taken place under the sanction of almost all the present members of the cabinet; nor had any policy ever been more examined into, discussed, and sanctioned by that House; and therefore, though he was glad that the right hon. gentleman, and those other gentlemen, whose innocent minds were blank sheets of paper; though he was happy that these simple-hearted persons intended to examine the subject, in order that they might have a great field for consideration through the summer, he could not but feel sure, that the examination would end in a confirmation of the principles of his right hon. friend. Thinking, therefore, as he did, that this policy had already received the sanction of the government, and of the House, he did not feel that he was now called upon to enter into the general principles of the question; and, indeed, he should be doing an injustice to that policy, were he, on the present occasion, to enter into a discussion on those principles. He should, therefore, confine himself to the question now before the House; and he would confess that it appeared to him, from the shape of the present motion, that it was a renewal of those efforts which had so often been made to persuade the House, that his right hon. friend had failed in his project; and he must confess, that, notwithstanding this was the evening of wonders, he had never heard a more extraordinary proposition. He, for one, was at a loss to conceive how that House had been wanting in deference to the shipowners; for, although the House had not adopted what the shipowners happened to think the most expedient, he did not see that that was any reason for saying, that they had not been treated with a proper deference, or that they were crumbling into dust, to the entire overthrow of the British navy. Nor was it the least extraordinary part of the matter, that, although all this mischief was existing, the hon. gentleman, who spoke 1425 last, was quite content to wait till the next session of parliament before any thing was done; though, to be sure, it was perfectly consistent with a speech that was such a triumphant answer to what had taken place last year. But what, after all, was the case that had been made out by the gallant general? It appeared from the accounts on the table, that the number of the registered vessels was diminished; and, according to the right hon. gentleman, this was to be a subject of inquiry in the cabinet; but if the gallant general would only take the trouble to look to the foot of that account, he would find the explanation he wished to have. Supposing, after all, that this committee was granted, what would it have to report next session, even though the gallant general himself should bring it in? It would be, "this committee does report that, according to the Registry Act, requiring the ships to be entered de novo, there has been a visible diminution in the amount of tonnage." But though this might be apparent, he denied that it was by any means certain that there was a real decrease; and, besides, it was perfectly consistent, that there should be an apparent decrease, while the fact might be that there was a real increase. The question then was, whether, having last year considered the subject, and having decided that it was not a fit one for the appointment of the committee, there was any thing new in the state of the question to justify such a measure? He thought that there certainly was not. He thought that they were very far from having any just ground of alarm for the state of British navigation or the maritime interest. But before he adverted to some of the conclusions which had been arrived at by the hon. gentleman, he would allude to the reason why there might be an apparent diminution in the quantity of shipping, without its involving any real diminution. The Registry Act of the 26th Geo. 3rd was that under which British ships were registered. By the 6th of Geo. 4th, it was enacted, that no register was of any avail, unless it was made either under the 4th or the 6th of Geo. 4th. There was no danger of any censure attaching to the department to which this registering belonged, because he knew that the office was discharged in a most efficient manner; but, at the same time, it was well known, that no Registry Act could meet all the fluctuations of the maritime 1426 commerce of this great country; this registry, therefore, was not to be depended on, except so far as it applied to the same men that had been entered. But, if there could be no censure attached to the department itself, neither could there, in his opinion, be any attached to his right hon. friend. And, after all, what was it that had made this diminution apparent? Surely not the sagacity or discovery of any hon. member, but that very act of parliament which had been introduced by his right hon. friend himself. But although this registry was made de novo, it was, after all, fallacious to a certain degree; because it was found impossible to rectify the register in sufficient time to make the proper return; hereafter, however, inquiries, at the close of every three years, were to be sent round to all the ports requiring returns; and the consequence would be, that they would have at least a triennial obituary of the men employed in British shipping. It was true, that his right hon. friend last year, had rested his arguments on the inaccuracies that had crept into the statements about British navigation; but he had not so much as made an allusion to the number of registered vessels on which the gallant general had founded so much of his argument. His right hon. friend had proceeded entirely on other criteria: the real criterion of the question was, what was the actual employment of the ships? So that, even if they had an accurate account of the number of ships, it would still be fallacious; for they would not be able to tell how far they were employed, or whether one-half or two-thirds of them were lying idle in dock.—Another object that they ought to have in view was, to ascertain the activity of their commerce, and its degree of competition with foreign commerce. Now, proceeding on the gallant general's own statement, it would appear, that of British ships which had come in from foreign ports, the tonnage in 1825, was two millions one hundred and forty-three thousand; in 1826, one million nine hundred and fifty thousand; and in 1827, two millions and eighty-six thousand: while the tonnage of foreign ships under the same circumstances, was, in 1826, six hundred and ninety-four thousand, and in 1827, seven hundred and fifty-one thousand. But, above all things, the gallant general appeared to have been struck with the diminution of the human race. His object ap- 1427 peared to be, that more men should be employed than were necessary to do the work, seeking, as it were, to multiply the number of superfluous workmen.—A complaint had been made, that the number of men employed in our shipping had diminished, while that of persons employed in foreign shipping had increased. He would now make a statement, that would not only show that complaint to be unfounded, but that would actually prove that there had been an increase in both; and that it was greater in favour of this country than of other nations.
Great Britain. Years. British. Foreign. 1825 162,614 48,943 1826 151,327 37,137 1827 165,548 41,508 This statement exhibited an increase of British seamen employed in 1827, as compared with 1825, of eight thousand nine hundred and twenty-six; and as compared with 1826 of twelve thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. Thus, while there was an increase with respect to British seamen, there was a decrease in foreign seamen, employed in 1827, as compared with 1825, of nine thousand one hundred and eighty-six, and the increase in 1827, as compared with 1826, was only three thousand six hundred and ninety-eight. The result of these calculations stood thus:—British increase 1827, twelve thousand eight hundred and thirty-three; foreign increase 1827, three thousand six hundred and ninety-eight, as compared with 1826.—After these statements, where was the argument of the gallant general, that the shipping interest of Great Britain was in a state of depression. It was true, that the shipping trade had suffered a depression, but that depression could be traced, not to the want of employment, but to the want of profit on the part of the ship-owners. He agreed with the gallant general as to a depression in the shipping interest; but ho differed entirely with him as to the cause of that depression. It was no doubt, natural for the shipping interest to complain of their decreased profits; but what branch of our trade or manufacture had not suffered 1428 a similar decline. In looking at the shipping concerns of Great Britain, unfavourable inferences ought not to be drawn, because partial depressions might be shown at particular periods. The right hon. gentleman then read a statement of the total number of vessels, with the amount of their tonnage, and the number of men employed in navigating them, that entered inwards and cleared outwards, from and to all parts of the world, in 1814, and in the subsequent years of 1825,1826, and 1827, from which it appeared, that the tonnage in 1827, as compared with the tonnage of 1826, had increased nearly seventy-two thousand tons. In the above statement Ireland was included as a foreign country. The following was a list of the amount of all foreign and British tonnage entered inwards, exclusive of Ireland, from 1825 to 1827 inclusive:—
Ireland. Total. British. Foreign. British. Foreign. 1825, 65,921. 3,779. 228,535 52,722 1826, 73,301 2,701 224,628 39,838 1827, 71,913 2,028 237,461 43,536 Thus it would appear, that there was an increase of nearly two hundred thousand tons in favour of the latter year. His right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had been accused by the gallant general of taking only single years for his comparisons; but his right hon. friend had taken the average of 1814 to 1823 inclusive, and then from 1824 to 1826.—The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to quote from the speech of Mr. Huskisson in 1827, on the state of the shipping interest, the average amount of tonnage of British and foreign shipping upon an average of five years, from 1814 to 1818 inclusive. The increase of British shipping in 1826, as compared with the above average, was four hundred and thirty-two thousand seven hundred and twelve tons, and of foreign, one hundred and three thousand nine hundred and sixty tons. The excess of British above foreign being three hundred and twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-two tons. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to read extracts from the report of the committee appointed in 1821, showing that the shipping interest had no occasion to complain. One material part of the present question he had nearly omitted: he meant the coasting trade:
British. Foreign. Tons. Tons. 1825 2,027,469 892,601 1826 1,796,250 643,922 1827 1,972,780 715,824 Tons.
In the year 1823 it amounted to 7,899,602 1429
Thus it would appear, that the coasting trade, although slightly diminished during the last year, was progressively improving. He now begged to call the attention of the House to the following statement of the amount of tonnage which entered and cleared coastwise at the several ports in Ireland for the three last years, ending 5th January:—
— 1824 — 8,101,337 — 1825 — 8,300,756 — 1826 — 8,368,812 — 1827 — 8,186,701 By these statements the House would perceive the wonderful difference between the tonnage of England and Ireland. He thought it was a debt of gratitude due to the latter country to devise some means to increase her maritime commerce. Before he closed his observations, he would say something with regard to the trade of London. It had been said, that the proceedings of last year had destroyed that trade; but the following accounts would show the incorrectness of that statement. In 1824, the tonnage of British ships engaged in the trade of London was six hundred and seven thousand; in 1825, seven hundred and fifty-eight thousand; in 1826, six hundred and seventy-five thousand; and in 1827, seven hundred and sixty-nine thousand; and the number of vessels was three thousand three hundred and eighty-nine in 1825, and about four thousand in 1827, showing a large increase over the great trading year 1825. There had likewise been an increase of the tonnage of foreign vessels engaged in the London trade. In 1824, the tonnage of foreign ships trading to the port of London was two hundred and sixty-four thousand; in 1825, three hundred thousand; in 1826, two hundred and fifteen thousand; and in 1827, two hundred and ninety-one thousand. The tonnage of vessels from the Hans towns was the next subject he should allude to; and he should do so because it was said, that our errors with regard to free trade had thrown overwhelming advantages into their hands, at the expense of this country. In 1825, the tonnage of their ships trading to this country, was forty-four thousand; in 1826, 1430 twenty-nine thousand; and in 1827, twenty-two thousand; so much for the truth of that complaint. The same remark might be made with respect to the tonnage of the ships from Prussia into this country, which, in 1825, amounted to one hundred and seventy-six thousand; in 1826, to one hundred and twelve thousand; and in 1827, to one hundred and six thousand. The number of ships of all nations that had passed the Sound in 1826 was eleven thousand; and that number increased in 1827 to thirteen thousand; but of that increase the proportion of the increase on British ships was thirty-seven per cent, while that of foreign ships was only eight per cent. He asked whether, under these circumstances, he was not justified in saying, that this country had nothing to fear from a competition with foreign nations? The country which possessed the vast resources of Great Britain, not only in a maritime, but an agricultural and manufacturing point of view, need not be under any apprehension from foreign competition. The more the subject was investigated, the more would the result show, that the shipping interest of Great Britain was far from being in that state which the gallant general had described.
Inwards. Outwards. Vessels. Tonnage Vessels. Tonnage. 1826 2,974. 107,455 2,939 82,976 1827 2,882 97,443 3,203 102,575 1828 3,052 141,093 3,046 129,053
§ Mr. Liddellsaid, he would not attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman through the very complicated statement which he had just made. He must say, however, that he was still incredulous on many points; and representing as he did a large county, which was so closely connected with the shipping interest, he should feel it his duty to make a few observations in reply to them. Notwithstanding the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, it was an appalling prospect for himself, and those with whom he was connected, to see their property daily depreciated, and no remuneration for the expenditure of their capital. Was it then wonderful if he clung to the faintest hope, that some remedies might be devised to check the growing evil, in order that those who had, for centuries past, considered themselves under the protection of the government might be restored to something like their former state of prosperity. The shipowners believed their distress to be mainly owing to the competition with foreign vessels, which they were unable to keep up. The charge for freight was now so low, that some protection was absolutely neces- 1431 sary. He was not opposed to liberal commercial regulations, but he thought there should be some relaxation from those lately established.
§ Mr. Poulett Thompsondenied the expressions attributed to him by the hon. member for Worcester. What he had, on a former occasion, said was, not that British ships could be built, but that they could be sailed in competition with foreign shipping. This arose from their greater durability, their cheaper insurance, and the other palpable advantages which were known to belong to them. As a proof of this superiority, he need only refer to the report of the committee on foreign trade. Now, how did the fact stand, as to the comparative business of the British and foreign shipping in the general trade of this country? There had been, as the return of British shipping showed, an increase between the years 1827 and 1824, of five hundred and fifty-six thousand tons, and of thirty-four thousand four hundred and sixty-six men, and a decrease of the foreign to the extent of seven thousand, seven hundred and forty-eight tons, and of one thousand four hundred and ten men. And this comparative increase in favour of this country, was observable in the first year of the operation of the new measures, which were said to have inflicted so much evil. There had been, at the same time, a great increase of shipbuilding in the colonies; still he denied in toto the peculiar depression, upon which so much stress had been laid. He admitted, indeed, that the profits in the shipping trade were much reduced; but he denied that the reduction was in a greater proportion than that of the other branches of general trade. Let any body look at the list of comparative prices, and this would be obvious. In 1825, the price of Jamaica coffee was 91s., at present it was 71s. During the same period cotton had fallen from 1s. 6¼d. to 7½d., tobacco from 3¾d. to 2⅛d., olive oil from 54s. to 43s., British iron, per ton, from 15l. to 8l. 17s. 6d. lead from 29l. 10s. to 18l., tin from 101s. to 76s. hemp from 43l. to 38l., Dantzic timber from 5l. 15s. to 4l. 15s.; so that the diminution in the price of shipping had not sunk below its relative proportion. With respect to freights, in 1825, when the highest price was held out, owing to the chance of a short supply of all the commodities of the country, and a desire to speculate 1432 in obtaining the requisite substitute, the regular freight for clean hemp from the Baltic was 60s. a ton, at present it was 45s.; of tallow it had fallen from 40s. to 28s., thus preserving the same proportion to the level of other articles. If the shipping, then, had not sunk, as had been asserted, but increased,—if the coasting trade gave employment to nine million of tons—if the fisheries employed forty-thousand—the colonial eight hundred and twenty-two thousand tons—the foreign trade two million, eight hundred and sixty thousand—if, in fact, the general employment of British shipping was eleven million, nine hundred and forty eight thousand tons, how could such a comparatively trifling competition as seven hundred thousand foreign tonnage be said so to have affected them? Then, the hon. member had said, that the ship-owners were peculiarly entitled to relief, from the meekness with which they had borne their depression, and the utter absence of all reproach against the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) whose measures were said to have wrought this painful change. What! was the payment last year of 200l. from that body for a pamphlet, which did not contain one half so much argument, as it did abuse, no reproach of the right hon. gentleman? Was the exhibition in the metropolis, of a sort of general hoisting of flags, at the right hon. gentleman's resignation nothing? He could not treat with sufficient contempt the authors of these attempts at triumph, or with sufficient pity the deluded instruments made use of on the occasion? For what was this flag hoisting? A poor boatman, when he had put the question to him, simply replied-" Because of a gemmen going out who won't let us live." He would now say a word or two in reference to what had fallen from the Vice-president of the Board of Trade. That right hon. gentleman had told them, that he and the right hon. gentleman at the head of that Board would go into the inquiry next session, with the same impartiality as if their minds were sheets of blank paper. He confessed he heard this statement with dismay. If they were to have the whole of the great question again agitated an unheard of degree of suffering and private distress and inconvenience would be produced. If all those great questions were again to be entered into by those who did not understand them, and were disqualified for the task, 1433 the country would continue open to the most alarming fluctuations and changes.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that at that late hour of the night he would not trespass long upon the attention of the House. In the preceding session he had stated at large his views and principles in reference to this important question; and it would be quite impossible for him to add any thing to the lucid statement of facts which his right hon. friend had laid before the House upon this almost exhausted subject. The hon. member for Dover had expressed his indignant feelings at the treatment which he (Mr. Huskisson) had received from certain parties. He could assure the House, that such treatment had in no degree disturbed the tranquillity of his feelings, and if they had paid but 200l. to the writer of the scurrilous pamphlet alluded to, he would only say that they had measured their liberality by the low rates of freights. He would own that he had been rather startled by the first statement of the gallant general. The gallant general had commenced by stating, that he was about to discuss—what? an abstract naval question, with a collateral view to commerce. He must acknowledge that his gallant friend had well performed his promise—if by "abstract" he had meant a view of the subject, leaving out all the facts of the case—and he had treated the collateral part of the question with quite as little reserve. The gallant general had argued upon what he seemed to consider an apparent deficiency, or falling off, in the tonnage of the country, and in the number of seamen; and his proposition was, that next session they should inquire into a subject which had been already fully and satisfactorily explained. In the year 1825, he had felt it his duty to consolidate ail the complicated and various acts relating to shipping; and by one provision then made, it was ordered, that all ships on coming into port should be registered upon the oath of the captain. The old Registry act, the 26th of the late king, did not provide for the ships which might be lost at sea, or otherwise destroyed: their registries still remained; but when he came to remodel the registries in the year 1827, it was plain that those ships which were no longer in existence could not be registered de novo. Therefore, all the shipping which had been lost or destroyed, from the year 1774 to 1827 were omitted in 1434 the new registry list. Thereupon the gallant general called upon him to account for the apparent diminution in shipping between 1826 and 1827. Why, the same thing would have happened, if the remodelling of the Registry act had taken place in 1814, or in any other year. But his gallant friend inquired, what had become of the seamen? In reply to this question he would state, that about a century and a half ago this House granted a land-tax to the Crown, and tax commissioners were appointed by king William in every county for its collection. These collectors were appointed only for the year; and it appeared, that each year the county members returned to government the names of a number of gentlemen qualified to fill the office. From the period of king William, to the present time, this law had continued unchanged, when at this moment a bill for that purpose was passing through the House; and it was found necessary to append to that bill all the names of all the commissioners who had been appointed, and of all the persons who had been recommended by the several county members from the time of king William to the present. The bill in that state had been already read a third time; it was a mass of such magnitude, that the other bills on the table would appear but as mere shreds before it; and, indeed, he should not be the person to move that it should be carried to the Lords by any one member of that House. Now, if any one proposed to take out of that bill the names of all those persons who were unquestionably dead—such as those appointed in the reigns of king William, queen Anne, king George 1st. 2nd. and 3rd.,—his gallant friend would probably stare at the diminished bill, and ask "What had become of all the commissioners?" His gallant friend had admitted, that there was an increase in trade, but he complained, that the expense in the men and shipping, by which the trade was carried on, had decreased. What, then, was the manifest object of his inquiry? That the shipping should be employed at higher rates,—that the country should be put to greater expense, and that thus all competition with foreign countries should be prevented ! His gallant friend had complained, that by the aid of steam-packets, vessels were enabled often a fortnight sooner to get to sea, and that British vessels often made two voyages in one sea- 1435 son to the Baltic. His gallant friend ought at once to pass a law to put down steam-packets, and to prevent vessels making more than one voyage in the year to the Baltic. There was an agent in London at present for all the shipping belonging to the north-cast coast of England. That gentleman was Mr. Richmond, one who had closely attended to the interests which it was his duty to watch over; and in a letter which he had received from that gentleman this morning, there was the following sentence:—"It is not from want of employment that we complain; we have more of that than ever there was. Owing to the consumption of our noble and wealthy country, I am convinced that the importations of the year 1827 have exceeded those of the far-famed year 1825." This showed that the shipping interest were in no want of employment. He would admit, that the shipping interests, as well as the other interests of this country, had latterly made but small profits; but that was owing to general causes, which all must admit, while they deplored their existence. The shipping interests complained, on the one hand, and so did the farmers and manufacturers on the other. It had been over and over again asked, whether under the present system, British shipping could stand a fair competition with the ships of other nations. He would answer that question by a statement which had been put into his hands by one of the members for the city of London. The ports of Brazil were free ports; audit appeared that the trade of Brazil, between Brazil and Europe, owing to the wart of shipping in Brazil, must be carried on, either by European ships, or by those of the United States. One article of Brazilian produce was sugar. It could not be brought to England on account of the high prohibitory duties. A great portion of it was exported to Trieste, and the other portion to Hamburgh. Twenty-eight vessels sailed from Bahia in the last year laden with sugar to Trieste; and of these, four were Austrian; two were Swedes; one Russian; the remaining twenty-one were English. Forty-eight ships sailed to Hamburgh from Bahia during the last year; of these, twelve belonged to Hamburgh; two were Germans; one Dutchman; one Swede; one Russian; and twenty-three of them were English. Thus out of seventy-five vessels which carried on the trade of the Brazils with Eu- 1436 rope, about fifty were English. His right hon. friend, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, had declared, that his own mind, and that of his right hon. colleague, were blank upon this subject. He did not think, however, that they were persons likely to adopt any change in the general policy of this country, which had been introduced within the last eight years by his two noble friends, in the other House, and himself. He was sure that the Vice-president of the Board of Trade was animated by such liberal feelings, that when he examined into the present system, he would come to the determination of maintaining and supporting it. That system had the approval of the present Secretary of the Home Department, of every member of lord Liverpool's government, and of lord Liverpool himself. He was anxious that it should go forth to foreign nations, that this country would not retrograde from that system. All he would ask was, let the system have fair play. If the blessings of peace could be continued, he was sure that, under that system, commerce, and all the interests connected with commerce, would flourish. A charge had been made elsewhere by one who, because he had been a diplomatist, assumed the wisdom of a statesman against this country for recognizing the independence of the South American States. It was a tardy wisdom which came in with its advice when, fortunately, it was impossible to prevent the establishment of the independence of those extensive countries. Those states had, unfortunately, occupied the relation of belligerents with one another, and some infractions of the law of nations had been committed. But had such infractions never been committed by this and other civilized countries in a state of war? Why, Old Spain herself had sinned fifty times as much in that way, as the countries that had been freed from her yoke. There had not been one case of irregularity committed by those belligerents on British commerce, which had not been made the subject of remonstrance. Those states, when they became more settled and tranquil, he was convinced would add increased wealth to the commerce of this country, and be, in every way, productive of the greatest advantages to England. He hoped that the present commercial system would have fair play, and he would stake his reputation on its success.
§ Lord W. Powlettrecommended his gallant friend to withdraw the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was anxious on the part of his majesty's government, to disclaim the opinions which had been, in some degree imputed to them, by his right hon. friend the member for Inverness, and more strongly by the hon. member for Dover. The hon. member for Dover seemed to think, from something which had fallen from the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, that government intended to abandon the principles, with respect to navigation and trade, which they had acted on previously to the late separation; but his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, had fairly answered the hon. member for Dover, when he asked, how it was possible that government could abandon those principles, when so many members of the administration were the very individuals under whose auspices those principles were first promulgated. He could sincerely say, on the part of those members of the administration and of himself, that there never was the slightest disposition to abandon those principles. Time was only wanting to show how decidedly and unequivocally they would be followed up.
§ Sir M. W. Ridleydisapproved of the motion. Indeed, it was one by no means calculated to give satisfaction to the ship-owners themselves. If persisted in, he should therefore vote against it.
§ General Gascoynesaid, he would not press the motion to a division; and one reason which principally induced him not to do so, was the advanced period of the session.
§ The motion was put, and negatived, without a division.