§ MR. HERRIESbegged, pursuant to notice, to present a petition from the shipowners of London. The petition was signed by almost every London shipowner. The petitioners begged to remind the House that, during the progress of the Bill for the Repeal of the Navigation Laws, they expressed their conviction that it would be productive of great injury to the shipping interest and to the still greater national interests of the country. They observed, that since that time a year had expired, during which they had had experience of the effect of that measure. They then stated that they were prepared to show to the House that their anticipations had been, unfortunately, so far as present experience went, fully realised. They stated, that in the course of that period there had been exhibited, even according to the official returns, effects of a very alarming character to their interests and to the great interests of the country. They called upon the House to remark that the official returns of British shipping entered inwards in the last year, as compared with the an- 305 tecedent year, exhibited what had been very unusual in the official returns of this country for many years past—a diminution to the extent, as they stated, of 311,831 tons, or 7 1–10th per cent; the returns for the year 1849 having been 4,390,375 tons; and for 1850, only 4,078,544 tons. In the same period they observed that there had been a very considerable augmentation of the entries of foreign shipping into British ports, the tonnage of foreign shipping entered inwards having increased from 1,680,894 tons in 1849, to 2,055,152 tons in 1850; being an increase of 354,258 tons, or an augmentation of 21 per cent. They then went on to state that the aggregate of British and foreign shipping together entered inwards had, in the year 1850, only exceeded by about 6–10ths per cent the amount of the previous year; showing that there had been no material increase of the commerce of the country, such as was stated to be expected to arise from the alteration of the navigation laws. They stated that foreign shipping was superseding British shipping in trades in which it was asserted, in the course of the debates upon the question, that they could not compete with British shipping; and they instanced the article of Canadian timber, which was now brought from Canada to England in Baltic ships, although it had been supposed that those vessels never could compete with English ships in that trade. They stated that freights in all parts of the world had so materially diminished as greatly to injure the trade and commerce of the country; and that they saw no prospect of an alteration in that respect. They stated that they expected reciprocity from other nations, in respect of the great concessions made by the repeal of our navigation laws, had not been fulfilled; but that, on the contrary, they had been resisted by almost all the great States of Europe, and that they had been invaded by other States not in Europe, as in the instance of America; and they mentioned particularly the case of California, America having contrived to make a coasting trade between the United States and California, although the passage from one country to the other was round an immense extent of foreign coast. They stated, as an injury to them, that sugar, for example, from Cuba and Manilla, and the general produce of the Spanish colonies, were admitted into our ports upon the principle of perfect equality, whether imported in Spanish or British 306 ships; whereas the tariff of Spain established a differential system greatly injurious to British commerce. They observed that, although there were circumstances which had created a demand for ships of a certain description, and of a local character, they were enabled positively to assert that the interests of shipowners at the present time were greatly depressed, and in such a condition as to require the serious attention of the House; and they ended by praying that that House would be pleased to take the premises into their immediate and serious consideration, to revise and amend the navigation law of the 12th and 13th Victoria, c. 29, and all other laws imposing restrictions and burdent upon British navigation, and to grant to the petitioners and to the shipping interest in general such relief and redress as to their wisdom might seem fit. The question to which the petition referred was one of the very greatest importance, and it was his intention to submit it to the notice of the House upon a special occasion, so soon as he could find one for making it the subject of discussion. As the statements contained in that petition were very materially at variance with the declarations made by Her Majesty's Ministers last year with regard to the effect of the navigation laws, he begged to move that it be printed with the Votes.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the petition be printed."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it was his intention to bring forward a special Motion on the subject of the petition. If so, of course it was only perfectly regular that it should be printed with the Votes. If he was correct as to the right hon. Gentleman's intention, he should only rejoice as much as the right hon. Gentleman himself could at the House having an opportunity of discussing the question.
§ MR. THORNELY, as the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, could inform the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) that so important a petition as the one he had presented, was always, in the usual order printed, with the next day's Votes. It would, therefore, be totally unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to make a special Motion that it be printed.
§ MR. HERRIESsaid, that he was perfectly satisfied with the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Thornely), and he should therefore withdraw his present Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.