HL Deb 17 June 1851 vol 117 cc847-84
LORD STANLEY

I have now, my Lords, to present a petition to your Lordships respecting which I have thought it right to give notice of laying it before you—not that I mean to occupy a large portion of your Lordships' time, or further than may be necessary to state the substance of petitioners' complaint, nor that I ask your Lordships to pronounce on the present occasion an opinion on the merits of the subject; but because I am anxious to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of explaining the course they have taken, and the course they intend to take, upon a matter on which they have asked Parliament for, and on which Parliament, at their request, has entrusted to them, large discretionary powers. The petition is signed by Robert Rankin, the Chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association; but, though thus signed by a single individual only, it is the petition of the Shipowners' Association, drawn up in pursuance of a resolution agreed to at a general meeting of the Association. It may, therefore, be taken as the deliberate opinion of the Shipowners' Association of the Port of Liverpool. It is founded upon the report of a committee specially appointed by the merchants and master mariners of Liverpool, for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the results arising from the repeal of the navigation laws; and upon their report the resolution, which was the basis of the petition, and which was adopted at the meeting, was founded. The petitioners state that they are the owners of a large amount of British shipping, and in common with other shipowners are at present greatly suffering from the operation of the Act for the repeal of the navigation laws, which was passed in 1849. They state that all the apprehensions which they entertained of injury from it to their interests (and when I speak of their interests I speak of the interests of the country at large), that all their anticipations of its injurious consequences have been more than realised by the practical operation of the measure. I do not contend, nor do the petitioners assort, that upon the whole the foreign trade of this country has been reduced since the passing of that Act, or that the foreign trade has not been increased; but they complain that the amount of freight has been so reduced, not by fair and equal competition, but by competition in which they labour under great disadvantages, especially in long voyages, as to be almost unremunerative; and they further state, that, notwithstanding the increase which has undoubtedly taken place in the foreign trade of this country, the advantages of that increase have been derived not by the British shipowner, but by the foreign shipowner, in his trade with this country. I know your Lordships are not willing to listen to many figures, and I am unwilling to trouble you with more of them than I can help; but I must remind you that the repeal of the navigation laws came into operation on the 1st of January, 1850. I hold in my hand an extract from tables which have been published by the Government, of the tonnage of vessels which have been entered inwards and have cleared outwards from British ports since that time. I am quite aware that those tables do not represent with perfect accuracy the true amount of tonnage either entered inwards or cleared outwards; for, from inaccuracies which have taken place previous to the repeal of the navigation laws, it is evident great fallacies prevailed in the formation of those tables, inasmuch as each separate voyage of a vessel was taken to represent a separate amount of tonnage; but for the purposes of the comparison of one period with the other, the fallacies being equal, the tables furnished by the Government are sufficiently accurate. I find, then, that of the vessels entered inwards and cleared outwards from the ports of the United Kingdom, in the

ENTERED INWARDS.
To Jan., 1849. 1850. 1851. Increase.
Total tonnage 5,579,461 6,071,269 6,113,696 42,427
Decrease.
Of which United Kingdom 4,020,415 4,390,375 4,078,544 311,831
Increase.
Foreign 1,559,046 1,680,894 2,035,152 354,258
Spain 14,672 17,812 23,717
CLEARED OUTWARDS. Increase.
Total tonnage 5,051,237 5,429,908 5,906,978 477,070
Of which United Kingdom 3,553,777 3,762,182 3,960,764 198,582
Foreign 1,497,460 1,667,726 1,946,214 278,488
Spain 14,352 18,897 22,611
FOUR MONTHS—INWARDS. Increase.
Total tonnage 1,554,960 1,409,451 1,690,247 280,796
Of which United Kingdom 1,046,813 946,745 1,025,793 79,048
Foreign 508,147 462,706 664,454 201,748
Spain 3,758 6,857 8,046
CLEARED OUTWARDS. Increase.
Total tonnage 1,724,574 1,724,315 1,940,453 216,138
Of which United Kingdom 1,211,794 1,258,895 1,339,254 80,259
Foreign 512,780 465,420 601,199 135,779
Spain 4,756 6,705 9,092

Thus, although there has been an increase in the foreign trade of this country, the advantage of that increase has gone, not, as it naturally should have done, principally to the British shipowners, but almost exclusively to the foreign shipowners, who threaten us from day to day with a most formidable rivalry. The petitioners further state that previous to the repeal of the navigation laws it was thought wise and just on the part of this country that the mercantile marine should be subjected to many burdens and restrictions, which they cheerfully bore in consideration of the advantages they derived from those laws, and because they considered them necessary to support the military-naval force of the country; but they state that when they are deprived of the advantages which they previously enjoyed, and are subjected to severe competition with foreign rivals, which competition they found it difficult to meet even before the change of law, they at least expect from the Imperial Parliament that they will not leave them any further than can be helped loaded with burdens from which their foreign rivals are altogether free. These things may seem matters of minor importance; but in dealing with the statements of the petition, I will state in the first instance those which appear of minor importance, and reserve to the last the matters which are of the greatest consequence—are of the most pressing character, and call most for the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The petitioners, then, complain of the

years ending January 1, 1849, 1850, and 1851, respectively, the tonnage was as follows:—

stamp duty upon marine assurances. I do not know what the amount of that tax is at the present moment, nor how far it is an object with the Government to maintain it; but certainly there are few taxes so little capable of being defended on principle. The practical operation of keeping up the stamp duty on marine assurances is, that, in consequence of the improvement of late years effected in foreign assurances, a large amount is withdrawn from the British assurance offices, and is transferred to the foreign assurance offices on the Continent—a thing which the British merchant would have thought impossible some five years ago, but which is now very general, in consequence of the superior cheapness and equal security which those offices offer as compared with the British offices. Another source of complaint with the petitioners is the extravagant fees charged by British consuls in foreign ports. Without entering into any details on this point, the petitioners state that they thought it would be more desirable on the whole that the consuls should be paid by salaries, and not by fees; and they show that the present system of exacting fees from the captains of our merchantmen acted most injuriously on the shipping interest. If, for instance, in the port of New Orleans a dollar is the fee paid to the consul on the desertion of a sailor, you are giving the consul a pecuniary interest in encouraging desertion, and thus increasing his fees, and thereby to that extent increasing the burdens on the shipping interest. The burden, indeed, is not heavy; but where the competition is so close as it is, each individual expenditure adds to the difficulty under which the mercantile marine labours, and at last renders the burden intolerable. They also complain of what they say is a hardship peculiar to this country, namely, that officers of Her Majesty's Navy are authorised to receive pecuniary reward in cases of the salvage of merchant vessels; they complain likewise that encouragement was given, he would not say to the desertion, but to the abandonment, of the mercantile marine by seamen for the purpose of entering the service of the Royal Navy. It was a grievance which pressed heavily upon them, and they said that it was not necessary for the service of the country; that if it were they would cheerfully submit to it; and that they had expected to be relieved from it on the repeal of the navigation laws. The evil, too, is aggravated by their being compelled to navigate their vessels almost exclusively with British seamen. I think that a wise regulation. But if you compel the British shipowners to navigate their vessels with crews who receive higher pay and better and dearer provisions than foreign crews, and, therefore, render the voyage more expensive, they are entitled to some consideration on the other hand, and it is not fair to compel them to enter into competition with the shipowners, who employ these cheaply-provisioned and low-paid crews, and to continue the burdens under which they laboured before they entered upon such rivalry—it is not fair to give the two classes of ships precisely the same advantages in all your ports. But this is not all—your Lordships would not have been troubled with this petition of the petitioners did they not feel they were placed in an unfair position by your conferring lavishly upon their foreign rivals every advantage they have asked for; but, on the other hand, your own seamen have not that reciprocity which they expected on the passing of the repeal of the navigation laws, and they labour under serious disadvantages, pecuniary and others, in foreign ports. They refer particularly to the ports of Spain, France, and the United States of America. It is pretty obvious, in the direct trade alone, if a foreign vessel coming from a port of any of those countries is admitted into a British port on a footing of perfect equality with British ships, the goods she imports paying no higher duty than the goods imported in the vessels of this country; and on the other hand, if a British vessel going with a return cargo from this country to ports of those foreign countries is cither excluded altogether from those ports, or is charged with large differential duties—it is pretty obvious that the competition between the two classes of vessels is not either a free or a fair competition, and I am convinced that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will hardly contend that that is a fair state of things, or equal competition, or that any amount of skill or capital can countervail the disadvantages thus imposed on our shipowners. In one of the most useful, but most difficult, books of the day—I mean Bradshaw's Railway Guide—I found the other day an advertisement which bore on this subject. It might appear ludicrous, but it was a matter of serious fact in business. The advertisement referred to a steamer which passes between London and Antwerp, departing every Sunday and returning every Wednesday, and in it there is this notice given:—"Shippers are requested to observe that in consequence of this steamer being under the Belgian flag, a saving of 15 per cent in duty will be effected on all goods sent by her." But we may perhaps be told that this ship belongs to British owners, and that whatever advantage accrues, it goes into their pockets. Be it so. Still it must be recollected that, by the privilege which they had acquired of placing their steamers under the Belgian flag, they had gained an advantage over other British shipowners of 15 per cent. Besides that, let their Lordships reflect what a degradation it was for a British shipowner to repudiate the advantage of his own flag—to shelter himself and his cargo under the Belgian flag—and to renounce that glorious banner under which he had hitherto been proud to sail from the port of London. The case of Belgium is not one referred to by the petitioners; but it having come incidentally before me, I thought it was one which it was my duty to lay before your Lordships. In point of fact, whatever you may say of the determination of all other countries to follow your example, and to grant entire reciprocity, the countries are very few indeed with which you have that reciprocity, and those with whom you have not will be very slow to follow your example when they find that they can reap greater advantages without it. Now, take the case of Spain, and I hold in my hand a table of differential du- ties which were levied in Spain under the tariff of 1849:—

ARTICLES. National Ship. Foreign Ship.
Salt fish, imported into Spain, direct from the fisheries, per quint. of 101¾ lb. 0 7 3½ 0 10 0
Ditto, indirect, ditto 0 11 8 0 15 5
Bar or bolt iron, of not less than one inch diameter, ditto 0 8 4 0 10 0
Ditto, of less than one inch, ditto 0 10 0 0 12 0
Iron hoops, ditto 0 7 2¼ 0 8 7½
Earthenware, common, per arroba of 26 lb 0 8 4 0 10 0
Ditto, finer quality (china or porcelain), ditto 0 13 6½ 0 16 3
Raw cotton, from Spanish possessions, per quint. of 101¾ lb. 0 1 5½ 0 5 2½
Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto 0 3 1½ 0 7 3½
Rice, ditto 0 6 8 0 8 4
Loaf sugar, per arroba of 26 lb. 0 6 3 0 7 11
Raw sugar, from Spanish possessions, ditto 0 1 8 0 3 4
Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto 0 3 4 0 4 2
Cocoa, from Spanish possessions, per quint. Of 101¾lb. 0 4 2 0 10 5
Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto 1 9 2 1 17 6
Coffee, from Spanish possessions in America, ditto 0 6 8 0 12 11
Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto 0 16 8 1 5 0
Ditto, from Spanish possessions in Asia, ditto 0 2 11 0 11 8
Hides, from Spanish possessions, ditto 0 1 9 0 10 0
Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto 0 2 11 0 11 3

Thus you grant to Spain entire and complete reciprocity for all her vessels entering your ports, from whatever countries they may come; and the return which Spain makes to you is, that, instead of meeting you with that reciprocity which, considering the relative position of the two countries, it ought to be a greater advantage to her to grant than you to obtain, she gets the advantage of being admitted on a perfect equality to your ports, but for the back voyage subjects your freight to differential duties, varying from 50 to 100 per cent. I am not arguing as to the importance of the particular trade—I lay before you the facts of this case as a principle, which applies to a large equally with a small trade. In the course of two years, then, under your system, Spain has in- creased very nearly threefold in the amount of her direct traffic in Spanish vessels to the ports of this country. With regard to France, she, too, maintains as rigidly now as she did before the measure of 1849, the provisions of her navigation laws; and whilst from any ports of the world a French vessel may bring goods to any of the ports of this country, no British ship is permitted to take to the ports of France, though subjected to a differential duty, one single ton of foreign goods, unless direct from the port of the country in which those goods are produced. Nay, I believe that in point of fact British ships are not allowed to introduce any foreign goods whatever from any foreign port into the ports of France. Here is a case which I heard of only the other day. A British merchant in Brazil had a cargo of goods which he desired to send to France. He had a British vessel belonging to the trade with which he was connected lying in the port from which the cargo was to be sent; and it would have answered his purpose to have conveyed that cargo at 20s. a ton lower than a French vessel would charge. But though the cargo was his own, and the vessel was his own, and although the French and the English vessels would have sailed on equal terms if they went to England, he was debarred from shipping his own merchandise on board his own vessel, and was compelled to pay at the rate of 20s. a ton more for shipping it to a French port in a French vessel. Well, I ask if that be reciprocity? Is that the description of reciprocity that we had a right to expect, and which we were told by Her Majesty's Government we should obtain if we passed the Act of 1849? But there is one country with which it was said that we should have full and entire reciprocity—and there has been an enactment in the United States of America by which, as far as the letter is concerned, they do admit the principle of reciprocity. I cannot deny that, as far as the letter of the Act goes, the United States have given us reciprocity. They have thrown open the trade of their neutral ports; and we have given them full and free admission to all our colonial ports, as well as to the ports of this country; but the Americans have, in fact, no reciprocity to give us in this respect, inasmuch as they have no colonial possessions, one distant possession only excepted. One distant possession, however, they have—I mean California. We have retained in our own hands the coast- ing trade of this country, and of course nothing can be more fair than that the United States should retain to themselves the coasting trade of their country. But what is the clear definition of a coasting trade if it be not the intercourse of port with port of the same country, and through the waters belonging to that country? Now the Atlantic seaboard of the United States is infinitely more extensive than the British seaboard; nevertheless, the reciprocity would have been perfectly satisfactory if they had granted us communication between Boston and New Orleans, and we had granted them communication between Leith and London. But it seems to be a most extraordinary definition of a coasting trade when under the denomination of a coasting trade you include the voyage, not merely from Boston to New Orleans, but from New York to California—a voyage over one-half the globe, of four months' duration, and during the far greater portion of which the American ship is not in any waters which, by the utmost stretch of even American imagination, it can pretend to call its own. The voyage from New York to San Francisco occupies from four to five months, and because you do not allow the Americans to interfere in the traffic between Leith and London, and Dublin and Liverpool, they think it perfectly legitimate and right to say, that the voyage from New York to California is a sealed voyage to you, and shall be included in the coasting trade. I say it is a violation of the ordinary understanding of the term, and leads to the most important consequences. But that is not the only point in which America has refused us reciprocity. You admit American and all other foreign vessels to register as British vessels; but America will not allow your vessels to be registered as American, though it is of the utmost consequence to your North American colonies, who build cheap vessels, to be able to sell them in the United States, and to have them registered as United States vessels; but if you build vessels at Halifax or in the St. Lawrence, they are not permitted to register in the United States. Again, a British vessel sails from Liverpool with half her cargo for New York, and half for California. She arrives at New York and discharges the first part of her cargo there; but the other half for California she is not allowed to discharge. Now this is not the way in which we have dealt with America. We have given her full and entire communication with all our colonial possessions. An American vessel leaves New York, and goes from thence to California, and thence to China and the East Indies; at Calcutta she enters into competition with British vessels loading for this country; so that having already paid the whole of her freight by her first voyage, every iota of freight which she afterwards obtains is so much gain added thereto. She takes a cargo from the East Indies and brings it to this country, and here she loads again with a cargo of British manufactures for New York, and thus makes three distinct freights, the first of itself being sufficient to remunerate the owners for the whole passage, and from which we are debarred, whilst you make but two, which are between our own ports. Now this system affects competition all the world over, and it is, therefore, morally impossible for the merchants of this country to continue this competition without an alteration of these terms. I am told also, that the amount of freight has fallen in a most extraordinary degree, and more especially in the East Indian trade, under the pressure of this competition, in which one party is loaded with restrictions and burdens from which the other is free. Now, why is it that I call your Lordships' attention to this absence of reciprocity? It is because Parliament deliberately vested in your hands the remedy for any evils which might occur, or, at all events, the means of securing to yourselves an equal position in any foreign ports. It was at the request of Her Majesty's Government that the 11th section of chap. 29 of 12th and 13th Victoria was inserted, which is in these words:— And be it enacted, that in case it shall be made to appear to Her Majesty that British ships are cither directly or indirectly subject in any foreign country to any duties or charges of any sort or kind whatsoever from which the national vessels of such country are exempt, or that any duties are imposed upon articles imported or exported in British ships, which are not equally imposed upon the like articles imported or exported in national vessels, or that any preference whatsoever is shown either directly or indirectly to national vessels over British vessels, or to articles imported or exported in national vessels over the like articles imported or exported in British vessels, or that British trade and navigation is not placed by such country upon as advantageous a footing as the trade and navigation of the most favoured nation, then and in any such case it shall be lawful for Her Majesty (if she think fit), by Order in Council, to impose such duty or duties of tonnage upon the ships of such nation entering into or departing from the ports of the United Kingdom, or of any British possession in any part of the world, or such duty or duties on all goods, or on any specified classes of goods, imported or exported in the ships of such nation, as may appear to Her Majesty justly to countervail the disadvantages to which British trade or navigation is so subjected as aforesaid. We have now had eighteen months' experience of this Bill, and I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken, or if they intend to take any steps, for the purpose of exercising the power which was placed in their hands at their own desire by Parliament, and which, when it was so given to them, it was understood would not be allowed to remain a dead letter upon the Statute-book, to the infinite loss of the shipping and commercial interests of this country? I was told this morning—and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade can correct the statement if it be wrong—that within the last three or four days an American vessel, the Hortense, has received a sudden intimation from the Custom-house authorities at Liverpool that a differential duty of 20 per cent was to be imposed upon her cargo. Now, I wish to know of Her Majesty's Government what instructions have been issued with regard to the mode in which that differential duty is to be imposed. The Act of Parliament requires that it shall be imposed by Order in Council, and that that Order shall appear in two successive numbers of the London Gazette within fourteen days of the Order coming into force, and that then, if Parliament be sitting, it shall be laid on the tables of both Houses. If this be true, the duty has been levied contrary to the regulations of the Act of Parliament, and the effect must be injurious on the interest of the British Parliament. But that to which I think it most important to call your Lordships' attention—and I do it without making any Motion on the subject—is the enormous disadvantage to which the British merchant is subjected by the want of reciprocity in the ports of Foreign Powers, and to ask Her Majesty's Government how long this is to last, and whether they intend to place on Foreign Powers such restrictions as shall compel them to do justice, and no more than justice, and to obtain fair competition, and no more than fair competition, as between the vessels of this country and those of foreign countries?

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that in consequence of the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down, he should be compelled to lay before their Lordships a series of facts which would prove that the repeal of the navigation laws had not been injurious either to the mercantile or to the shipping interests. The result of the statements in the petition, and of the noble Lord's own remarks, was simply this, that our shipping interest was not able, without protection, to compete successfully with the foreign shipping interest, and that the difficulties with which our shipping interest had now to struggle, were increased and aggravated by our not meeting with reciprocity on the part of foreign nations. As the noble Lord laid most stress upon this latter point, he would take it first; and he would remind their Lordships that when Parliament repealed the navigation laws two years ago, it did not repeal a law common to all countries, but a law which had been enacted for this country some two centuries ago, and which had undergone constant modifications since it had been introduced. Our example in repealing that law had been followed by seven other countries. It became the duty of Her Majesty's Government, as soon as that Act was repealed, to communicate the fact to Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United States. Sweden at once announced her intention of removing all the restrictions of which this country complained. With regard to Holland, that country displayed a most liberal spirit in the negotiations which had passed on the subject. Holland was, in the first instance, anxious to retain certain privileges with regard to her colonial trade; but he (Earl Granville) was happy to say that within the last fortnight an official communication had been received stating that she was willing to admit British vessels on perfectly equal terms both in her home and colonial trade. These concessions were very much to her credit, and did much to impugn the opinion of Canning in one of his despatches, that the Dutch always asked for more than they could get, and always gave as little as they could. With respect to Belgium, he thought the noble Lord had fallen into a mistake. There certainly existed a difficulty in the proof as to whether the ship was a British or a Belgian ship; but it was true that goods carried to Belgium in Belgian ships were exempted to the extent, not of 15 per cent, but of 10 per cent, from the duty imposed on goods carried by foreign vessels. But what was the fact? England imposed double that amount of duty upon goods which arrived from Belgium. This was not done by an Order of Council, but was effected by a despatch of Mr. Canning, which imposed 20 per cent on all goods coming from that country. There could be no doubt that this state of things was most injurious to both countries. With respect to France, she had not altered the system of her navigation laws, which had been framed during the reign of Louis XIV.: the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord only proved how impolitic and injurious the system must be which deprived the two countries—England and France—of the best markets for their respective goods. This was the consequence of a most absurd provision contained in the late navigation laws; and although those laws were more injurious to France than to this country, yet it became the duty of the British Government to communicate with the French Government upon the subject, with a view to effecting a change in the commercial laws of the two countries, which should be mutually beneficial. Although the French Government was greatly hampered with duties, yet they at once assured Her Majesty's Government that they were desirous of meeting us in the most liberal spirit. This assurance had been given both verbally and by letter. In the last communication received from France, considerable concessions were made; but still Her Majesty's Government did not think they were sufficiently fair for them to accept; but the Foreign Office was even yet in expectation of further information on the subject. He really thought that France was not exactly an instance that could be quoted as evidence against the soundness of the principle of free trade; or that the success of her protective system could be regarded as of any especial value. If they considered the extent and riches of France—the long line of her seaboard, the excellence of her harbours, her great power, and her scientific skill in building of vessels, above all, the intelligence of her inhabitants; and then considered that within the last fifteen years not only had her general tonnage (including vessels down to ten tons' burden) increased only at the rate of about the one seventy-sixth part of the increase of the tonnage of this country, but that her number of vessels above 200 tons' power had actually diminished from what they were fifteen years ago. If they considered these facts he thought it must be admitted that protec- tion was not sufficient to create or to preserve a mercantile marine. He (Earl Granville) was one of those who thought that the prosperity of England would be increased by the prosperity of other countries; but those who entertained an opposite opinion ought devoutly to wish that France should continue not only to put a prohibitory duty on the importation of all finished articles, but on foreign machinery and on foreign shipping, and that she should persist in depriving herself of all the advantages which a free commercial intercourse with other countries would confer upon her; and that she should keep going on in the same miserable path that must for ever exclude her from all participation in the general mercantile traffic and carrying trade of the world. With regard to Portugal, negotiations were still pending, and he had reason to hope that they would finally arrive at a satisfactory issue. With respect to Spain, the question was more important. It was quite true that Spain imposed many restrictions upon our commercial intercourse with her. It must, however, be obvious, that it was quite as much the interest of Spain as of England that her present system should be changed, as it only operated to the advantage of the smuggler. But Spain was naturally slow to move, and it was much better to wait some time longer patiently, than to resort to expedients which would inflict great injury on Spain, while it would impose some additional inconvenience on ourselves. He now came to the United States; and this he considered to be really the only important part of the question. The United States was the only country that was at all a formidable rival with us in respect either to our commercial transactions or to our mercantile marine. The noble Lord had stated, and he (Earl Granville) could not deny it, that there was a disadvantage in British ships being forbidden the long voyage between the western ports and California. But the British merchant was not excluded from this voyage by the repeal of the navigation laws. The repeal of those laws had, in fact, given the British merchant an indirect foreign trade with California, and the other ports on the Pacific coast of America; and he was happy to know that the English shipowners had not neglected to avail themselves of that power. In their coasting trade, the United States of America included the whole line of seaboard from New York to California. Her Majesty's Government felt that, embracing as this did so extensive a reach of coast, there was some fair ground for an appeal to the generosity of the Government of the United States; but their Lordships knew very well that much was not to be obtained from the generosity of nations. No doubt, technically speaking, the United States was justified in treating the commerce carried on throughout that extended line as a coasting trade. California was a part of the United States; and, although it was a coasting trade on a very great scale, going as it did all round Cape Horn, yet New York was to California only what Calais was to Marseilles, or many Russian ports to those of the Baltic and the Black Sea. After all, this coasting trade, if conceded to British merchants, would not place them on an equal footing with the American merchants. The Americans would not have any assorted goods on board, but only the produce of their own country; while British ships would be subject to the delays incident to the having an assorted cargo. He believed the effect ultimately would be, the carrying of European goods direct to California through England. He had thus briefly noticed the various countries with which England had either actually entered into terms of commercial reciprocity, or with which Her Majesty's Government had negotiated with a view to come to an arrangement in accordance with that principle. They had perfect reciprocity with Sweden, with Belgium, and with Holland; and with regard to the United States, they had all that reciprocity which they had a right to expect. With regard to the point so strongly dwelt upon by the noble Lord as to the exclusion of British merchants from what was called the coasting trade of the United States, what was the remedy for the evil so complained of? Either Her Majesty's Government must engage in negotiations with the United States for the purpose of inducing that Government to give up what they claimed as their coasting trade—a course which would be contrary to the principles which the noble Lord had laid down; or else the shipowners must consider our coasting trade to include the colonial trade of England. The noble Lord must remember the address which came from Jamaica as to their being excluded from trading with other countries. The whole question was, however, one of great interest. He was himself of opinion that it would be the duty of the Government, if their negotiations with those countries which still refused to act upon terms of reciprocity should fail, to consider whether, even at some self-sacrifice, they should not exercise those means of coercion which were placed by Parliament within their power. But he trusted they would consider how much injury might be done to our commerce as well as to our power by any departure from a wise and sound principle. They would do well to remember that to a great commercial country like this, nothing was more important than that in all their commercial regulations they should have simplicity and uniformity. He would also have them consider how questionable might be the policy of making alterations in our commercial code in order to meet the impolitic laws of countries more backward than ourselves in the extent and in the knowledge of the principles which regulate trade and commerce. The noble Lord bad insinuated that the Government had neglected to institute negotiations in this respect. Now, he must remind the noble Lord of one difficulty which was in the way of Her Majesty's Government persuading other Governments to imitate the example of this country. It was impossible for the Government of any foreign country, when they saw a great and powerful party in this country, led by a man of such distinguished ability as the noble Lord himself, announcing to the public and to the world that every one of our great national interests were going to ruin in consequence of those very commercial principles and measures which the British Government were trying to induce that foreign country to adopt—it was impossible, he said, that the Government of such a country could fail to hesitate as to the course it should pursue, when so invited by us, although at the same time it might feel it somewhat difficult to reconcile the statements of that great political party with what they knew of our internal prosperity, our private revenues, and our extended commerce. Nevertheless, such statements must have sume influence upon foreign countries, especially when considering what commercial regulations they ought to make with a country in which there was a possibility of a party coming into power that might altogether set aside those regulations by the application of a totally different principle. He believed that there had been, both on the part of countries under free Governments and under despotic Governments, a tendency more favourable of late years to the admission of foreign goods. It was quite true that in the United States of America an attempt had been made to pass a tariff of a more stringent nature than at present existed; but that attempt had failed. The only inference he could draw from that was, that it was far easier for the Protectionist party to descant on the evils arising from the relinquishment of protection when in opposition, than to re-enact protective duties when in power. He would now address himself to the present state of the shipping interest. The shipowners affirmed that every prediction as to the disastrous consequences that would result from the repeal of the navigation laws had been completely verified. Before he entered into any statistical details, he would just observe generally that some of the objects of those who promoted the repeal of the navigation laws were—that by bringing foreigners to compete with us, a certain number of foreign vessels might he employed in our commerce; that, by bringing into use inferior and more economical ships of foreign build, our own shipowners would be stimulated to adopt the modern improvements which had been already adopted abroad; that the merchants would impose a stricter discipline on their crews, and improve their general character, so as to bring them up to the standard of the ships' crews of other countries. It was also thought that the British shipowners having their share in the foreign indirect trade to the United States, would be enabled to participate more largely in the advantages of what was called the long voyage. Equally great advantages, it was supposed, would be derived to the commerce of the country by the repeal of the navigation laws. He would now advert to the amount of tonnage employed in British commerce, both before and since the repeal of those laws. The noble Earl then read the following statement.—[See Table at foot of next column.] With regard to the amount of indirect trade, although it had increased, yet, unfortunately, they did not possess that description of information which was desirable upon that point; but arrangements had now been made by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office by which such information would be hereafter furnished. As a proof of the employment of British ships in trades which were closed to them before the repeal, the United States' shipping returns were important. They exhibited in the first six months of 1850, from January to June (the latest period to which the accounts were received), no less than 213 British ships, with a tonnage of 68,291, coming from third countries—which proved that the increased employment of British ships had been considerable. It was probable that similar results had been proved in other trades: 38,000 tons had been entered during the year into New York alone. He had several letters from consuls showing that from almost every port one or two ships were going on new destinations in consequence of the repeal of the navigation laws. 10,000 tons of shipping left the American coast for China during the first six months of the repeal; of these 7,000 tons were English shipping, and of the remaining 3,000 tons only 1,100 tons belonged to the United States. The list from New South Wales and Australia also swelled the return of our trade during the first four months of the repeal of the navigation laws. With regard to the outcry about the employment of foreign shipping in British trade, he considered it to be wholly unfounded. In 1850 there were entered inwards 31,249 ships of 6,113,396 tons; whereof 18,728 were English ships of 4,078,544 tons; foreign, 12,521 ships of 2,034,852 tons; that was in the first year after throwing open our ports; the proportion of foreign ships in our trade was about 40 per cent, and the tonnage about 32 per cent. Of the United States, in 1849, when they were protected against us in the indirect trade, the total numbers

STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH TONAGE IN THE FOREIGN TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
1848. 1849. 1850.
Tons. Tons. Tons.
Inwards 4,020,415 4,390,375 4,078,544
Outwards 3,553,777 3,762,182 3,960,764
Total 7,574,192 8,152,557 8,039,308
— 1850 compared with 1848. 1850 compared with 1849.
Increase. Increase. Decrease.
Tons. Tons. Tons.
Inwards 58,129 — 311,831
Outwards 406,987 198,582 —
Total 456,116 … 113,249

were—20,200 ships, whereof 11,208 were American; foreign, 8,992; showing that the proportion of foreign ships in this trade was 44 per cent. In the year ending June 30, 1850, the total number of ships was 18,512 of 4,348,639 tons, whereof 8,412 were American, of 2,573,016 tons; and 10,100 were foreign, of 1,775,623 tons; showing the proportion of foreign shipping to be 54 per cent, and the tonnage 41 per cent. The decrease in the United States shipping since the repeal was remarkable. On the 5th of June, 1849, inwards, 2,753,724 United States; foreign, 1,675,709: outwards, 2,658,321 United States; foreign, 1,710,515. June 5, 1850, inwards, 2,632,788 United States; foreign, 1,728,214; outwards, 2,573,016 United States; foreign, 1,775,623. It was thus seen that not only had the amount of our foreign tonnage increased, but that of United States tonnage had actually diminished—a result less favourable than our own returns exhibited. He might here state, that by a despatch which had been received from Philadelphia that day, it appeared that, in 1850, out of 129 vessels entered with cargoes, 18 only were in the indirect trade, being one in seven; but in the first four months of 1851, out of 50 vessels (a much larger proportion) 15 were of the indirect trade, being one in three. This showed an enormous accession to the employment of English shipping in the foreign trade. He would now turn to the question of the Indian trade, in which it was supposed the United States still entirely supplanted us. The table he held in his hand showed that at, all events the British shipping in that trade had not fallen off. The British ships inwards, within the limits of the East India Company's charter, were, in 1848, 387,772 tons; in 1849, 406,479 tons; in 1850, 442,793 tons. Outwards, in 1848, 453,128 tons; in 1849, 522,056 tons; and, in 1850, 562,495 tons. Now, after all, he did not mean to deny that there was some pressure upon the shipowners of this country; but he had in the first place to observe that that had nothing whatever to do with the repeal of the navigation laws; the pressure they had to sustain was in regard to the coasting trade of this country, in consequence of the competition with the internal communication by means of railways. There was also another point he was ready to admit, namely, that our second-rate vessels found a difficulty in obtaining freight; but that was a circum- stance which came under the same category with the case of the post-houses on the roads. Where an improved mode of communication was introduced, the less perfect system must necessarily give way. But of this he had no doubt, that with regard to the best class of ships, they found it easy to obtain freight in all the ports of the world, and that there was a great demand for such vessels. There were some other and minor objections urged against the policy of the Government. One was as to the mode of manning British ships, namely, the undue proportion of British subjects, whom our laws required to be employed. He did not wish to dwell upon that point; but he thought that concurrently with the repeal of the navigation laws Her Majesty's Government did right in proposing to throw open and admit a certain proportion of foreign seamen to be employed in manning British merchant vessels, though he could well understand the outcry which would have been made had they proposed to throw open the manning of British ships to all the world. Another point of complaint was the amount of the consular fees. Those fees had already been in some instances reduced by an Order in Council. Before he closed his remarks, he would just allude to one serious pressure upon the shipping interest, especially that of Liverpool, to which the petitioners had not referred. It was the conduct which had been pursued lately by a Mr. Lindsay, a gentleman who had written against the repeal of the navigation laws. He was a man of very great ability, and of considerable energy. He had found that, owing to the fact of London being the greatest market in the world, there was no difficulty in obtaining freight for ships in the London port. He also found that, Liverpool being situate in a manufacturing district, he could obtain goods there, and, by making arrangements with the railway companies, he could bring those goods to London and ship them there. This very year Mr. Lindsay had launched nine ships from 800 tons to 1,200 tons burden, and, in imitation of the practice observed in America, had, for the first time, engaged captains whom he had made partners in the concern. Mr. Lindsay had his ships built by contract. Considerable discussion on a former occasion took place in their Lordships' House upon that very subject. It was a matter of surprise to many that a ship could be built cheaper in America than in England, notwithstanding the materials were dearer in that country than in this. The only way for accounting for it was, that the shipowners in America ordered their ships to be built by contract—a system totally unknown in this country. As far as he (Earl Granville) knew, Mr. Lindsay had adopted that plan with great success. Now, this he certainly did consider to be a very serious competition for Liverpool to have to encounter. He was informed, but he could hardly believe it, that the Liverpool merchants had begun to sign a memorial in order to prevent the London and North-Western Railway carrying goods so cheaply in this country. He hoped, if that were really the case, they would be met in the same way as his noble and gallant Friend and the owners of the collieries in the north were met when they sought to deprive the public of the great advantages of competition in the conveyance of coal to the metropolis. If such a step were indeed to be taken by the merchants of Liverpool, he had no doubt they would be met by the same energy and ability as Mr. Lindsay and the shipowners of Southampton had already displayed. He might mention another case; for since this question had been brought forward, it was important that it should be examined in all its details. Mr. Duncan of Dunbar, who was one of our greatest shipowners, a strong opponent of the repeal of the navigation laws, and who gave evidence before the Committee against that measure, represented himself to be the owner of 15,000 tons of shipping—a very respectable position for any man to hold. He (Earl Granville) had been informed that the tonnage which that gentleman now owned, notwithstanding the repeal of the navigation laws, was something like 30,000 tons. He might mention another instance—he meant the case of a most respectable shipowner—Mr. Wigram. That gentleman stated that if the navigation laws were repealed, he should remove his business from this country; but what had he done? He had not only not abandoned his shipbuilding yard in the Thames, but had established another yard, where he was building a steamer of 2,500 tons burden, and carrying on a much larger amount of business than before the repeal took place. He (Earl Granville) was perfectly convinced that whatever might have been, or still might be, the struggle which the alterat on of the law might for a time subject the shipowners to, that that struggle would be triumphantly passed over, and would not, as was predicted, necessarily end in the defeat of any party. But if, contrary to all his expectations, speaking as he did with full confidence in the great energy, the large capital, and the ability of his countrymen, the end of that struggle should be that the shipping interest of this country should fall an easy prey to the foreigner, then, he knew not whether it was prejudice on his part as an Englishman, but he should certainly think that they had lost all their character for commercial enterprise. There was one point he wished to mention, which had come to his knowledge that day. He had received from the Registrar of Seamen information that between 7,000 and 8,000 apprentices had been bound, notwithstanding the law was no longer compulsory, within the last sixteen months. He would now turn to the case of the shipbuilders. It was predicted at the time of the repeal of the navigation laws that it would be quite impossible that the shipbuilders could go on building ships. Now, the number and tonnage of vessels built and registered in the United Kingdom in 1849 was 730 ships, the tonnage being 117,953, and the average tonnage 161; while the number and tonnage of vessels built in 1850 were 689 ships, 133,695 tons, and the average 194; showing an increase of tonnage on shipbuilding during the last year, of something like 16,000 tons. He found that the amount of increase in foreign shipbuilding was about 10,000 tons during the same period. He might here add that he had received an account from the Swedish Consul, that ten out of every twelve vessels belonging to Sweden came from this country. There was, in fact, a new trade springing up with regard to shipbuilding. Not only were steamers being built for foreign Governments, but there was a large demand coming from foreign countries for iron vessels. He found by the circular of Messrs. Tonge, Curry, & Co., of Liverpool, that there had been a great increase in the amount of tonnage sold by them during the past year over that of the year 1849. He had been informed by a friend who was on a Committee of the House of Commons on another subject, that evidence had been given before that Committee that such was the prosperity of the shipbuilding, and the amount of work going on in the shipyards, that it was impossible to find a shipbuilder who would bind himself by contract to build and deliver a ship at any given time. When on this point, he could not help reminding the noble Lord that the great principle which guided the Legislature was to encourage to the utmost possible degree the interests of the great bulk of the community, and not the interest of any particular class; and, therefore, if he had been able to show, partly by the statements of the noble Lord, and partly by those made by himself, that there was at the present moment more British shipping employed than before, that there was a greater demand for that shipping, and that the commercial and manufacturing classes were able to send their goods more economically, and with greater despatch, then he had done enough to establish his case; but if he added to this that the shipowners were extending their business in every direction, that the ship carpenters and builders were in a singularly prosperous condition, then he thought he was entitled to say that he had placed the matter beyond the possibility of doubt; nor were his views at all shaken by the statement that the shipowners themselves said that freights were low, and that they were in great distress. No man could have greater respect than he had for the shipowners of this country. He know well that they had already conferred great advantages on the country, and he was persuaded that they were destined to confer upon it advantages still greater; but it was because he compared the energy and ability with which they conducted their business with the tone in which they addressed Parliament, that he had come to the conclusion there was something of a conventional tone in those complaints with which they were accustomed to load their addresses. In the first place, it was to be noted that they did not represent themselves as prosperous before the recent change took place. Every shipowner that came before their Lordships' Committee, with the exception of one gentleman, stated that they were in a most depressed condition; and one of the most strenuous advocates against repeal said he was glad to take that opportunity of solemnly recalling on oath what he had said before the Committee of the House of Commons, that for twenty-five years the shipping interest of this country had lost one-half of their capital, and received but little interest for the remainder. He believed they would find it common to almost every individual, and every class, that they liked to have an opportunity of indulging in what was the universal and useful privilege of grumbling. He appealed to their Lordships whether they were not accustomed to hear their banker, their lawyer, their physician, always setting forth that prices were falling, that competition was becoming ruinous, that they were seriously thinking of giving up business, and that they could not imagine what was to become of their children. Was there any one great and flourishing interest in the country from which they were not in the habit of hearing such complaints? The gigantic cotton trade had been more querulous and complaining than any other; and from those engaged in the silk, the leather, the iron trade, and indeed every department of industry, there came the same sounds of grumbling and discontent. No doubt it was the duty of that House to consider the complaints that arose from every interest in the country, and he felt that they owed a debt of thanks to the noble Lord for having brought the present question before the House. He was glad that the country had an opportunity of calmly considering and discussing the questions raised as to the alleged melancholy state of the shipping interest, as represented by one of the ablest and most distinguished Parliamentary debaters. He was glad the noble Lord had given an opportunity of fully discussing that question; but what he most felt the advantage of was, that not one single word had fallen from the noble Lord that could delude the shipowners into the fallacious hope that there was the slightest likelihood of a return to the system from which this country had departed. His firm belief was, that if the shipowners succeeded when they were in a transition from a state of monopoly to one of perfect freedom, it was not because they had any hope of realising a change at the hands of the Legislature, but because they depended on their own energy and perseverance; and he had the utmost confidence that by this wise course they would not only confer great advantages upon the country, but secure largo and increasing profits for themselves.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

, after presenting petitions from shipowners of Dartmouth, Sunderland, and Middlesbrough, and of the Committee of the General Shipowners' Society of London, complaining of the repeal of the navigation laws, proceeded to say he felt it unnecessary to enter into the details of those petitions, as they resembled very much the statements contained in the petition which had been presented by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley); but he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words in answer to the able speech of the noble Earl (Earl Granville). He did not think, from the speech of the noble Earl opposite, that the shipowners of this country could have the slightest hope that it was the intention of the Government to exercise the power placed in their hands of dealing with the question of reciprocity in the manner in which the Act of Parliament enabled them to do. He never heard a speech that tended so little to raise the spirits of a drooping interest as that of his noble Friend. He had told them that they were endeavouring to negotiate with foreign nations; but that, in the event of those negotiations failing, the public must not expect that Government would exercise any powers they possessed for the benefit of the shipping interest. Let their Lordships remember that in this question, having reference to the manufacturing, the agricultural, and the commercial interests of this country, there was this great feature—that they were carrying on an experiment on a great and wealthy country, which might be able to endure the trial for a time, but which would ere now have crushed and broken down a Power less able to sustain it. We might subtract from a large heap of gold for some time, without any apparent diminution; but from a small heap it was missed at once. He held in his hand a, document referring to the state of trade during the three months ending May, 1850, and the three months ending May, 1851, from which he would read an extract. Whilst the British shipping entered inwards had increased 21 per cent, the French shipping had increased 19 per cent. Clearing outwards, whilst our shipping increased 8 per cent, France increased 13 per cent, Russia 340 per cent, Sweden 192 per cent, Norway 159 per cent, Prussia 241 per cent, Holland 111 per cent—all these nations thus increasing in a vastly larger proportion than ourselves. See what they had done by the repeal of the navigation laws in advancing the trade of America! Though the repeal of the navigation laws had nothing to do with the opening of the American trade to California, yet it would enable the Americans to do what they never could have done before; namely, after going from New York to California, the freight of the voyage clearing the whole of the expenses, the American ship might proceed to China, there take in a cargo of teas, bring them to England, and return to New York, thus making the entire round of the world. Formerly the Americans were completely excluded from that trade; the whole of it was in the possession of British shipping, and it was considered to be an important voyage, not only for the merchant, but for the seamen. It was the voyage in which, next to the coasting trade, the best seamen were reared. The American vessel could now go from New York to California, and on to Calcutta, and get 6l. or 8l. a ton for that voyage; from Calcutta to England the same vessel might get 11. 5s. or 1l. 10s. a ton; and from England to New York, 15s. a ton; the entire voyage occupying about 14 months. The English vessel went from Liverpool to India for 20s. or 25s. a ton, whore the American vessel came into competition with it, so that the American vessel started with an advantage of 6l. 10s. a ton, against 20s. or 25s. a ton. When his noble Friend said they had not done anything by the repeal of the navigation laws to improve the state of the shipping in America, he was not aware of what was going on in America in relation to the extraordinary trade of California. The stimulus that, together with the repeal of the navigation laws, had been given by that trade to the shipping interest of America, was such as must astonish every one. When first the trade to San Francisco was opened to the American shipping, they got rid of the whole of their old ships by sending them there for their full value, knowing they would never return. At that moment there were six hundred of those vessels rotting at San Francisco, and the remainder were employed in the coasting or whaling trade. In one year there were 1,100 new vessels built, and there were now on the stocks 1,100 more American ships, all rendered necessary by the combined action of the Californian trade and the repeal of the navigation laws. By that means, therefore, there were 2,000 or 3,000 new ships going to all parts of the world to enter into competition with them; and that vast increase of vessels would tend to reduce the rates of freights below what they are at present. The conduct of the Government and their mode of dealing with the question must be unsuccessful, and tend very much to the injury of British shipping. He had no doubt the advantages they had given to foreign nations in competition with their own, would tend gradually to reduce the British shipping, and it would no longer be able, in such a state of things, to contend with foreign shipping. He had no doubt that a stimulant had been given by the repeal of the navigation laws; there was always at first in such cases a great stimulant given from the great pressure that must ensue, and persons tried to relieve themselves by new expedients, hoping always for a better state of things; but that would not last long—it could not be borne beyond a certain period; and when they looked to the situation a shipowner might be placed in, in reference to the outward trade, it was evident the state of things could not be long maintained. He would mention an instance where the expenses cost the merchant 2,174l., while the sum realised by the outward freight amounted only to 779l., leaving a large balance against the merchant. If they took the case of an American ship with the same freight, they would find that the owner would be paid the whole of his expenses. He would give another instance where the cost was 2,416l., and the freight 911l., leaving a balance against the merchant of 1,300l. There was no subject that more required the attention of the Legislature; there were no persons who more required the protection of the Government than the shipowners, who merely asked for a system of reciprocity that would give them a fair field and no favour. He had not yet said a single word with respect to the position in which the country might be placed at a future time with reference to their military defences. If they found from the progress of mercantile transactions that there was a falling-off in the maritime mercantile force of the country, they had drawn upon themselves a state of things that might involve the country in a most difficult situation. He believed it was the opinion of their ancestors that those laws were chiefly enacted as laws of a defensive character, and the repeal of them was unsought for and unasked for by the people of this country.

EARL GREY

said, that although he had no desire to continue the discussion in the absence of the noble Lord who had began it, or to occupy the time of their Lordships at that hour of the evening, particularly after the admirable speech of his noble Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who had left little for him to say, he trusted their Lordships, even at that hour, would allow him to say a few words with regard to what had fallen from his noble and gallant Friend who had just sat down. And, first, he could not help con- gratulating their Lordships and his noble Friend opposite on his candid admission that the alteration of the navigation laws was calculated to give a great stimulus to the commerce of the world; and if it gave a great stimulus to the commerce of the world, it followed pretty clearly that this, the first commercial nation in the world, could not fail to have its full share of it. The noble Lord had given them very gloomy anticipations, founded upon particular instances of losing voyages; but they were instances to which he (Earl Grey) attached very little importance, for he believed in every description of commerce it was not very difficult to find individual transactions of a losing character. They must look to the general result of the whole to form an opinion; and on that point his noble and gallant Friend opposite had not attempted to shake the arguments of his noble Friend near him: he did not attempt to show it was not true, that all their great shipowners were extending their business most rapidly, and improving the size and number of their vessels. If it were a losing trade, he (Earl Grey) could not believe that was the conduct which those very intelligent Englishmen would pursue. He could quite understand that, in the case of a ruinous opposition, those embarked in a trade, and having a large capital invested in it, and not having the means of withdrawing from it, should endeavour to do the best they could; but he could not certainly believe that men with their eyes open would rush blindly into a losing trade, increase the number of their ships, and build new ships, to engage in a business they believed to be a ruinous one. If it were a losing business, it was certainly rather strange that one man should have in a short time doubled his tonnage by raising it from 15,000 to 30,000 tons, and that another should have added in a single year nine first-class vessels to those he already possessed. The noble Lord had pointed out the great disturbance in the trade of the world occasioned by means of California, where there was suddenly created a large community: no doubt this would be attended with great results, and American vessels might in the first instance have made large freights by carrying goods to California, and there might consequently be a difficulty in getting remunerative freights to Europe from that part of the world; but he (Earl Grey) could not understand how that affected the question of the navigation laws. After all, he believed that this country had shared to no inconsiderable extent in the benefits of the Californian trade. No doubt that many vessels had gone from New York to California: but from the accounts that had reached him, he believed that no inconsiderable number had gone from England to the same destination. In that trade, of all others, in which, according to his noble Friend opposite, the Americans had a great superiority, a very large proportion of the tonnage belonged to English ships. Of 8,300 tons of shipping that had cleared out from Hong-Kong to California, 6,800 tons were British, and only one-half the remainder was American. With regard to America, he thought they possessed fully every advantage that they gave. It was true that the trade between New York and California did give an advantage to the Americans; but, on the other hand, American ships could not be drawn to that trade without making a large opening for the British in other trades, and especially in the trade from Brazil and Spain to the United States. In point of fact, it was notorious that a very large portion of that trade had fallen to the lot of the British shipping. Therefore, with regard to America, they really did enjoy reciprocity. The noble Lord had also complained that, as regarded France and Spain, they did not enjoy reciprocity. He (Earl Grey) admitted that the regulations maintained by France and Spain were regulations contrary to the true spirit of fairness—regulations of which they had the utmost right to complain; and he conceived they were entitled to adopt any measures consistent with their own interest to get rid of them. But what they had to consider was not merely whether France or Spain had acted fairly by them in establishing those regulations; they had also this further question to consider—did those regulations affect them as much as they affected those countries themselves; and, on the other hand, would they, by retaliatory measures, do more harm to themselves than to those countries? That appeared to him a very serious question. When the retaliatory clauses were introduced into the Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws, it was understood that the Government were to make use of the power conferred on them if a case arose, on which undoubtedly that power ought to be exerted. If he remembered rightly, it was urged distinctly at the time that the clause was inserted with this object, that if it were found that British shipping, from the competition of other countries in consequence of this measure, was suffering, and if it were also found that by using those powers the injury to their own shipping would be done away with, then the power was to be employed; but Parliament clearly proceeded on the principle that they would not require in all cases an exact reciprocity from all nations. The principle of the Act was, that they made concessions which they thought were advantageous to themselves, fully and entirely to every nation of the world; and they merely reserved to themselves the power, in case they found it disadvantageous to themselves hereafter, to use those retaliatory clauses. Now let them see whether the conduct of those two foreign countries had been more injurious to themselves or to this country, and whether the evil to this country would be mitigated by following their example. With regard to Spain, the grievance is that high differential duties are placed on all articles if imported in British instead of in national ships. No doubt the operation of that law was very injurious. The British shipowner now and then lost an advantageous voyage; but, as the noble Lord bad said, the whole trade with Spain was, after all, an inconsiderable object. They might impose, no doubt, countervailing duties upon goods going to Spain from this country in Spanish vessels, but what would be the result? Simply to put an end to the trade altogether. It would be an injury to their manufacturers and merchants; but that it would have any effect on any interest in Spain, except that of the smuggler, he really could not see. Then, with regard to France, that country maintained, he admitted, regulations of a most absurd character, copied from our own old navigation system. France refused to receive the produce of Asia, Africa, or America, if imported from England; and what was the practical operation of that rule? It was this, that the French merchant or manufacturer, if he had an opportunity of buying cheap cotton or indigo in London or Liverpool, the greatest markets in the world, was prevented from doing so; and so with timber. If an English ship visited the Baltic, it could bring home a load of timber at a cheap rate; but the French shipbuilder could not take advantage of that circumstance. The loss to the English shipowner was merely occasional; it was the chance of making a less profit; but the loss to France was that the French manufacturer was deprived of an enormous advantage in obtaining the raw materials for carrying on trade on the best terms, and the French trade in every direction was checked. In like manner as regarded their colonial trade, they were not allowed by the French law to carry any commodity between France and her Colonies, or from other countries to the French Colonies; and the effect was that the French Colonies, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure by which it was attempted to bolster them up, were dragging on a sickly and miserable existence. The Algerian territory, highly endowed by nature, possessing every possible advantage that nature could confer on it, and on which millions upon millions had been spent by the French, was merely a source of enormous expense: that great country, in the time of the Roman emperors, was one of the most productive portions of the then civilised world; but now, instead of making the progress we saw in our own colonies, and day by day starting into increased activity, and carrying on a larger commerce with France and with the world, it was only a source of expense to France. Of course they might say that French vessels should not carry produce to the British Colonies; but the effect of that would be but a very trifling injury to the French shipowner, for he was already excluded from that trade by competition against which he could not make head: and so far as the colonies were concerned, it would deprive them occasionally of the opportunity of getting certain goods at a cheaper rate which French ships would convoy to them. In his (Earl Grey's) opinion the power with which Parliament had invested Her Majesty's Government was one to be used when there was reason to apprehend any danger from the competition to which British shipping was exposed by countries of whose measures they had a right to complain. With regard to France and Spain, he had only to say that the British shipowners had no reason to complain. The competition between them was like the race between the tortoise and the hare. Spain had no mercantile marine, and France was little better. To show that, he begged to refer to official accounts of the French mercantile marine. He would not trouble their Lordships with details, but there was one fact that was striking. He found that the French commercial navy possessed, in 1839, one ship, and one ship only, exceeding 800 tons in burthen; in 1849 that one solitary 800-ton ship had disappeared from the list of the French commercial navy; in 1839 France possessed altogether five ships exceeding 600 tons burthen, and carrying a collective tonnage of 3,760 tons; in 1849 the French mercantile navy still possessed five ships exceeding 600 tons in burthen, but those ships, in 1849, carried only 3,609 tons, being actually, in ten years, a diminution of 160 tons. It appeared that the whole amount of the French mercantile ships of the first class were exceeded by rather more than one-third by the additional ships added in this very last year by one British shipowner to his fleet:—in the course of the last year Mr. Lindsay had added nine ships of upwards of 800 tons each to his fleet, so that in that time he had built nearly three times as much tonnage as the first-class ships of the French mercantile marine possessed altogether. Therefore, to talk of competition between the French and English mercantile marine in the general trade of the world, was absurd. With respect to the direct trade between France and England, retaliatory measures would have no effect whatever. All they could do would be to stop that trade entirely. If they were to imitate France, and establish the same sort of restrictions on trade as she had established, they would no doubt effectually destroy all the legitimate trade with France, but would gain no advantage in competition. He was persuaded that the best way of freeing their commerce with France from the vexatious restrictions to which it was now subject, was by adhering, in matters connected with the navigation laws, to the policy adopted by them in regard to other commercial matters. He would remind their Lordships that of late years they had altered the duties paid on foreign produce, with reference to their own interests exclusively, and without any consideration as to whether they would admit our produce on equal terms; but formerly it had been an axiom that a different policy should be pursued, and it was said to be the only wise policy to give additional facilities to foreign trade only on their granting similar facilities to us. It was, indeed, so generally received a maxim, that it was seldom questioned until some eight or nine years ago, when in two successive Sessions the subject was brought before the House of Commons by an hon. Friend of his (Mr. Ricardo), who exposed with the greatest ability and success the fallacy of the notions on which that policy was based; and though he did not induce the other House of Parliament to concur with him in the formal Resolution he proposed, he had the satisfaction from that time to see that an impression was made upon public opinion, and that the Administration of Sir Robert Peel (of which the noble Lord who began this discussion was a Member) acted more and more upon the principle of making relaxation of duties utterly irrespective of whether foreign nations would reciprocate them or not. The result had been beyond measure successful; for whereas, during a quarter century before, we had been engaged in endless negotiations with foreign countries to get rid of restrictions upon trade injurious to both parties, and without making the slightest progress, but, on the contrary, restrictions seemed rather to multiply than otherwise; since then, not only our own commerce had made a more extraordinary and unparalleled advance than it had ever made before, but, more than that, foreign nations were beginning—with hesitating steps to be sure—but still they were beginning to follow our example. The alterations made by foreign countries, though not extensive, all tended to a reduction of the duties which obstructed trade. But more than this, it was beginning to be very obvious that the nations who refused to follow in this course would be left further and further behind in the general race of competition amongst the nations of the civilised world. While he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that it was desirable that France and Spain should relieve our navigation from the restrictions to which it was at present subject, he was persuaded that we should best arrive at that result by the operation of that irresistible compulsion which was already beginning to toll upon them; and that, unless they imitated our example, they would be left so immeasurably behind in the race of competition that the most ordinary regard for their own interest would compel them to relax their restrictive laws. No doubt, public opinion in France had been hitherto very averse to making any change of this description; but we must remember that her navigation law was intimately connected with her general commercial system—it was a part of a system so inge- niously absurd, and yet so intimately connected in all its parts, that it was scarcely possible to touch one part of it without the whole fabric falling to the ground. Her whole commerce and industry were so bound down in every direction by restriction, in the name of protection, that, if she touched one part of this system, he did not think it was possible for her to avoid altering the whole. Now, did their Lordships think that a people like the French would not open their eyes to what was going on around them in the world—that they would not compare the progress of their own country with that of other countries, and would not see that a flourishing commercial marine can only be possessed by a country which possesses a generally flourishing commerce, and that the miserable state of their mercantile marine was the natural consequence of the diminution of their commerce. It was most remarkable how the whole commerce of France was languishing under the system which was now pursued. There was no fairer test of the general state of the commerce of a country than to take the total amount of the tonnage of the ships both national and foreign, which entered her ports from foreign countries. Now if that test were applied to England and to France, the contrast between the progress of the two countries during the last few years would appear extraordinary. He would take as the points of comparison, 1842 (the year in which England first began decidedly to relax her former prohibitive system), and 1849, which was the last year for which he possessed the requisite returns. In 1842, the tonnage entered inwards and outwards in France was 3,247,000 tons; while in 1849 it was 3,375,000—showing an increase of only 128,000 tons. While France was advancing thus slowly, what was the case of England? In England there was entered inwards and outwards in 1842 7,347,000 tons; and in 1849, 12,620,000—or an increase during the seven years of 5,273,000 tons. While the commerce of France had, therefore, during the seven years, increased 4 per cent, that of England had increased 71 per cent. [A Noble LORD remarked that we had had no revolution.] It was certainly true that we had had no revolution; but he would remind the noble Lord that the consequences of that revolution showed rather favourably than otherwise for France in the compari- son which he had instituted; for we knew that, at the end of 1848, after the election of a President, and from various circumstances, confidence was restored, and trade made a great spring, so that 1849 was reckoned, as regarded France, rather a favourable year; but as regarded England, it was by no means so favourable a year as 1850, or that which was just beginning. In 1849, the results of the disastrous famine in Ireland, and of the railway speculation, had not entirely passed away, and that year was by no means a prosperous one for England. But even this would give a very inadequate view of the relative commercial progress, and the advance in wealth made by the two countries. Compare them in other respects—in England we saw every description of manufacturing industry and mercantile business advancing, increasing, extending; we saw our railway communication in progress of being completed entirely by private enterprise; docks upon a gigantic scale constructing, and fixed capital being invested in public works of immense importance. In France, on the other hand, there was nothing but stagnation. Her system of railway communication was advancing only slowly to completion, and that slow advance was mainly due to the assistance of the State; there were no public works of any great importance being carried on by private enterprise, and stagnation pervaded every branch of her industry. Was this a state of things to which France was likely long to submit? It was not difficult to trace the causes why her commerce and her commercial marine were in the state he had described. He believed that under a restrictive system every trade was exposed to great disadvantages, and a commercial country, though it might by protection compensate to its merchants and manufacturers, as regarded the home trade, for the disadvantages under which they suffered, had no means of doing that as regarded the foreign trade. In neutral markets they must meet the competition of the world. The French Legislature and Government had no means of preventing the Lyons manufacturer or the Bordeaux wine-grower from being met in the markets of America and England, or in other parts of the 'world, by the manufacturers of other countries, or by the wine-growers of Spain and Portugal; and how was it possible but that a nation which raises the first cost of the elements of her commerce should compete unsuccess- fully in the markets of the world? A few years ago it was supposed impracticable for the English silk manufacturers to compete, even at home, with the French manufacturers. But now, in many branches of the silk manufacture, the English were successfully rivalling their competitors in the neutral markets of the world, and were exporting largely to Brazil and America. Could they suppose, when the English manufacturer was struggling with the difficulties which beset him when first commencing business, that he was not greatly assisted by the extra expense imposed upon the French manufacturer by the laws of that country? And we knew that, even with all the disadvantages to which they were still liable, such was their taste in design that many descriptions of French cottons, of the most ornamental kinds, partially competed with our own. Was it not, then, a great advantage to the English manufacturer, in competing with the manufacturer of Rouen, that the price of the motive power of the Frenchman's steam engine was raised 20 or 30 per cent by the duties imposed upon coals, which, but for this, might be delivered to him as cheaply' as to his English rival. Was it of no advantage to the English manufacturer that every machine made by his French rival was greatly increased in cost by the enhancement of the price of iron, consequent upon the duties imposed by the French tariff? or that, by the navigation laws of France, the manufacturer of that country was prevented from obtaining his raw material, cotton or silk, from the cheapest market and by the cheapest conveyance, and from purchasing his cotton or his indigo, for example, where it could be bought at the greatest advantage, and from whence it could be brought to him at the lowest rate? He was convinced that these were facts which could not fail, sooner or later, to produce their effects on the public mind of France; and it was not by copying their unwise example, and placing now restrictions on our own trade, which would hurt ourselves far more than the French, that we could induce them to remove the restrictions of which we complained. He would say more—he would say, with his noble Friend (Earl Granville) that if we looked at France with the eyes of commercial jealousy—if we wished her to be kept behind in the general advance of the civilised world, and desired that her progress in the direction in which we were making such giant strides should be retarded—we should most earnestly desire that the restrictions by which she now fettered her industry should be maintained. But he had no such wish. On the contrary, he was most anxious to see France advance like ourselves in wealth and in commercial prosperity. He knew that the consequences of her doing so might be that in some branches of the commerce of the world, in which she had a natural superiority, she would vanquish our manufacturers, and drive them, perhaps, from some fields of production which they now partially occupied. But he knew also that she would only do this by driving us into other branches of trade in which we had the superiority, and that the result would be for the benefit of both. He knew that France could not relieve her own trade and become more wealthy and prosperous without becoming a better customer to us; and he knew, too, that in the markets of the world there was a demand for the produce of both countries as unlimited as the wants of mankind, so long as we continued to let every nation pay us for what we took from them by that which they could best afford to send us. He was indeed aware that France, with her extensive and productive territory, her numerous, industrious, ingenious, and persevering people, could not fail to advance most rapidly in wealth, if their industry was relieved from the restrictions which now pressed upon it. And with her wealth, no doubt, her power would increase, too—for, in this age of the world, naval and military power was to no slight degree a question of wealth. But he had no jealousy on that score. He knew that if France thus increased her wealth and power, she would, at the same time, increase the interest which she would have in the maintenance of the peace of the world, and would give us a new security against the recurrence of that greatest of all calamities, war. He felt confident that this would be the case; and it was on that ground that he earnestly hoped and trusted that France would at no distant period follow our example, and relieve her trade with us from the restrictions to which it was now exposed. Certain he was that the wise policy for us was to wait with patience until this took place, and to abstain at all events from attempting any measures of retaliation until we saw practically that we were suffering in competi- tion with that country, and that the retaliatory measures we might adopt would be calculated to relieve our own fellow-subjects from any disadvantages to which they were at present unfairly exposed.

LORD COLCHESTER

said, that as both the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who addressed them at an earlier part of the evening, had both admitted the vexatious character of the restrictions imposed by France upon our trade, and the want of reciprocity on her part, and had stated that, when the proper time came to act on that opinion, they would be prepared to take such steps as were necessary to enforce reciprocity, he thought that point would be best left to the discretion of the Government. The noble Earl the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had stated that the predictions of those who opposed the repeal of the navigation laws had failed in every particular; and he grounded his assertion on the fact that the general commerce of the country had increased since the repeal of these laws. That fact could not be denied; but the repeal of the navigation laws was opposed not so much as a matter of commercial policy as because of the injurious effect it would have upon our means of defence. Since the repeal of the navigation laws, too, the tonnage of British ships employed in the direct trade had fallen off, while the foreign tonnage had largely increased; and this was not so much in the American marine as in that of the northern nations, who could build and navigate their ships most cheaply. The noble Lord indeed said that the British tonnage employed in the indirect trade had increased, but there were no documents or returns to prove this; and it must also be remembered that, since the repeal of the navigation laws, a large indirect trade had sprung up between the miners of California and China—an event which could not be foreseen by those who opposed that measure. The noble Earl also said that the character of the seamen and masters of merchant vessels had improved since the repeal of the navigation laws; but he (Lord Colchester) thought that this improvement should be ascribed rather to the Mercantile Marine Act than to the repeal of the navigation laws, which it preceded in point of time.

Petitions ordered to lie on the table.

House adjourned to Thursday next.

Back to