The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, he had to present to their Lordships an important petition, signed by 400 shipowners of the North of England and the port of Shields, stating the large capital they had employed in the shipping trade, and especially in the carrying trade of the northern coal, in which they employed between two and three thousand seamen. (Minutes of Proceedings, 55.) They complained, in the first instance, that the alteration in the navigation laws had created severe depression in their home and foreign trade. In the home trade, however, and especially in sea-borne coals, they did not fear any competition, provided the Legislature would place their interest on a just and equitable footing. But there existed a very prejudicial interference by the directors of railways along the coast running to towns where traffic had been carried on hitherto by the coasting vessels, but which could no longer sustain a contest with the railways. The directors charged extremely high rates of toll where they had no competition, and extremely low ones on the same kind of traffic where they had to compete with the shipowners. It was quite evident that, if no measures could be adopted to arrest this prejudice to the carrying shipping trade of the north, this great nursery of seamen would infallibly dwindle away. In the early age of railways, he remembered predicting in that House—and he thought he had a right to claim credit for having done so—that, without some specific laws, the time would arrive when railroads, even at great distances, would knock up our mercantile marine as to sea-borne coals. This prediction, he remembered, was ridiculed at the moment; but the time was fast approaching when his words would be fulfilled, and unless the Legislature interfered, the shipowners in the north would be speedily and irremediably ruined. With regard to the immediate object of the present complaint, it was especially against the Great Northern Railway. That company had obtained liberty to charge higher tolls, and they exercised this right most unjustly. They had entered into arrangements with the Yorkshire collieries, and refused to furnish facilities except to favoured parties, which amounted to prohibition. It was not that there was, in his opinion, even now, the smallest danger of any inland coals carried by railway competing with the sea-borne coal by the northern 1043 ships, if the latter were fairly dealt with; but their Lordships would observe, that sea-borne coals were subject to heavy charges for lights and municipal dues, from which inland coals carried by railway were free. Certainly, in London (owing to the exertions of Sir Robert Peel), and within 20 miles round the city, the city dues had been equalised; but still the sea-borne coal was subject to other heavy charges from which inland coal was exempt. The railways now charged on their traffic upon their lines to London, several shillings a ton more dues to places 30 or 40 miles north of London, than they did to London itself. Surely, then, there ought to be some scale of proportionate uniform charge, regulated upon principles of fairness and justice. Admitting, to the fullest extent, the importance of cheap fuel, it was unwise and impolitic unfairly to tax the best article, as it was impolitic to break up, by permitting such proceedings, their mercantile marine of the north. The petitioners further hoped that, as seamen were employed for the national safety, they would not be sacrificed to the treachery of railway directors.
§ The EARL of HARDWICKErose, not so much to support the prayer of the petition, as to congratulate the noble Marquess that his opinions on the subject of the navigation laws appeared to have undergone some change.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYI beg to say that there never was a more mistaken idea. I voted against the change in the navigation laws, and I have seen no reason to believe that in doing so I acted unwisely.
§ The EARL OF HARDWICKEwas delighted to find that he had misapprehended the noble Marquess. He feared that his noble Friend was beginning to look with favour on free-trade; but he was delighted to find that this was an erroneous supposition, and that the noble Marquess was still a faithful Protectionist. For his own part, he did not think that the matter referred to in the petition was one which came immediately within the influence of the navigation laws. He would not weary their Lordships by entering into the details of the question; but he might be permitted to observe, that, in his opinion, the petitioners would not be so seriously damaged by railways' as they appeared to apprehend, because the science of the application of steam to the movement of floating bodies would eventually enable them to compete 1044 with railways on very favourable terms. By the joint operation of sails and screw propellers, coasting vessels would soon be enabled to carry on their trade upon a system which would enable their owners to regard without alarm the competition of railways. Vessels were already in progress of construction which would make the voyage between London and Newcastle and back again in four or five days, and that would be a feat which he believed no railway would be able to outstrip; and as the vessels would be freighted with fuel, the cost of the steam would be very cheap.
§ LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the complaint of the petitioners was, that the Great Northern Railway Company had obtained power to construct the railway upon condition of establishing a very low scale of tolls; but after their Bill was passed, they came again to Parliament, and obtained leave to increase the amount of tolls. The use they had made of this power was to impose a low scale of charges upon coals conveyed all the way to London, because in London they had to compete with sea-borne coal; but they had established high rates for the conveyance of coal to intermediate places, which were at such a distance from the sea that the company had no competition to encounter; and the petitioners prayed that charges proportionate to the distance might be enforced. That, he thought, was a very fair subject for consideration, though he did not pronounce any opinion on the matter.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHcould say from his own experience, and as one who suffered considerably, that it always had been the case that the long traffic was reduced at the expense of the short traffic.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this was a question of some difficulty. He apprehended that the effect of the course recommended by the petitioners would be to lower the tolls on the conveyance of coals for short distances; but to raise the tolls for long distances, as, for instance, on the transport of coals from Yorkshire to London. It was, however, quite obvious that the railway companies might not be able to supply villages, where there was a small consumption of coal, at the same rate at which they supplied towns, where there was a large consumption, and he thought a great deal might be said against any alteration of the law.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that any difficulty which might exist as to considering the question on both sides arose from the 1045 fact that the City duty was levied on sea-borne coal, and not on other coal.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Lord was mistaken, as the duty was as much upon inland coal as upon seaborne.
§ House adjourned till Monday next.