on the governing powers-went again to the Board of Trade, and asked the same question; and were again assured that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere in the questionthat already an individual Member of Parliament had mooted the subject and moved for a Committee, which the Government would not feel justified in refusing, but that their bias and feeling were against any alteration, and that they would take good care the Committee should be a fair one, as they would appoint Mr. Milner Gibson chairman of it, being desirous to give every satisfaction to the parties interested. Here, then, was a clear proof that the Government declared they would not interfere with the Navigation Laws, and had no desire to change them. But on the 23rd of November there was a Speech delivered from the Throne, in which it was intimated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure involving some change in these laws. During the interval between March 15, and the delivery of the Queen's Speech, the public had been surprised by an announcement in an American newspaper, with an extract from which he would trouble their Lordships. It was headed "Repeal of the Navigation Laws." It stated "A correspondence has taken place between the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs and our Minister at that Court, relative to the repeal of the Navigation Laws of Great Britain. Mr. Bancroft applied to Viscount Palmerston, early in November, to learn whether Ministers would consent to establish with the United States a perfect system of reciprocity, in making all vessels of either country fitting out from any port in the world free to trade to any port of the other nation, whether home or colonial. Viscount Palmerston, after the lapse of some weeks, replied that although Her Majesty's Ministers did not feel at liberty to advise Her Majesty at once to make such a change in the commercial system as was asked by Mr. Bancroft, without the sanction of Parliament; yet as soon as that body should meet, a measure would be introduced which would embrace all the views put forth by Mr. Bancroft in his note. It is not ably on the Bill. The importance to the United States of such a measure cannot be exaggerated. The British colonial system has been a most grievous restriction upon our commerce, and its annihilation, as promised by Viscount Palmerston, will open to our enterprising merchants the lucrative trade of the East and West Indies, and of the other British settlements, from which they have been hitherto debarred. This will be the greatest stride yet taken by free trade; and it is not to be doubted that all Europe will follow the example of Great Britain. The liberal commercial treaty made by Hanover with the United States has been, in no small measure, instrumental in dis doubted that Parliament will at once act favour posing the British Government to this wise measure. The Rhine provinces have recently imitated the example of Hanover towards the United States; and everywhere, silently, but steadily, our commercial relations are being put upon the most advantageous footing. The repeal by Great Britain of the laws restricting the trade of the United States with her colonies will be far more beneficial to this country than any commercial treaty ever made by our Government." He read this passage to show the manner in which the Americans considered the question, and to acquaint their Lordships, that it was the first notice the people of England received that there had been any intercourse between this country and the United States on the subject. Was it justifiable, he asked, that a Minister of the Crown should open negotiations which were contrary to the law of the land, with the Minister of a foreign country, and that the people of England should receive their first information of these negotiations in a newspaper published at Washington? In his opinion, any such overtures should have been communicated to Parliament. Not only had the country been entirely deceived with respect to the intentions of the Minister of the day, but the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs had gone further, and had induced the people of the United States to believe that we were pledged to them to make some alterations in the law of the land. The course for the Minister of the Crown to have adopted on such an occasion would have been to say, "I cannot enter into this question with you, for it is contrary to law, and till that is changed, it will be impossible for me to speak of alterations." To deal with a subject of such vast importance, connected so intimately with the deep interests of the nation, and with the welfare of so many classes of the people, in the manner which had been adopted by the noble Lord, was unjustifiable towards the people of this country. Nor did his reasons to find fault with the conduct of the Government cease there, for Her Majesty's Ministry stated they would endeavour to use their influence that the Committee should be fairly constituted that the inquiries before it should be conducted with impartiality. If they had done so-and he did not doubt it the proceedings of that Committee, and the results to which it had come, were anything but fair. In the course of their investigation they had examined twenty-five witnesses in favour of the repeal of the Navigation Laws; while for their defence and maintenance only nine witnesses were called on to give their tes trade; and a long list of places on the coast of Africa and Cape of Good Hope, St. Helena and Ascension, Mauritius, British India, British North American colonies, Australian colonies, British West Indies, fisheries, Jersey, Guernsey, &c. was given, from which Mr. Porter drew the following results :— In 1824 the tonnage of protected trade entered from their foreign ports amounted to 893,097 tons; in 1846 it advanced to 1,735,924 tons, showing an increase of ninety-four per cent. But in 1824 the unprotected trade was 904,223 tons, and in 1846 it was 2,558,809, showing an increase in the same period of 182 per cent. Now, his (the Earl of Hardwicke's) answer to this was, that the whole statement was a mistake-that the whole of the trade to which the question referred was protected. In these countries reciprocity treaties existed-ships could go from one country to another, carrying each other's goods; but the American, for instance, could not go to China to carry goods to us-the whole of the Chinese trade then was protected, for it was in our hands, as the Chinese had no flect, while it was one of the most important we possessed. But in this respect it was returned as unprotected; and the trade with Brazil, Mexico, and South America gen timony. The sittings of the Committee | ing protected, and the other unprotected terminated, in consequence of the dissolution of Parliament, before they made their report; and they left nothing after them but a very one-sided collection of evidence, hardly any portion of the testimony which might have been given on the other side being contained therein at all. One circumstance alone that had occurred during the investigation would render it unfair and partial. A distinguished officer of the Royal Navy, Sir J. Stirling, had given his evidence in favour of the abolition of the Navigation Laws; but before he could be cross-examined, the Committee were informed that the duty of the gallant officer required his absence, and that he had been compelled to sail from England. Another reason why he deemed inquiry necessary was this. It had been always considered by persons in Parliament, and by the people of this country, that any paper issuing as a Government document from a subordinate officer of the Crown, as a return or statistical statement, contained facts which might be implicitly relied on. In fact, no other papers were ever considered worthy of much attention, and the Legislature confided in their correctness, believing them perfect as far as human knowledge and calculation could go. A most important paper had been issued as a re-erally, was placed in the same column, alturn to Parliament, to which he begged though in each instance it was highly proleave to call their attention. It was set tected by the very circumstances that these forth as a statement of the protected and countries had no commercial marine, and unprotected trade of the country, and had that the ships of no other country could been much commented on by the free-trade carry their produce to us. writers, who had used its statistics for feature in this report on which he might the purpose of making out their case. have commented in strong language: one Now he was perfectly ready to admit that of the largest items in the list of unproif these statements had been true, they tected trades was that with France; and would have succeeded in making out their what did they suppose it amounted to in arguments for free trade; but that was not 1846? Not less than 556,824 tons. But the case the paper was false. The writer the statement was not true, as he would of this paper, who was, he believed, Mr. prove from another portion of the paper. Porter, the gentleman at the head of the They would find in that year that the statistical department of the Board of number of ships entered inwards from Trade, had, of course, compiled it to suit France amounted to forty-seven, of 7,101 and favour his own views with respect to tons. In this portion of Mr. Porter's reour commerce, he being learned in that de- turn, this number was swelled to 228,186 scription of theory which was so popular tons. On the other hand, it could be now-a-days, and having a hobby of his shown that from 1824 to 1846 the increase own, which he was anxious to dress out in in foreign tonnage had been enormous ; the best colours. Mr. Porter had compiled for, while in the former year the amount this paper, therefore, in order to show the of foreign tonnage in our ports (as we ungreat advantage which had arisen from un- derstood) was 758,599 tons, in 1846 it protected trade; but the way in which he amounted to 1,803,177 tons, being an inwent about doing it was strikingly unfair, crease of 137 per cent. He now turned to as he would prove to them. The report another portion of the subject, and adwas drawn up in two columns-one show-dressed himself to the speech made the There was one From May 12 to September 12, 1846, to the Brazils ... ... In sixteen months after the passing of the new tariff, to ditto... cent. Increase ... 1,981,620 2,264,386 282,766 Eighteen months' credit exports not paid for. An export duty on Brazilian sugar of 12 per Raised her duties in 1845, and maintains them. Raised her revenue from 7,000 contos in 1845 to 16,000 contos in 1837. Exports to Cuba, sixteen months before Act Loss But Ditto, Porto Rico, ditto 322,488 210,732 111,756 4,820 other night by his noble Friend opposite, | since slave-grown sugar had been admitin which he stated that it was for the ad- ted at reduced duties? The exportvantage of the West Indies that the contemplated change in the navigation laws should take place. Now, so far as he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had had any conversation with gentlemen connected with the West Indies, he found that they scouted the idea of deriving any benefit from the repeal of the navigation laws. One gentleman had stated to him that the advantage which the whole of the West Indian colonies would derive from the change would not amount to the value of a 101. note. It must be considered that if the rate of freights were reduced, that they Ditto, sixteen months after Act must be reduced in favour of shippers of produce from other parts of the world, as well as those of the West Indies. what would be the advantage of the reduction of freights to the consumer in this country? He believed that the repeal of the navigation laws might reduce the freight upon-say a pound of cotton-by the half of a farthing; so that the purchaser of a cotton dress of the value of 10s. would gain in the price a little less than a farthing. A somewhat similar result would take place with respect to tea. The fact was, that his noble Friend was the driver of a theory which was perilling the best interests of the country. them look, for example, at the state of our import and export trade with America, to the state of the West Indies, to that of our cotton manufactures, and to that of the national finances; and then let them say whether the projects of free-trade theorists were not perilling the safety of the country. The value of the imports over the exports in our American trade had been gradually increasing. He would, in proof Sixteen months' ditto years Imports. Gain ... ... years, from 1815 to £43,710,101 £15,822,686 Balance in favour of England... 27,327,415 Second period, from Total loss ... 1,339,224 ... 282,766 unpaid. It was computed that 70,000l. has been 1826 to 1830......... 28,443,366 21,803,465 saved to the manufacturers of cotton by Balance in favour of England... Third period, from 1842 to 1846. 6,639,901 30,458,513 66,136,454 Balance against England......... 35,677,941 What was the state of our cotton exports cheap sugar, to meet the above loss. The total loss to the cotton manufacturer who was desirous to have cheap sugar was 1,339,3241., and the gain 282,000l. He was justified in saying, that the course of policy Government was pursuing was de structive of the best interests of the coun- | ENTRANCES AND CLEARANCES OF AMERICAN AND FOREIGN SHIPPING FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1847. try. No doubt it might be said that these considerations were foreign to the main subject of his Motion. Nevertheless, he felt that in every case in which their Lordships were called upon to make a legislative move in the direction of free trade, it was their duty to lay before the people of this country the history of the progress of free trade, and to impress upon them, over and over again, the results which had flowed from the policy which they had been pursuing, in order to show how necessary it was that a stop should be put to it. He would now, however, proceed to the consideration of the subject immediately before their Lordships. Their Lordships were aware that the so-called navigation laws were a number of Acts of Parliament passed in various periods for the purpose of regulating the trade and navigation of the country. These Acts extended back to very ancient times; but as one of them had been passed in the reign of Her present Majesty, they could not be said to have become antiquated or obsolete. Now, by these Acts the whole of our coasting trade must be carried on by British-built vessels, sailed by British masters, and manned by British seamen. The whole of our colonial trade, in the same manner, was placed under the same regulations, with this trifling difference, that, speaking in round numbers, onefourth of the crew of a British ship so engaged might be foreign. Our trade with the rest of the world was in a state of reciprocity-in other words, foreign ships were allowed to enter our ports on the same terms as those granted by the foreign nations to our vessels. At present, however, one of the schemes in agitation was, to open up the trade of the world in favour of the United States. Such would, in his opinion, be a most fatal course of policy; for he believed that in the present condition of this country it would amount to the absolute ruin of our colonial trade. That trade employed 40,000 seamen; but the American mercantile marine was increasing so fast in power and efficiency, that it was likely it would soon be able to compete successfully with our own. He found the increase of British shipping to be as follows: "Should the ratio of increase in the number of our merchant vessels be progressive, and be as time is not distant when our tonnage and comgreat for the future as during the past year, the mercial marine will be larger than that of any other nation in the world." And with this expectation on the part of the Americans, and their efforts to realise their expectations, we were about to surrender our navigation laws. Why, then, were we to make such surrender? What could the Americans give in exchange? Nothing! Where, then, was the reciprocity? We had our colonial trade in our own hands, and yet we were about to give the Americans such advantages as could not fail to ruin that trade. Look at the trade with China. The Americans sent cotton there, and took back tea. We could not compete with America. The American marine was manned with our own seamen; this was another evil, and one that perilled our maritime superiority. Take the whale fishery in the South Seas, and see what we had sacrificed, and how the Americans had benefited by our folly. The following extract would illustrate his argument: "South Sea whale fishery, up to 1824, a bounty was given. A protecting duty from that time to it was reduced to 15l. per tun. The duty ceases 1830, of 391. 188. per tun on sperm oil. In 1830 in 1848. Result, in 1820, employed 137 vessels, at 350 tons; 48,000 tons of shipping, with 4,000 men. American importation of oil, 500,000l. to 600,000.; price to the public at the period was from 50l. to 70l. per tun. In 1845, not a single ship cleared out for this fishery. Americans have now 720 ships, and 20,000 men." This was free trade. The Americans had 720 ships and 20,000 seamen. And what was the consequence. We were now pay. ing a higher price for oil, and, in addition, were obliged to take the oil from the Ame 73,204 217,535 1845 223,676 444,442 Inc. of British 150,472 226,907 TABLE, SHOWING THE DATES AT WHICH THE VA- 1845 286,569 | 226,030 44,456 23,689 84,566 Dec. of British And, with the exception of three States, we had diminished our trade, while the foreigner had increased his trade. It was, therefore, perfectly clear, if you opened the trade, that you must take another step. You must consent to give up the building, fit60,877 ting out, and equipment of ships. The shipowner must be permitted to go to foreign yards, where he could get his vessels built cheapest. The merchants' yards here would then be reduced in number and efficiency; and thus further disadvantages would result. We should also be dependent for our merchant ships on foreign shipbuilders. Presuming that the shipowner would go where he could build cheapest, it was necessary to see if England would be his building country. Now let them compare the price of building in foreign countries. The average cost of building ships was 177. 10s. a ton. In the United States the same ships could be built for the following sums: 165,365 Now, with regard to France. extraordinary amount of tonnage, and still more extraordinary increase, having led to more minute inquiry, a return was presented to the House of Commons (Parliamentary Paper, No. 28), from which it appears that of 556,821 tons entered inwards in the year 1846, 228,189 tons consisted of forty-seven steam-vessels, chiefly carrying passengers alone, and measuring in the aggregate but 7,150 tons, many of them also Government vessels. These steamers were magnified into the enormous amount recorded, by the multiplication of the number of passages made between the French and English coasts, one vessel alone, the Prince Ernest, of 145 tons, figuring in these Custom-house returns as 24,215 tons of British shipping. The number of trips across the Channel by sailing vessels in the French trade is so great as utterly to vitiate all conclusion. |