Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER VI.

MISCELLANEOUS. THE NAVIGATION LAWS-Discussions in both Houses on the Policy of the Act of 1849 for the Removal of Maritime Restrictions-Lord Derby presents a Petition from the Liverpool Shipping Association, and enters at length into an Examination of the Effects of the Free-Trade Policy on Shipping-He is answered in an able Speech by Earl Granville, who declares that the Return to a restrictive Policy is impracticable-Remarks of the Earl of Hardwicke and Earl Grey -Mr. Herries, in the House of Commons, moves an Address to the Crown praying the Adoption of a retaliatory Policy towards nonreciprocating Foreign States-He descants at length upon the Impolicy of the Free-Trade System and its injurious Effects on NavigationMr. Labouchere and Mr. James Wilson combat his Arguments with statistical and other details—Mr. Disraeli advises the withdrawal of the Motion on the ground of Negotiations actually pending with Foreign Powers-Remarks of Lord John Russell and Colonel ThompsonMotion by leave withdrawn. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-Debate on the Bill brought in by Mr. Locke King to assimilate the Elective Franchise in Counties to that of Boroughs-Speeches of Mr. Fox Maule, Mr. Bright, Sir B. Hall, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Disraeli-On a Division the Bill is lost by 299 to 83-Motion by Mr. Henry Berkeley in favour of the Ballot supported by Mr. Hume and Captain Scobell, and carried against the Ministers by 87 to 50-The Motion, however, produces no further result. ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION-Gross Bribery alleged to have been practised at that Borough-Bill proposed and carried for appointing Commissioners to investigate the Mode in which the Election had been conducted. PEACE POLICY-Mr. Cobden's Proposition in favour of a reciprocal National Disarmament-Speeches of Mr. Cobden, Mr. Mackinnon, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Hume, and other Members-Several Members advise the withdrawal of the Motion in consequence of the language held by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs-Mr. Cobden accedes to that suggestion. MARRIAGES OF AFFINITY-The Bill rejected in the preceding Year for legalizing Marriages with a deceased Wife's Sister is again introduced in the House of Lords-Earl St. Germans proposes and argues in favour of the Measure-The Archbishop of Canterbury declares himself opposed to the principle of the Bill, and moves its postponement for six monthsThe Bishops of Exeter, St. David's, and Norwich, support the Amendment-Lord Campbell argues forcibly against the Bill-Lord Gage supports the Measure-On a Division the Amendment is carried by a Majority of 34. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND CONVOCATION-Discussion in the House of Lords on the Motion of Lord Redesdale on this subject-The Archbishop of Canterbury argues with much force against

the revival of Convocation-Important Speeches of Lord Lyttelton, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Bishop of London, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Duke of Argyll, and the Bishop of Oxford.

THE operation of the late meavigation Laws was brought under discussion in both Houses in the course of the present session. The more important debate took place in the House of Lords, and was originated by Lord Derby, who, on presenting a petition to the House from a commercial body, complaining of the injuries which they alleged to have resulted to them from this relaxation in the maritime code, took the opportunity of entering at some length into the merits of the question.

The petition was from the Liverpool Shipping Association: it stated that the petitioners were owners of a large tonnage of shipping, and that they found all the anticipations of evil effects which they urged against the last alteration of the Navigation Laws had been realized in practice; and it complained of a number of disadvantages which the British shipowner laboured under, especially from the want of reciprocity by foreign nations in refusing us that participation in their shipping trade which we yielded to them.

In reference to the burdens and disabilities due to our own legislation, such as the heavy amount of duties on marine insurance, the extraordinary fees charged by British consuls abroad on British shipping, the practice peculiar to this country of giving salvage rewards to officers of the Royal Navy, the encouragement given to the seduction of seamen from the mercantile into the Royal Navy, and the restrictions in re

ference to the employment of

Lord Derby argued generally, that before the repeal of the Navigation Laws these burdens were cheerfully borne by the shipping interest, because they were necessary to support the military navy and prosperity of England; but when the shipping interest were deprived of the advantages they obtained under the Navigation Laws, the least they expected was to be freed from burdens and restrictions to which foreign shipowners are not subject. The illiberality of foreign nations, in refusing us reciprocity, he illustrated by the examples of France and Spain, with their high prohibitive import-tariffs, making a difference against British shipping of cent. per cent. in favour of the home shipping; and of the United States of America, who declared the California trade to be a coasting trade, which they would not open to foreign ships, though the voyage from New York to California was a voyage round the world. He adduced some statistics, not to show that our trade had been diminished by the repeal of the Navigation Laws, but to support the point which shipowners advanced, that that measure had so reduced the amount of freight by unfair and unequal competition that it was almost unremunerative, especially on the long voyage; and that though there had been an increase in the foreign trade, the foreigners had reaped the advantage, and not the British owners. In 1849 the total tonnage inwards was 5,579,461, in 1850 it was 6,071,269, in 1851 it was

6,113,696; the increase last year was 42,427. But the British share of that tonnage in each year was 4,020,415, 4,390,375, and 4,078,544; showing a decrease, last year, of 311,831. And in the same periods the foreign share was 1,559,046, 1,680,994, 2,035,152; showing an increase-larger than our decrease of 354,258. In the clearances outwards the increase on the total shipping, beyond last year, was 477,070; but of this increase foreign shipping got 278,488, and English shipping only 198,582. The disproportion was still greater for the last four months than for the last year. Arguing on these general facts, Lord Derby concluded with the question, whether Her Majesty's Government meant to counteract this state of things by the exercise of the retaliatory power placed in their hands by Parliament ?

The Earl of Granville, in answer to Lord Derby, laid before the House a series of facts to show that the repeal of the Navigation Laws had not been injurious to the mercantile or shipping interests.

On the repeal of the law, Her Majesty's Government communicated the fact to Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United States. Sweden at once announced her intention to remove all restrictions. Holland had displayed a liberal spirit, and after negotiation resolved to give us equality both in her foreign and colonial trade. If Belgian restrictions remained against us, there were greater British restrictions against Belgium; our duties were the more exclusive. Negotiations with France had produced large and liberal concessions; and the Government was still negotiating, in hopes of terms yet nearer to what

were deemed fair. The negotiations with Portugal promised speedy and satisfactory results. Spain held out; but her policy would plainly injure herself more than us. To the generosity of the United States we made an appeal in reference to the indirect trade with California; but there was not much to be obtained from the generosity of nations. However, we had entered beneficially into the direct trade hence to California; and if the Government of the United States still excluded us from the indirect trade, there was reason to believe that that trade would itself suffer, and that a larger direct trade in European commodities hence to California would spring up, in which we should secure a full share. It was no doubt true that the high freights which American ships got to California were a great assistance in making the long voyage round the world; but we ourselves reaped much advantage from the ability we now enjoyed to take freight from New York and the Atlantic cities of the United States to China and the East Indies-a similar link in the long voyage for us, to that round to California for the Americans. It might be true that foreign ships had reaped large advantages from entering on the rivalry with us in our direct trade; but there was reason to believe that we in our turn were entering into the rivalry of the direct trade of those foreign nations in even a greater degree. Returns made by the United States Government showed an increase of foreign shipping there in their direct trade, greater than the increase of foreign shipping here of which we complained at home. In the first six months of 1850, nearly 70,000 tons of British shipping entered the ports of the United

States with freights from third foreign ports, whence they could not have brought freights at all under the old law: 10,000 tons of British shipping left New York alone for China, the first voyages to that country that British ships ever made from United States ports. Though our American rivals had no doubt contended stoutly for the Indian trade, our tonnage in that trade increased: the tonnage outwards had been, in 1848, 453,128; in 1850, 522,056; in 1851,562,495. Mr. Lindsay had launched nine new ships in the past year, of from 800 to 1200 tons burden; he had had them built by contract as the Americans do, and had for the first time made his captains partners in the concern. Mr. Duncan of Dunbar, who feared utter ruin to his 15,000 tons of shipping, was now the enviable holder of 30,000 tons. Mr. Wigram, instead of being driven abroad from the Thames with all his capital and skill, had established a new building-yard at Southampton, and was building at a greater rate than ever. Shipwrights were full of work; and it was impossible to find a shipbuilder who would bind himself to supply a ship at any certain time.

Every class must be allowed its prescriptive right to grumble. Very likely old and second-rate ships found less patronage; but men would hardly be pushing to a gigantic development a branch of trade that was only leading them to ruin.

Lord Granville expressed himself gratified that not one word had fallen from Lord Stanley which could delude the shipowners into the fallacious notion that there was the slightest hope of a return to the system from which the country had departed. In reference to the

conversion of other countries to our more liberal policy, that event could not be expected with such rapidity while a great party, with a great leader at its head, was constantly insisting that our new policy was ruining the country; but for us, patience would be the best policy. Retaliatory measures might in some instances do ourselves injury; though it might become the duty of Government to consider whether at some self-sacrifice it ought not to use the coercive powers intrusted to it by Parliament.

The Earl of Hardwicke presented petitions from various parts, complaining of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and, after complimenting Lord Granville on his able speech, declared that he had never heard a statement so little calculated to restore confidence to a drooping interest. It appeared that Government would do all that it could for the shipowners in the way of negotiation, but it would do nothing else. do nothing else. The noble Lord dwelt at some length on the decay of the shipping interest, and concluded by warning the House of the decay of our maritime force.

Earl Grey defended the Ministerial policy, and, after a few words from Lord Colchester, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Another attempt to obtain a reconsideration of the question of the Navigation Laws was made at a later period of the session, in the House of Commons, by Mr. Herries, who entered at length into the subject in an elaborate speech replete with statistical details. The hon. Member began by calling attention to the case of the shipowners, who complained loudly of the great reduction which had been occasioned by the Act of 1849 in the rate of freights, whereby

their business was rendered to a great extent unremunerative. He produced a tabular statement show ing that an average reduction had taken place of not less than 30 per cent. in the freights of vessels trading from various foreign ports to those of England. Mr. Herries then adduced evidence from Parliamentary returns, to show that, whereas, from the year 1842 to 1849, there had been a nearly proportionate increase of British and foreign tonnage inwards and outwards, in 1850 there had been a decrease in the tonnage of British ships inwards, as compared with the preceding year, of 184,000 tons, and outwards of 43,000; while, on the other hand, there had been an increase of foreign tonnage inwards to the extent of 548,000 tons, and outwards of 406,000. Comparing the returns of 1850 with the average of the three preceding years, Mr. Herries stated the result to be to the disadvantage of British shipping inwards to the extent of 414,000 tons, and outwards of 578,000 tons, as compared with foreign shipping. Healso cited Lloyd's Register to prove an actual decrease since the repeal of the Navigation Laws in the amount of British shipping. He complained that since that Act passed, no steps had been taken by the Government to give effect to that clause, commonly called the Retaliatory Clause, by which the Queen in Council is empowered to adopt countervailing measures towards foreign countries refusing to reciprocate the privileges held out to them by England. Mr. Herries considered that our Government had begun at the wrong end in removing the restrictions imposed by the Navigation Laws, without first being assured of a reciprocal

policy towards ourselves from foreign nations. As it had turned out, other countries had shown little disposition to reciprocate our liberality. With the exception of Sweden, Denmark, and the northern States of Europe, which had an obvious interest in such a relaxation, almost every nation had kept aloof from us. Belgium, Prussia, France, Spain, Portugal, and America, had all declined to imitate our example. The United States, notwithstanding the liberal assurances held out to us originally by Mr. Bancroft, had maintained their own restrictive system. For this, indeed, Mr. Herries, entertaining the views he held on the subject, did not blame them, and the result of their policy was exhibited in the more rapid increase of American shipping, as compared with British, for some years past. It had been alleged by the advocates of the new system, that there had been no falling off, but rather an increased activity, in ship-building in the last year; but to this allegation Mr. Herries opposed the petition lately presented by himself, which bore the signatures of some of the largest shipbuilders in the country, and which stated the fact of an unexampled depression in their business. It was an additional hardship upon the British shipowner, that, while he was unprotected against foreign competition, he was subject to the burthensome condition of being obliged to man his vessels with a certain proportion of British seamen. Such a condition was plainly at variance with the free-trade doctrine of resorting to the cheapest market for everything. In conclusion, Mr. Herries cited an observation which had been made, at the time when the Act of 1849

« EdellinenJatka »