vessels, there appeared to be a for the British merchant service superiority in favour of England were built in Canada; and he of two to one. In the year 1825, could see no advantage to this the English vessels were superior country from the transfer wļich to the Prussian by only 4,000 had thus taken place. It appeared lons'; and in the year 1826, the that, in the year 1825, 536 ships relative amount was 83,000 tons were built in the British plantaof foreign vessels, and 64,000 tions; and, in the year 1826, nearly British. If foreigners could navi- 400 vessels. Now, what was the gate their vessels, as they certainly number built in England during could, at 40 per cent less than the those years? In 1825, 443 ships English, and could build them for were built in England ; and, in half the money, the British trade 1826, only 415 ships were built ; must be sacrificed, when brought making a falling-uff in that short into competition with persons who space of time of 28 ships. Under possessed such advantages. The such circumstances, it was imposship-owners did not meet with a sible to resist that inquiry which greater return than 5 per cent; was the object of the present moand when it was considered of how tion, and to which the shipping perishable a nature their property interest looked forward with so was, it would be easily seen that much anxiety. a return of 5 per cent was by no The motion was seconded by means a profit. It was always said, Mr. Liddell, one of the members however, “Look at the number of for Northumberland, who declared, ships employed; look at the com- that, although he felt himself parative statement of the numbers bound, equally from choice and of British and foreign ships cleared conviction, to support the present out, which has been made up to administration, and therefore felt the 5th of January, 1827." In considerable pain at opposing them the port of Liverpool, vessels, the on the first great question brought building of which originally cost forward under their auspices, he felt 14,0001., were sold a short tiine himself no less bound by a sense of ago for 6,000l. In every dock- duty to support the motion ; for he yard in the kingdom numbers of could not look upon this as a party unemployed ships were to be found, question, but as a question open to which, but for the present state of every individual to discuss, and on things, would be busily engaged which every man should express in traffic. The falling-off in the an honest opinion. Having seen, number of sailors was in propor- as he had seen, a number of indition to the amount of unemployed viduals who were in prosperous shipping. By a calculation which circumstances before the late innohad been made, and the result of vations began, now labouring under which was now before him, it ap- broken trade and falling fortunes, peared that there were nearly he could not refuse acceding to a 12,000 sailors less in the present motion which had for its object year than in the year 1816. The the consideration of some means ships were still in existence, but by which they might be relieved. the energies of their owners were The first thing then to be done paralyzed. Besides, nearly one- was, to ascertain the fact that rea third of the ships which were built cent alterations had operated inju«

a

a

riously on the shipping interest. Mr. Poulett Thompson said," he He accordingly endeavoured to would oppose the motion, because show, that the evils, which had he conceived that two evils might been predicted as likely to result result from its being granted; one, from these measures had actually that it might be thought his mafollowed. In the year 1816: the jesty's government were wavering amount of tonnage belonging to all as to the principle, and the other,

, the ports of the United Kingdom that it might raise delusive hopes was 2,783,949. In 1826, it was in the minds of the ship-owners. 2,635,653, being a decrease since He would not consent to a measure the time of the war, of 147,296 which might produce either of tons, while there was in the same these effects, the more especially time a decrease of froin 11,000 to as no case could be made out to 12,000 seamen.

There had been show any necessity for the prosince the war an immense increase posed inquiry. Even the statein our imports and exports; why ments made from figures, and aphad not the number of our seamen parently supported by figures, by increased in the same proportion ? the friends of the motion were utThe answer was, that foreigners, terly erroneous; and nothing was who could afford to navigate their more extraordinary than the unships much cheaper than we could, blushing effrontery with which came and filled up the void thus they had been supplied with such created in our shipping. In 1821, statements by men who must have the amount of foreign tonnage in known them to have been decepBritish ports, from Denmark, tive. That a certain degree of Sweden, Norway, and Prussia, was distress did affect the shipping in91,457 tons. In 1822 it was terests might be perfectly true ; 132,251 tons; in 1823, 202,000; but that per se could be no reason in 1824, 322,816 tons; and in for inquiry; for, in what line, in 1825, 395,843 tons. Again, in which capital was employed, did 1821, the excess of foreign over distress not exist. Were not the British shipping was 23,911 ; in manufacturers of cotton, of wool, 1822, it was 40,420; in 1823, of iron, labouring equally under it was 86,720; in 1825, it was distress ? Members had talked of 127,318; and in 1826, it was a depreciation of five-and-twenty 153,723. From the state of or thirty per cent in the value of ship-building within the last few shipping ; but let any man run years, it appeared that a great fall- over a price current, and he would ing-off had taken place in the year easily find other departments of 1826, and that much of what was trade in which the fall had been done in that year, was from the much greater. In shipping, as in contracts of the year preceding. In other things, distress had been 1823, the ships built amounted to occasioned by over-speculation. • 3,700 tons; in 1824, to 6,000; in The papers on the table showed 1825, to 6,613; and in 1826, to that in 1825 there was an in2,300. Such facts proved that the crease of nearly two hundred per new system, however ingenious in cent, and in 1826 of one hundred theory, did not work well, and per cent in shipping built in the was, in practice, at variance with British empire. Was it then to be the

prosperity of the ship-owners wondered at, that it should be found of England.

difficult to employ this increased British troops had an advantage in quantity of shipping, ata time when, the expedition with which they owing to over-speculations in other performed the voyage, and the difbranches of trade, the amount of ference of the number of men. goods to be transported had like- There was no truth, therefore, in wise fallen off.

the circumstances from which the Mr. Thompson next maintained ship-owners would fain have it inthat the inferences drawn from the ferred, that foreign shipping could supposed advantages of foreign na- not but have increased ; and just as tions in cost of building, time of little was it true in point of fact sailing, and comparative durability, that it had so increased. The were fallacious-founded on de- House had already seen the imceptive statements with which it mense increase of British shipwas easy to impose upon persons building in 1824, 1825, and 1826, not conversant with the subject. since the reciprocity acts had come Thus, in estimating the cost of into force. Now, what was the building, the parties left out of statement as laid upon the table of their calculation altogether the the House, of the British and fodifference of the admeasurement, reign tonnage entered in those owing to the registry regulations years ? of this country. The foreign ship

British. Foreigns was built at so much per tons

1818 .. 2,457,779..704,511 burden, the English vessel at so 1820 .. 2,270,400.. 408,401 much per tons register; and the

1822 .. 2,390,238.. 419,694 British vessel so built carried from 1824 .. 2,364,249 .. 694,880 one-third to one-half more tonnage

1925.. 2,786,844 .. 892,601 burden than her registry admea

1826 .. 2,478,047..643,922 surement. This the ship-owners From this account, it did not apattempted to meet by a declaration per that foreign shipping had, since that “the capacity of ships built the alteration in the law, increased abroad was equal to that of Eng- in proportion to ours. ·lish.” This was a mere miserable the return of the number of ships, quibble. Now, taking the propor- British and Foreign, that had tionate rate of capacity, it appeared passed the Sound ? from the best returns which could

British. Foreign. be obtained, that the cost of build- 1821 2,819 6,358 ing was, during the last six or 1822 3,097 5,386 seven years, as follows, per ton 1823 3,016 6,187 British register:-In London, 201. ; 1824 3,540 6,978 'in Hull, 171. ; Newcastle, 161. to 1825 5,186 7,974 171.; if wood-sheathed, 121. to 15l.; 1826 .. 3,730 .... 7,335 Norway, fit only for timber, 101.; Comparing 1826 with 1824 and Baltic, 121. to 13l. ; if fit only for preceding years, it did not appear timber, gl. to 101.; Holland, that we had lost any thing of our France, and Hamburgh, 131. to relative proportion. It was not, 161. per ton; if coppered, 181. then, the fact, that we to 201. Undoubtedly there was 'undersailed by foreigners. If the here a difference in the cost price, contrary were true, why did they but this was more than accounted not obtain all the carrying trade of for by the comparative durability. the world? How happened it that

What was

British shipping retained so large length into the details of the suba share of it? He would appeal ject, and exposed, with much sucto any merchant, whether he did cess, the falsehood, or at least the not always find it his advantage to inaccuracies, of the statements made give the preference in a neutral by the ship-owners, and the unport to a British ship. A state- reasonableness of their complaints. ment had been made in 1823, by After first thanking the House for the ship-owners, that, in that its kindness in postponing the discusyear, out of two hundred and sion during his unavoidable abeight vessels arrived at Hamburgh sence, he adverted with severity to between the 1st of January and certain language which had been 1st of June, only twelve were held concerning him and his docBritish; that was before the alter- trines in the House of Lords. Mr. ation in the law. What was the Cresset Pelham, therefore, called case even in 1826 ? By a return him to order, as being guilty of he held in his hand, out of eight irregularity in alluding to what hundred and two vessels, seven had passed in debate in the other hundred were British. Did this House of Parliament; but the look as if the carrying trade was House seemed willing to hear his lost? Even if the statements of justification, and he went on. the ship-owners were correct, what Mr. Huskisson then addressed course was to be adopted? Were himself to the question before we to re-enact the Navigation the House, which he said he relaws ? What must follow? Of joiced to see brought forward, course retaliation. And supposing as it gave him an opportunity that such barbarous measures were for explanation upon the subactually commenced, who were ject, and explanation they should likely to be the greatest losers in have. Even with respect to the this war of prohibition ? This ship-owners themselves, in whom country, which possessed an im- any irritation, arising from lanmense commercial income, and guishing trade might afford an had such an enormous capital em- excuse for the employment of ployed in shipping; or that coun- much language which would have try, whose marine was yet scarcely been better spared, he would not formed, whose extent of capital be guilty of the offence of not employed in this branch was very stating the truth, though by speaktrifling? The present motion he ing out he might perhaps forfeit considered to be an attack not their good-will, and send them merely upon the principle of the home dissatisfied with the result alteration of the Navigation laws, of the debate. At the very outset but on the principles of free trade he found himself, he said, somegenerally; and it behoved, there what at a loss, owing to the sort of fore, every independent man in logic employed by the ship-owners. the House, more especially if he These gentlemen did not draw was connected with the commerce their conclusions from facts, from of the country, to resist it.

observation, from experience, from Mr. Huskisson, on account of a knowledge of what was passing the unfavourable state of whose before them, but from positive health this motion had been several ignorance, or in utter defiance of times delayed, entered at great all facts on the subject. He had

taken the trouble to read all the teen, their tonnage amounted to petitions which had been presented 2,421 ; the number of foreign to the House on the part of the vessels was seventeen, their tonship-owners, and he could state nage 998. In 1826, the number that there was not one which did of British vessels was seventeen, not proceed upon the notion their tonnage 2,349; the numthat foreign shipping had increase ber of foreign vessels in that year, ed, and British shipping had de- instead of seventeen, was two, creased; and some were bold and their tonnage 149. So much enough to say that we should soon for the petition from Scarborough! reach such a condition that foreign The next petition was from the shipping would supersede the port of Greenock, which conBritish in the foreign trade of the tained the same allegations, with country. This brought the subject reference particularly to

the to the trial of an issue of a fact. British provinces in North If the fact were capable of being America: it stated that, “ by the established, the inferences might benefit bestowed upon foreign be correct, and we should then shipping, so decided a preference begin to consider of providing a is given to foreigners in the timber remedy. But if the fact proved trade, that the petitioners can no unfounded—if, so far from being longer compete successfully with true, the very reverse should be them.” How the facts really stood the real state of the case there he should now proceed to show. would then be no ground for com- In 1825 the number of British plaint, no ground for an inquiry ; vessels which entered inwards in and the appointment of a com- this port was two hundred and mittee would not be warranted. one, their tonnage was 51,000. Now, he found in some of the The number of foreign vessels was petitions allegations which he must twenty-one; their tonnage 6,300. own surprised him, because they In 1826, the British tonnage was were at variance with what the 54,000; the foreign 2,300. He getters-up must have had under should merely advert to another their own personal knowledge. petition (with reference to the The first he should refer to was a argument that the poorer classes petition from Scarborough, pre- were deprived of employment by sented on the 16th of February, the change) from the labourers in which stated, that the value of the port of London connected with British shipping had decreased the shipping. They stated that from 20 to 25 per cent since the their condition in 1825 was prosyear 1825; and expressed regret perous; but that, in 1826, owing and alarm at “the great increase to the increase of foreign shipping, in the entry of foreign, particularly they had suffered great distress. Baltic, vessels, at all the British Now it appeared that, in 1825, the ports." What said the official tonnage of foreign vessels entering returns of this very port of inwards in the port of London Scarborough, with which these amounted to 302,122 tons; these petitioners were, or ought to have persons then found no want of been, perfectly acquainted ? In employment. In 1826, the ton1825, the number of British vessels nage of foreign yessels amounted which entered inwards was nine- to 215,254 only.