the seamen of the Tyne, and North Shields. One of these petitions, presented by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russel) from the Shipowners' Society of London, appeared to state the view of the case which was held by the shipowners of the country generally. In that petition it was stated that, for two centuries, British navigation was conducted with " unparalleled success," and that British shipping increased beyond all precedent under the laws which protected the British shipowner from the competition of foreigners. The petitioners stated that they abstained from any expression of opinion as to the change of policy which had taken place, but they submitted to the House that every principle of justice demanded that, in the race of competition to which the British shipowner was exposed he should not be subjected by law to any expensive burthens, liabilities, or restrictions, from which his competitors were free. The case divided itself into two heads; the first of which was the policy which this House had deemed it wise to pursue. In the paragraph of the petition to which he had alluded the petitioners appeared to doubt the wisdom of that policy; and if the statement was correct, if it was the case that British shipping had enjoyed unparalleled prosperity under the protective system, then the policy of the House must be an erroneous policy and worthy of reconsideration; but a reference to returns which had been made to the House would prove whether such was the fact or not. He had not been able to obtain a correct return of the shipping till the year 1803, but in that year the return of British shipping amounted to 2,160,000 tons; in 1804, to 2,220,000 tons; in 1805, to 2,228,000 tons; in 1806, to 2,226,000 tons; in 1807, 2,228,000; and in 1808, to 2,324,000 tons. The records for some few years subsequent to this period had been destroyed by fire. But throughout the whole of the time to which those that remained referred, and which was the closest system of protection, British shipping was nearly stationary. Let him call their attention now to the number of British ships built and registered during the same period. In 1803 there were built and registered of British shipping 135,000; in 1804, 960,000; in 1805, 89,000; in 1806, 69,000; in 1807, 68,000; and in 1808, 57,000 tons. Instead of this, therefore, being a period of unparalleled prosperity to the British shipowner he was almost inclined to de scribe it as a period of unparalleled ruin; for there was a decrease in the number of ships built from year to year. He would now call the attention of the House to the period when Mr. Huskisson introduced his system of reciprocity, which he considered to be the first step made towards free trade in shipping. Up to that period British shipping had only increased 39,000 tons, that is an increase from 220,000 tons in 1808 to 259,000 tons in 1824; and the number of ships built in the one year, as compared with the other, was only an increase of 9,000 tons. In 1825 Mr. Huskisson introduced his reciprocity system, and the prosperity of the shipping began to advance with rapid strides. In 1826 we owned 2,635,000 tons, or an increase of 224,000 tons of British shipping over 1808. In 1843 we owned 3,660,000 against 2,635,000 in 1826. He would then show that there had been a steady and marked increase going on from that period to the present time. In 1850 we owned 4,232,000 tons; in 1854, we owned 5,043,000 tons; and in 1857, we owned 5,519,000, showing that from 1808 till 1834, a period of twentyfive years, under protection and partial protection, British shipping had increased 433,000 tons; while from 1850 to 1857 the increase was no less than 1,287,000 tons during a similar period of Free Trade. But he proposed to examine this question still closer, for he did hope this would be the last time it would be brought under discussion. He would take seven years before the late Navigation Law was repealed, and seven years following that repeal. From 1842 to 1849, a period of comparative protection or reciprocity, there were built 1,800,000 tons of British shipping. From 1849 to 1857 there was built no less than 2,776,000 tons, being an increase of nearly a million over the corresponding period of reciprocity. So much for free trade as far as shipping was concerned. With the permission of the House, he would now examine how far British shipping had gained by free trade, as applied to the general commerce of the country. He would take the period from 1843, when Sir Robert Peel first began his free trade policy by his alterations in the tariff, to 1846, when his entire change in our commercial policy was consummated. He took the statistics for fourteen years previous to 1843, and the fourteen years after it. In the year 1829 we owned 2,518,191 tons of British shipping, and in 1843 we owned 3,581,387 tons, but in 1857 we owned | ployed, in the British merchant service, 5,519,154 tons, showing that while 136,144 British seamen, while in 1857 we British shipping had increased in the one period one million tons, it had increased in the second period nearly two million tons. This showed clearly enough that shipping was the child of commerce, and that if commerce decayed, shipping would decay, and that the interest of the shipowner was as much involved as that of any other person in supporting the free trade policy of the country. But then it was said that the progess of shipping prosperity had not kept pace with the other branches of the commercial and manufacturing interests in the country. But how stood the fact. He confessed that when he first began to examine this question, and looking to the astounding progress made by our manufacturers, and the increase in our exports of late years, he was inclined to entertain the same opinion. But, on looking more closely to this question, he found that taking the last half century, and dividing it into two equal periods-he found that, while in 1807 we owned 2,228,000 tons of shipping, in 1832 we owned 2,600,000 tons, and in 1857 we owned 5,519,000 tons. In 1807 the value of our exports, including manufactures, amounted to £37,000,000 sterling; in 1832 they amounted to only £36,500,000, and in 1857 they had reached the astounding sum of £122,000,000 sterling. The increase during the latter period was therefore as nearly as possible equal, being in both an increase of about 3 times. To look at these two periods in another light-between 1807 and 1832 British shipping had increased something like 15 per cent; but between 1832 and 1857, for a considerable portion of which period free trade existed, it had increased 110 per cent. He had shown to the House that previous to free trade our exports almost stood still. Our superior skill and energy, and our maritime character had however put us more clearly a head in shipping, but it was free trade alone which gave both the great impetus. He turned now to consider how the case stood as it affected the British seamen. His gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) had lately presented a memorial from the seamen of the Tyne, complaining of the great increase in the number of foreign sailors manning British ships, in consequence of the repeal of the Navigation Laws. How did that matter stand? In 1851 we em employed 162,000. In 1851 we employed 5793 foreign sailors; in 1857, 14,375. In the case of the British seamen there was an increase of nearly 26,000-in the case of the foreigners, of 8,500. He might add that the greatest increase in the number of foreigners took place in 1853 and 1854, when seamen were wanted to man our navy, when the number of foreigners went up to 7,321. Since the peace the increase had been very slight indeed. Looking to the case of apprentices, he found that in 1815 there were 8,000 apprentices registered in the British service, while in 1826 they had increased to 11,219. In that year the law came into operation which made it compulsory for shipowners to carry a certain number of apprentices, according to the registered tonnage of the ship; and from that time there was a marked increase, and the number rose to 34,857 in 1848. In 1849, when the Navigation Law was repealed, this compulsory law was repealed also, so that the number of apprentices gradually fell. In 1849 there were 31,600 apprentices registered; in 1850 they fell to 24,394; in 1852 they fell to 11,105. It was possible that some hon. Gentlemen looking at this return might get alarmed, and fear that the breed of our seamen was dying out; but he must explain to the House that this return of registerd apprentices furnished no clue to the number of boys actually employed. Since the alteration in the law many shipowners adopted the custom of employing boys by the voyage or the year, fancying that this was a more economical system. Others, again, had come round to the system of registering, and thus it happened that the number of registered apprentices had risen again to 25,096 in 1857, and he estimated that the number of boys at sea, but not registered, amounted to 20,000 more, so that there were now a far greater num ber of boys training for the sea than there had been at any former period. There was another question of great importance which he wished to look at in a calm and impartial manner-he meant the increase of British shipping as compared with foreign shipping. On this head also he desired to hide nothing, and therefore he would again take seven years previous to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and seven years subsequent. In 1843 there were registered as entering inwards 3,545,000 tons of British shipping; of foreign, 1,300,000 tons. In 1850, 4,700,000 tons British; 2,400,000 tons foreign. In 1857, 6,800,000 tons British; 4,600,000 tons foreign. The proportional increase was, therefore, greatly in favour of foreign ships, and many of our shipowners had in consequence taken alarm. But they ought not to condemn the free trade policy because it increased the trade of the foreigner in greater proportion than our own; they must look to their own increase, and see how much better in that respect they were now than they were before. In looking at the great increase of foreign ships, they ought not to forget the astoundingly rapid increase of our trade with other countries, which, under the old law, would have brought foreign ships into our ports with their produce. But the entries inwards of our own ships had increased as much as the entries inwards of all the ships of the world though our ports are open to all. This is the more remarkable when these facts were considered. First the great increase of our imports in the articles of cotton and bread stuffs. Secondly that ships of the country where these articles are produced must naturally have the preference in respect of freights of this nature. Let them look at the state of a few of our leading items of imports. In the year 1857, 8,655,000 cwt. of cotton were imported into this country, and out of that quantity 5,846,000 cwt. came from the United States, while only 1,279,000 of these 5,846,000 cwt. were brought in British bottoms. Under these circumstances it was clear that, in spite of any law this country might pass, a large portion of the cotton imported from America would come in the ships of the United States. Let them next take the article of bread stuffs. He would take wheat first-indeed he need not mention barley, oats, rye, and peas, for they bear the same proportion. In the year 1857 we had imported 3,438,000 quarters of wheat, and out of that quantity 650,000 quarters had come from the United States, while only 58,000 of those 650,000 quarters were brought in British ships. In the same year 1857 we imported 2,178,000 cwt. of flour, of which 1,465,000 cwt. came from the United States. Of this last quantity only about 208,000 cwt. was brought over in British bottoms. Then let them look at the article of tobacco. In the year 1857 we imported 42,000,000 lbs. of tobacco, and not less than 25,000,000 lbs. out of that amount came from the United States, while out of those 25,000,000 lbs. only 700,000 lbs. were sent in British bottoms. In that case, too, no law which Parliament might pass could prevent the conveyance of a large portion of the articles imported in the ships of the country where it was produced. With these facts before him, he confessed he felt surprised that British shipping had increased at the rate it had done of late years. We had happily arrived at a period when nations felt that their own prosperity was promoted by the prosperity of their neighbours; and what would be the effect of our now returning to a restrictive policy for our shipping? Why, he believed, that it would be suicidal to our own shipowners. The number of tons entering our ports from all parts of the world was 5,234,000 British, out of which only 2,150,000 tons were employed in the trade with our own colonies and possessions; while the number of tons entered outwards was 5,874,000 and 2,119,000 respectively, showing that our trade was far greater with foreign countries than with our own possessions. If we adopted the principle of reciprocity, "enforced," and shut out the ships of all nations which did not reciprocate, we should, by preventing all competition whatever, in the long run find that there would be 3,000,000 tons of shipping of this country unemployed, for those countries would retaliate. The countries which did not now reciprocate were France, Spain, and Holland in a partial degree. America had yielded all we wanted of her, except the coasting trade. In France the entries inwards for the year 1857 were 4,162,000 tons of shipping, but of that 2,550,000 tons were of foreign shipping. Thus, in spite of prohibitory laws, 57 per cent of the trade of France was foreign shipping, and only 43 per cent of her own. In Spain, where the protective system was enforced with the utmost rigour, 55 per cent of the shipping was the property of foreigners, and only 45 per cent belonged to the natives of that country. In Belgium the proportion was twenty-two of native to seventy-eight foreign. On the other hand, in British ports, which were open to all the world, there was 61 per cent of British shipping, and only 39 per cent of foreign shipping. These figures clearly showed the soundness of our policy, and that the opposite policy was an injury, and not a benefit, to the shipping of the nation that adopted it. With regard to reciprocity, the only true would decrease, and the result would be undoubtedly reserved to Her Majesty by prejudicial to the real interests of shipping. the 16th & 17th Vict. of closing their Such an argument, however, he considered ports against non-reciprocating nations. quite illusory. In the Tyne there was no He had stated elsewhere, and he would obligation to take pilots, and yet there repeat it there, that no Government ought were more pilots connected with the Tyne to be called on to take that step; if so than at any other place. There were called on, no Government would dare take other matters of which the shipowner with it without the assent of the House, and considerable justice complained, such as the House, after twelve years' experience various stringent clauses in the Passen- of free trade, would not think itself justigers Act and in the Mercantile Marine fied in giving it. But he contended that Act; but as the hon. Member for the free trade was a misnomer with regard to City of London (Mr. Crawford) desired to the shipping community. Free trade readd to the Motion an inquiry into cer- quired the concurrence of the two parties tain clauses of those Acts, he would only engaged in it; but the shipping interest say, that he should offer no objection to that had free trade only so far as itself was Amendment. There were also the timber concerned. Their trade was restricted duties, to which, however, he would only at home and abroad; he would not ask advert, as another hon. Member had given the House to retrace its policy, but to notice of his desire to call the atten- keep the pledge solemnly given, that tion of the House to that matter. He free trade should be carried out to its might, however, just state that the timber legitimate issue. The hon. Gentleman duties were inconsistent with the policy (Mr. Lindsay) had shown how their trade which the majority of the House had was restricted at home; he would show affirmed. We admitted the manufactured how it was restricted abroad. Take the ship from the Baltic duty free, whilst we case of America; by an ingenious though taxed the raw material of which it was strange construction of the word "coast, made. There were some other small bur in their Navigation Act, our rivals on the dens of which shipowners complained, but other side of the Atlantic made it extend as he hoped that the Government would along a shore of 10,000 miles, in two grant his Committee, he should prefer that oceans. English ships were thus excluded the shipowners themselves should state their from the Californian trade, and consegrievances before the Committee. If the quently competed on unequal terms with House should be pleased to grant the Com-American ships in China and the ports of mittee for which he had asked, and if, on the Report of that Committee, the House removed those burdens which still pressed on British shipping in competition with that of foreign countries, and if foreign countries opened their ports to us, which they would soon find it their interest to do, he had no fear that British shipping would be enabled to compete with any other nation, and with even greater success than it had hitherto done. the East Indies. An American ship obtained a remunerative freight to San Francisco, and then ran over to China in ballast, where, from the circumstances of the voyage, she could afford to take a freight home on lower terms than English vessels which she met there could do, the American ship not unfrequently obtaining a cargo of return emigrants from California to China, which of course adds largely to the profits of her voyage. The matter MR. LIDDELL seconded the Motion. became still more important now that we He saw with satisfaction that the Motion had established the rising colony of New came from the other side of the House, Columbia, for American ships could run from those who had been the consistent ad- from San Francisco to Fraser river, stopvocates of our present commercial policy. ping at four ports on the way, whilst ours He did not say that by way of a taunt, but were obliged to run direct. France, our he had a right to refer to it. It was a intimate ally, levied discriminating duties proof of the reality of the grievances of on goods conveyed in British bottoms, the shipowners and of the sincerity of the which amounted to double those levied on appeal made for some consideration of their similar goods conveyed in French bottoms. case. They had heard a great deal to- It acted in some cases as an absolute night about Free Trade. He wished to prohibition on the employment of British clear the ground of that question; he did ships, and in all cases it gave French not stand there to ask the Executive Go-ships an advantage. As an example, a vernment to carry into effect the powers British vessel was chartered at Calcutta |