DEBATES ON FREE TRADE.
The legislature had begun to act on the principles of free trade in 1824, by taking off those restrictions which prohibited the importation of foreign silks. To the bill which permitted their admission with an ad valorem duty of thirty per cent., and which was now to come into operation, a large portion of both masters and workmen referred the depression of the trade, rather than to causes which did not come so readily within general comprehension. Many manufacturers limited their orders until the effect of this untried system should be somewhat known, while others joined in the outcry against it. The general impression among them was, that the “untried state of being” should not be tried; and many petitions were presented from the persons and districts interested in the silk manufacture, praying for a repeal, or at least a modification of the provision of 1824, for a total prohibition of foreign fabrics, or a higher duty upon their importation. On the 23rd of February, Mr. Ellice, member for Coventry, moved that the petitions which had been presented on this subject should be referred to a select committee. This motion led to a debate, which, by adjournment, continued two evenings. In this debate Mr. Huskisson was compelled to vindicate the leading part he had taken in the measure under consideration, in which he was ably supported by Mr. Canning. This motion was lost; but soon afterwards Mr. Huskisson was obliged to vindicate the late policy pursued respecting the shipping interest and navigation laws. This arose from the complaints of the shipowners and others connected with the shipping interests, who believed themselves to be affected by the late navigation laws. They complained especially of the system which had been adopted of removing discriminating duties, and allowing articles of merchandise to be imported in foreign vessels, under the same burthens as if they had been imported in British bottoms, on condition of reciprocity in regard to ourselves. They contended in numerous petitions to parliament that such a reciprocal removal of discriminating duties was ruinous to British shipping, because the British and foreign owner could never be put upon an equality, unless the latter were burthened with a higher duty. The petitioners and their adherents in parliament, repeated these complaints at every opportunity; but they did not venture to bring the question formally under the notice of the legislature. Mr. Huskisson, however, thought it expedient to show that their representations were groundless; and on the 12th of May, in moving for “returns of ships built in the British dominions, between 1824 and 1825, both inclusive, distinguishing the number in each year, and the amount of their tonnage,” he entered into an elaborate defence of the late policy. Nothing could be clearer than his exposition of the principles on which the former system was founded, of the changes which had since occurred, and of the consequent necessity of our conformity to those altered circumstances. Having developed the general principles on which the navigation laws were originally founded, the different objects to which these principles had been applied, the modifications which from time to time had been made upon these objects, and the causes, political and commercial, which had rendered such changes necessary he stated, that all the allegations of mischief having ensued, and of an undue preference having been given to foreign over British shipping, in consequence of the late policy, were contradicted by the actual results. The complaint was, that in consequence of this policy a decrease had taken place in the employment of British shipping. Now in December, 1824, the number of British ships which entered our harbour was 19,104, and the tonnage 2,364,000, and the number of foreign ships, 5,280, the tonnage being 66,940. In 1825 the number of British ships entered was 21,980, and the tonnage, 2,768,844, and the number of foreign ships, in the same period, 5,661, the tonnage being 68,192. It was to be recollected, he said, that during this year there was an unusual demand for shipping, both British and foreign, in consequence of the unprecedented extent of speculation in almost every branch of commerce. On looking to these returns, therefore, it was clear that the amount of British shipping had increased in a far greater proportion than that of all foreign nations put together. Such being the case, we were certainly not in such a situation as was calculated to excite alarm with respect to the comparative growth of British and foreign shipping. Even if the latter had increased last year, it formed no ground for alarm, because it might be fairly attributed to the unusual demand for shipping produced by the prevailing spirit of speculation. The alarm felt upon this subject was in part grounded upon the state of our commerce in the Baltic, and the number of Prussian ships which entered our ports, as compared with British. Now in 1824, the British ships which entered from the Baltic was 440, and in 1825, 942. The number of Prussian ships which entered in 1824 was 682, and in 1825, 827. The number of Prussian ships, therefore, increased only by a fourth, while that of the British ships was more than doubled. Such was the comparative state of the shipping of both countries in the last year; and as Prussia seemed to be the main object of jealousy when there existed so little ground for it with respect to that nation, all apprehensions on this point might be dismissed. Mr. Huskisson’s motion was agreed to; Sir W. Ridley expressing a hope that the subject would receive a full investigation in the next parliament. Later in the session, Mr. Huskisson brought in a bill to give effect to some commercial treaties which had been concluded between this country and Colombia, and the united provinces of the Rio de la Plata. It had been stipulated, as these republics were not in possession of any commercial marine of their own, that vessels, wheresoever built, being the property of any of the citizens of either republic, should be considered as national vessels of that republic: the master, and three fourths of the mariners of the vessel being always citizens of such republic. The design of Mr. Huskisson’s bill was to give effect to these stipulations, and it was passed into a law.