19 SEPTEMBER 1829, Page 11

THE SHIPPING INTEREST.

"The Committee forbear commenting on the present distressed state of the Shipping interest, and the causes which have occasioned it, because they are too obvious to need enumeration."

THE above is an extract from a report of a Committee of the Ship- owners, made-when, does the reader imagine ? When, according to the Opposition journals, the commercial marine was ruined and undone by the theoretical schemes of Mr. HUSKISSON and the advocates of free trade ? -when the nation was suffering under the competition of the world consequent upon universal peace ?-No, but in the heat and hurry of war, when competition was all but entirely shut out, and little less

than a score of years before the modification of the Navigation Laws came into operation; its date is 22d March 1804. Were we to go further back, we should doubtless find, that many a time and oft, not- withstanding the most rigid observance of the provisions of the 12th Charles II. 'the Shipping interest were clamorous for legislative relief, and with as much reason as they at present are ; in the same way as we should find, by tracing back the history of the Silk trade, that long before the abrogation of the Spitalfields Act, and the legal dissolution of the prohibitory system, there were starving weavers, as well as designing knaves who sought to extract from the evil fortunes of others the means of mending their own. On the question of the changes introduced by the 3rd Geo. IV. cap. 43, (24th June 1822), or the new Navigation Act, as it may not im- properly be termed,-as on every other where men contend with- out investigating, and substitute declamation for demonstration,-there prevails no small obscurity add ignorance. If we were to seek for its provisions in the statements of its enemies, we should be led to imagine that they extended to every branch of our commerce, instead of being limited to our commerce with foreign nations, and with those nations only that are content to extend to Great Britain the same privileges that she offers. And indeed in respect of certain foreign nations, there arc even further limitations. The trade with the United States had been the subject of separate enactment so far back as the 49th of the late Ring; and that with Portugal is regulated, not by Mr. Husierssoar's act, but by the 51st Geo. III. c. 47, and the 59th Geo. III. c. 54.

The distinctions between the new Navigation Act and the old are- 1st, That by the former, native-built ships, belonging to Asia, Africa, or America, may import into Great Britain the produce of the country to which they belong. This is merely an extension, to these quarters of the world, of the rule which obtained under the former act (12th Charles II. cap. 18,) with respect to Europe. For it is to be observed, that even in those good old times, before the innovating, hands of the disciples of free trade had been rudely laid on the ark of our

national prosperity, the principle of monopoly, in which we saw fit to indulge with regard to three fourths of the world, was thought un peu Art for the remaining portion. 2d. Produce of any kind, which has hem carried to a port and landed there, is accounted by Mr. HITS- KISSON'S act as the native produce of that port. This is in truth the only alteration-the former being, as we have observed, only an ex- tension of a recognized principle- . And to what does this alteration

amount ? The old act was good so long only as it was tolerated- so long as other nations did not attempt retaliation. The moment they were up to the trick, and had the power to counteract it, that moment its efficacy ceased-or rather, that moment did it tell, and fearfully, against its inventors.

That boasted Navigation law to which we are so loudly called on to revert, was nothing but a cunning plan for obtaining from the nations with which we traded advantages that we were not prepared to impart. We are no cosmopolites: we love our native country beyond all others, and desire to see it prosper above all others ; and we object to the

perpetration of injustice against foreign states, mainly because we well know that it is of the nature of injustice to produce its like, and because we can look to no permanence of superiority built on any- thing but honesty and fair dealing. Now, whatever opinion may be entertained of the expediency of Mr. Husxissom's act, there can be no dispute of its justice, inas- much as it offers no more to foreigners than they are content to give toEnglishmen. On the broad principle, therefore, which holds as true in politics as in religion, of " doing to others as we would have others to do to us," we should be disposed to say " let the present law remain, even though in its immediate effect we may suffer ;"-that we should ultimately suffer, is impossible. 'While, however, we say this, we are not insensible of the value of the more vulgar and trivial argument derivable from the working of the measure • which, not much to the praise of their logic. has been dwelt on birth by Mr. HusxissoN's friends and his enemies to the exclusion of every other. It may appear strange that any dispute could arise out of what in the nature of things is but a string of admitted facts ; but political partisans can raise a discussion upon the splitting of a hair, as easily as upon the partition of a kingdom. We shall, with a view to end such discussion, give two tables, the first of imports and exports, British and Foreign, from 1817 to 1821* inclusive, being for five years previous to the alteration of the law ; the other from 1822 to 1826 inclusive, being five years after the altera- tion ; and then briefly point to the inferences naturally deducible from them. The tonnage is expressed in round hundrads of thousands.

TABLE I.

IMPORTS.

British. Foreign.

REPORTS.

Year.

British.

Foreign. Foreign Countries. Colonies. Total.

Foreign Countres

Colonies. Total.

1817 882 1,358 2,240 401 779 1,270 2,249 396 1818 996 1,461 2,457 704 803 1,598 2,401 671 1819 826 1,587 2,413 478 628 1,635 2,263 490 1820 763 1,504 2,270 408 651 1,556 2207, 390 1821 699 1,564 2,263 366 614 1,609 2,223 351 TABLE IL

I MPORTA IOC PORTG.

J3ritish.

British.

Year. Foreign Colonies. Total.

Foreign.

Foreign

Foreign.

Countries

Countries Colonies. Total.

1822 780 1,610 2,390 419 655 1,631 2,286 408 1823 779 1,690 2,469 534 630 1,667 2,297 516 1824 780 1,534 2,364 694 652 1,840 2,492 690 1825 1,074 1,712 2,786 890 746 1,516 2,262 851 1826 934 1,544 2,478 643 827 1,449 2,676 641

The first thing that must strike our readers on looking to the above tables, is that the terrible law of 1822 does, after all, affect but about one third of our commerce,-that even were it to destroy that part entirely, we should still retain two thirds intact. The total ruin, of which the sticklers for old times talk, is impossible. The next obser- vation is, that the exports and imports in British and Foreign bottoms proceed in some measure pari passu,-as the one falls, so falls the other; as the one rises, so rises the other. 'From 1817 to 1821, the

decrease on British imports and exports is one fourth, on Foreign one eighth pretty nearly,-the advantage being on the side of the latter.

From 1822 to 1826, the increase of the former is one fourth, and of

the latter one half,-the ratio the same, and the advantage on the same side, before and after the act. So much for general results. Our

Colonial imports, in five years before the act of 1 82 2, increased one

sixth ; in five years after, they diminished one twelfth. The ratio in the exports are one fourth and one eighth. Our Foreign exports and im- ports, as we have just observed, diminished in the first period one fourth, and increased in the second one eighth. That is, the portion of our commerce to which the law is declared to be destructive, de- creases before, and augments subsequently to its passing ; the portion which it does not affect at all, augments before, and diminishes subse- quently to its passing ! What possible 'conclusion can be drawn from these facts, other than that the complaints against the law are un-

founded ? Again, let it be observed, that the exports to Foreign countries in British bottoms in 182G, the fifth year of their approxi-

mating ruin, were greater than they had been for ten years before ;

that the imports from Foreign countries were greater than they had been for ten years, with the exception of 1825 and 1818 ; and that the

imports and exports, Foreign and Colonial, were greater 4han they

had been for ten years, with the solitary exception of the imports of 1825. Lastly, it is to be remarked, that the total increase of British tonnage during ten years, imported and exported, has been 240 thousand ; the total increase of Foreign, 240 thousand. We readily admit the ratio of increase in Foreign tonnage to he greater than in

British; but how does that alter the fact, that previous to the act of

1822, both British and Foreign were gradually diminishing, and that subsequently to that act, if the latter have increased rapidly, the for- mer has not been stationary-if the one have increased 220 thousand, the other has increased 150 thousand tons? Is it a fair ground of objection to a statute, that it does good to others as well as to our- selves ? That the value of ships has fallen, we are not disposed to deny ; but what has the act of 1822 to do with that ? No exchange- able commodity exists whose value has not fallen during the lust ten years. That ships bought when materials and workmanship %yere dear, do not pay now, when both are cheap, may be true ; but it is equally true, that ships can be built at present so as to remunerate their proprietors, or why are they built ? 0.

* We cannot carry the comparison farther back, the documents having been destroyed by the burning of the Customhouse.