Views of Government. Necessity of a Marine ment. were frequently chartered in preference to British, not because, as ships, they were superior in quality, but on account of the greater care foreign shipmasters bestowed on the stowage and transport of their cargoes, and from the fact that being generally educated, sober, intelligent, and capable of commanding respect and maintaining discipline, the seamen themselves were consequently more orderly. For these and numerous other reasons, Government naturally asked whether it was justifiable that the lives of thousands of persons should be constantly jeopardised, because shipowners had the power of placing incompetent persons in charge of their vessels; and whether it was proper for the State to allow its seafaring population to be left in ignorance and disorder, and exposed to the evil example of illiterate and intemperate masters. Many thoughtful men out of doors also began to enquire if it was right that these men, by sheltering themselves under the Navigation Laws, should be thus allowed to encourage the growth and employment of foreign in preference to British shipping, to the injury of the national interests. Even had it not become apparent that the time. competent had arrived for great changes in the commercial policy of England, the condition of our seamen and the state altogether of our merchant service required the exclusive attention of some such public department as Mr. Murray had recommended. But such matters, however important, being subsidiary to the question of the Navigation Laws and their effect upon maritime commerce, were left in abeyance till these had been fully considered. CHAPTER III. High estimate abroad of English Navigation Laws-Change necessary, owing to the Independence of America-Other nations at first Protectionist-Mr. Pitt's proposals with reference to trade with America -Mr. Pitt resigns, and a temporary Act ensues-Shipowners and loyalists in America successfully resist his scheme-Congress the first to retaliate - Restrictions injurious, alike, to England and her Colonies-Commercial treaties with America between 1794 and 1817-Acts of 1822 and 1823, and further irritation in America— Order in Council, July 1826-Conciliatory steps of the Americans in 1830-Foreigners look with suspicion on any change in the Navigation Laws-Reciprocity treaties of 1824-6- Value of treaties in early times, but inadequate for the regulation of commercial intercourse, and liable to unfair diplomacy-Reciprocity treaties only, partially, of value, and do not check the anomalies of Protection— Committee of 1844-5 promoted by the Shipowners, who seek protection against Colonial shipping-Reciprocity must lead to free navigation-New class of Statesmen, well supported by the PeopleExertions of Lord John Russell, who leads the way against Protection-Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn-Law League-John Bright-Effect of the Irish famine, 1845-6-Sir Robert Peel carries the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and resigns. IN proceeding to consider the great alterations in the ancient commercial system of England which have ultimately led to the entire abrogation of the Navigation Laws, it is advisable to trace their remarkable history under several distinct heads, premising, however, that, previously to 1844, their complete repeal had probably not suggested itself to High esti mate any of the statesmen who, at various periods, had held the chief power in England. For nearly two centuries an opinion had prevailed abroad of in England, as well as in all foreign countries carryNaviga ing on maritime commerce, that the English Navition Laws. gation Laws, created originally to check, if not to English Change necessary, annihilate, the maritime power of Holland, had been the means of raising Great Britain to her unquestioned superiority on the ocean. But this opinion is best answered by the fact that, long after the creation of these laws, the Dutch still remained more powerful at sea than any other nation;' while, on the other hand, the shipping of England, under a different policy, has become much more prosperous than it ever was at any period during which the laws of Cromwell were enforced. Other nations, however, could not fail to see that English shipowners upheld these laws with much tenacity; hence when, on the cessation of the wars of Napoleon, they had more time to devote their attention to individual pursuits, they asked themselves two questions: (1st) if protective laws had been beneficial to English ships, why should they not follow the example of that country and enact for themselves similar laws? and (2nd) if England persisted in excluding their ships from her ports, why should they not treat her vessels in the same In a little book, 'Political Arithmetic,' by Sir William Petty, written about 1675, and published in 1691, the author of it remarks, "The extent of the shipping of Europe being about two millions of tons, I suppose the English have five hundred thousand-the Dutch nine hundred thousand, the French an hundred thousand, the Hamburgers and the subjects of Dantzic two hundred and fifty, and Spain, Portugal, Italy, &c., two hundred and fifty thousand!" the value of which the author reckoned" at 87. per tun" (ton). manner? In other words, they were already prepared to act on the principle of retaliation, and adopt the course pursued by the United States of America in 1817, when Congress passed a law, the counterpart, if not the copy, of that in the English Statute-book, which was adopted with the declared intention of retaliating on Great Britain. the Inde of In the case of the American States, so long as they owing to were dependencies of the British Crown, their ships pendence could trade with all British dependencies on the America. same footing as our own; but, when they became independent, their ships, like those of any other foreign Power, were excluded from every port where our laws prohibited the entry of such vessels. Previously they could freely trade with the British possessions in America and with the West Indies, with which they had hitherto carried on a profitable intercourse, supplying them with lumber for their houses, staves for their casks, corn, fish, and other provisions, together with horses and cattle for their plantations, besides affording our people there a sure market for their surplus produce of coffee, sugar, and rum. nations at tectionist. Up to this period the practice of foreign nations Other had not very materially complicated our navigation first Prosystem. If Great Britain, on her part, persisted in refusing to receive, for instance, the produce of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in any but British ships, Spain and Portugal, on their side, declined to send their goods to England in any ships but their own. So that our law in such cases, rigorous as it was, did nothing but determine how a trade, in which we had never had a share, must be carried on, should we be permitted to enter it. But the case of the United States was attended with much greater difficulty. Here was an extensive and flourishing maritime commerce, averaging nearly 3,500,000l. yearly, which had hitherto been open to English and American vessels, indifferently, but which was now, by the operation of our Navigation Laws, confined entirely to the former.' It was then that the strength and elasticity of our exclusive system were first severely tested. Mr. Pitt foresaw this serious difficulty so early as 1783 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the necessity of immediately introducing a temporary measure to regulate the commercial intercourse with the now independent States Mr. Pitt's of North America. The Bill then actually introduced by Mr. Pitt proposed to allow American trade with vessels to import into our colonies any articles whatever of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, and to export any articles from our colonies to the United States. But, unfortunately, while this wise measure was under the consideration of the House of Commons, the ministry to which Mr. Pitt belonged resigned, and their successors, to save themselves the trouble of passing a Bill of this rary Act prudent and necessary character, passed a temporary Act, afterwards renewed from time to time, vesting in the Crown alone the power of regulating the trade with America. proposals with re ference to America Mr. Pitt resigns, and a tempo. ensues. As might have been anticipated, considerable discussion immediately arose with regard to the manner 1 See a review of the History of the Navigation Laws of England from the Earliest Times,' by a Barrister, a most able exposition, from the pen (I understand) of Sir Stafford H. Northcote, Bart., now (1875) Chancellor of the Exchequer, published by Ridgway, London, 1849. |