History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
Accordingly Lord Hardwicke on the 25th February, pursuant to notice,
moved the appointment of a Select Committee of the Lords.[85]
Recapitulating in his speech the events of the preceding year, and,
dwelling in terms of indignation on the dissimulation which, he said,
had been practised, he charged Ministers with having deceived the
country; and stigmatised the whole evidence before the Committee of the
Commons as one-sided and unfair. He complained that a distinguished
officer of the Royal Navy, Sir James Stirling, had given his evidence
in favour of the abolition of the Navigation Laws; but that, before he
could be cross-examined, the Committee were informed, that the duty of
the gallant officer required his absence, and that he had sailed from
England. His Lordship then entered into numerous details, pronouncing
Mr. Porter’s evidence to be false; he, and the statistical officers of
the Board of Trade, “being learned in that description of theory which
was so popular now-a-days;” whereby forty-seven vessels of 7101 tons,
which had, in 1846, entered inwards from French ports, were converted,
by multiplying the number of entries inwards, into 228,186 tons, and
by treating the clearances outwards in a similar manner magnified to
such an extent that they represented 556,824 tons; while the _Prince
Ernest_, a passenger and mail boat, employed between Calais and
Dover, of 145 tons, figured in the Custom House returns as 24,215 tons
of British shipping![86]
[Sidenote: Earl Grey grants a Committee.]
Earl Grey, in granting the committee, took care to express an opinion,
that no further inquiry was necessary. He defended the course taken by
his colleague, Lord Palmerston, contending that no understanding had
been come to with the Government of the United States with regard to
the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and that the correspondence implied
nothing more, than that a mutual relaxation of existing restrictions
would be beneficial to the maritime commerce of both countries: he
concluded by defending Mr. Porter’s returns, and added, that “their
Lordships would find that, on strict examination, the allegations of
falseness would vanish altogether.”
[Sidenote: Evidence of the Shipowners before the Lords’ Committee.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account