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
Mr. Thomas Baring avowed his opinion that, as a general principle,
restriction must be an injury to trade. If the whole community were to
be regarded as a community of merchants, certainly it was desirable to
allow the importers to get their wants supplied, and ship their goods
where and whence they pleased. If we were, like the inhabitants of the
Hanseatic Towns, mere receivers and distributors, then we might say,
let every other consideration be disregarded. But the real grievances
of the merchants might fairly be taken from their representations,
and, if they had sustained such grievances as had been represented,
surely they would not have been either indifferent or adverse to the
removal of those laws. If he understood the Bill rightly, it was framed
on the principle of removing all restrictions on foreigners, and of
maintaining restrictions on Englishmen. Let the House mark, he said,
that Government which, after great research and trouble in obtaining
information, had told us that there was an inferiority on the part of
our captains and sailors, now told the Shipowners that they were to
compete with those, who had the power of employing better workmen. The
only facility given by the Bill to Shipowners was the privilege of
building ships abroad; on this he would make one remark, that every
person knew the difficulty of recovering a manufacture once lost.
With respect to conditional legislation, suggested by Mr. Gladstone,
public opinion was divided on it in the United States. Sweden, in such
a case, had nothing to give. Holland could only give one-third, as the
Dutch Commercial Company carried on the other two-thirds of the Dutch
trade by contract in Dutch vessels. As regards the United States, he
was satisfied Mr. Bancroft did not intend to practise a deception.
The navigation of the United States offered advantages which might be
of account; yet there the favoured-nation clause came in to create
difficulties, and it might be that we would feel compelled to abandon
the Navigation Laws with respect to those States, or relinquish the
advantages which were offered prospectively. We ought to adhere to
the main principles of the Navigation Laws in all instances, and make
such concessions to each country as our interests might dictate as
expedient. The principles of Free-trade ought to be applied to each
measure under discussion, according as our particular interests were
affected thereby. Sir James Graham had put the question as one decisive
between retreat and progress. Reaction was as much to be feared as a
rash progress, for reaction might be fraught with suffering to the
people, as dangerous to the interests of the country as the proposed
change was ominous of evil.
[Sidenote: Lord J. Russell.]
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