4th Aug.

Of Shipbuilders, Master Mariners, and others of Middles-
brough.

88

Of Seamen, Ship Carpenters, and other Artizans of
Middlesbrough.

120

Of Shipwrights and others of Dundee..

426

Of Shipwrights and others employed in the building, &c.
of the British Mercantile Marine.

14

Of Riggers, Lumpers, and others of the Port of London
Of Shipowners of Montrose

Petitions against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws
without Inquiry.

Of Merchants, Shipowners, and others of Glasgow
Of Shipowners, Merchants, &c. of the Port of Grange-
mouth.

144

48

Of Ship Plumbers, Painters, and Glaziers of the Port of
London.

214

9th May

Of Merchants, Shipowners, Tradesmen, Artificers, and other
Inhabitants of Maryport.

177

Petitions praying that before any Alteration is permitted in
the said Laws, a Select Committee may be appointed to
inquire into their Policy.

Of Shipowners, Merchants, Master Mariners, &c. of Glasgow
Of Shipwrights of Sunderland

261

832

::

115

296

565

Of Master Mariners, Seamen, and Pilots of Sunderland

1389

Of Block and Mast Makers and Boatbuilders of Sunderland
Of Shipbuilders of Sunderland

Of Shipowners, Merchants, and Tradesmen of South Shields
Of Shipowners of Belfast

Of Shipowners and other Inhabitants of the Port of Cardigan
Of Sailmakers of London

Of Shipbuilders, Shipwrights, and other Tradesmen in-
terested in the Construction and Equipment of Ships
belonging to the Port of London.

Chairman of the

Meeting.

47

394

277

Chairman of the

Association.

168

369

249

Of Shipowners and Master Mariners of the Port of Exeter
Of Shipcaulkers of the Port of London

193

137

A A

Date of Presentation.

Numbers signing.

25th Feb.

Of Shipowners and Master Mariners of the Port of Scar-
borough.

128

Of Shipwrights, Sailmakers, Ropemakers, and others of the
Port of Plymouth.

330

Of Shipsawyers of the Port of London

470

Of Merchants, Shipowners, and others of the Port of Bide-
ford.

514

Of Shipowners and others in the Boroughs of East and
West Looe.

87

Of Shipwrights and Shipping Tradesmen of the Port of
Scarborough.

Of Ship and Anchor Smiths of the Port of London
Of Master Mariners and Seamen of the Port of Plymouth
Of Shipbuilders, Shipwrights, and Rope and Sailmakers in
Montrose,

315

149

244

Of Merchants, Shipbrokers, and others of the Port of Ports-
mouth.

54

Of Shipbuilders, Shipwrights, Rope and Sail Makers, and
others in Montrose.

Of Mates of Ships, Mariners, and Seamen of Scarborough
Of Merchants, Shipowners, Tradesmen, and Artificers con-
nected with the building and outfits of Ships of the
Port of Liverpool.

2d Mar. 3d Mar.

Of Shipowners, Master Mariners, and others of St. Ives
Of Shipowners, Master Mariners, Seamen, and others of
the Borough and Port of Whitby.

10th Mar.

Of Shipowners, Master Mariners, Seamen, and others at
Kingsbridge and Selcombe.

123

Of Shipbuilders, Shipowners, and others of Workington ..
Of Shipowners, Mariners, Merchants, &c. of the Town and
Port of Goole.

100

266

13th Mar.

Of Master Mariners and Seamen of South Shields now in
Port.

549

16th Mar.

30th Mar.

Of Merchants, Shipowners, and others of the Port of Fowey
Of Shipowners of Great Yarmouth

956

108

دو

د"

Of Bankers, Merchants, and Inhabitants of Yarmouth
Of Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Yarmouth

31st Mar.

Of Shipowners and Merchants of Brixham, Torbay
Of Artizans and Mechanics

93

90

Petition for the immediate Repeal of the Navigation Laws, &c.
Petition of the Citizens of Montreal, in the Province of
Canada, in Public Meeting assembled, praying for the
immediate Repeal of the Navigation Laws, and for the
opening of the River St. Lawrence to Ships of all Nations.

APPENDIX, E.

Letter addressed by SIR JOHN GLADSTONE, Bart., to his Son, the Right Hon. W. EWART GLADSTONE, M.P. for the University of Oxford, on the occasion of his late Speech in the House of Commons, in favour of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

"MY DEAR SON WILLIAM,

66

Fasque, 6th June, 1848.

"Last evening I had read to me the speech you delivered in the House of Commons, on Friday last, in favour of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws. I think your facts are fairly stated, but your conclusions drawn from them I cannot admit to be generally just in principle or well founded. It appears to me that in your attempt to justify and defend a general principle founded on the modern notions of free trade-which implies a desire to concede existing rights, because it is, in the present day, called liberal to do so-you work yourself into a labyrinth, from which you can only escape by the undue sacrifice of certain rights and privileges, which are possessed by and belong to us, and for which, if given up, I cannot discover that we are to receive in return any due and just consideration. Hitherto, the discussion of these interests has been confined to national treaties, and these founded on reciprocity, where there was a quid pro quo, to be the principle that an equitable consideration was conceded to us in lieu of it; but you propose to abandon rights which have been proved, by experience, to be natural, and nationally important and valuable. When the Governments of two countries meet to decide these interesting subjects, the one proposes to the other to relinquish certain branches of their trade, by laying them open under treaty, with the understanding that those with whom they treat possess similar advantages, which they are to relinquish. Thus, let us suppose that the United States propose, that if we will consent to admit the produce of the Brazils, or of France, to be imported into this country in American bottoms, subject only to such conditions as are required when these importations are made in British bottoms, to make to us in return similar concessions in favour of British shipping employed in carrying on a similar trade between the Brazils and France, and the ports of the United States. Here there is a clear principle of reciprocity adopted; a quid pro quo, which being acted upon, draws nearer, and into closer inter

course and connection, those countries that agree to make such concessions to each other, and is therefore likely to prove for their mutual benefit; but such concessions can only be special, and founded on treaty; they cannot, without the risk of great sacrifices, be admitted or acted upon, under such general principles and practice as you propose to adopt. Thus, for instance, we have very extensive colonies and foreign possessions (many of them earned at the cost of British blood and treasure, and thus considered to be achieved by conquest, though now, I lament to think, likely to be rendered valueless to us by the present measures of our rulers), with which an intimate and constant intercourse is maintained and carried on in British shipping, productive of important advantages to Britain and British shipowners. If I understand you right, you propose to lay open this carrying trade to the shipping of other countries-for instance, to the United States. Now, it does happen that the United States possess neither colonies nor foreign possessions, and therefore have no such privileges to offer to us in return or to concede; it therefore follows, there can be no reciprocity in such a course of conduct-no quid pro quo,—but all the advantages, whatever they may be, are to be given up by us, without a consideration. You contend that in such a case, our colonists, having a choice of conveyances, some of them, perhaps, on lower terms than by British shipping, are willing to adopt them, and would reap the advantage. If this principle is to be recognised and acted upon, do you not at once lay the axe to the root of the tree out of which have grown the sources of our commerce, our wealth, and our maritime greatness? By laying them open, you propose to abandon to others the sources which support the superiority we have hitherto possessed in our ships, our colonies, and commerce-the sources of envy and jealousy to other countries. You say, that if you do so, in return we shall confer advantages on our colonies; as, for instance, you suppose a German ship carries emigrants from Germany to Australia, and on her arrival there the colonists should have the power of loading their wool or other produce, and, through such a foreign channel, of conveying it to a British market. If such a concession were to be made, the benefit to the colonist would only be incidental and unimportant. But whilst the transport of their produce is restricted to British shipping, the certainty of their finding employment secures the necessary supply on which the colonist may depend; but if laid equally open to the foreigner, who, with such competition, can have any dependence on finding employment ?-thus, between the two stools, whilst you propose to benefit the colonist, you risk his being left without the means of sending his wool to market. But this is only a secondary consideration. We have, at great expense, established and settled our colonies: we have given them privileges, protection, and admission to our markets of consumption for their produce on conditions advantageous to themconcessions all calculated to promote a union alike beneficial to both, but which, under your propositions, are to be abandoned and thrown open to

the world-whilst that world, caring only for itself, makes no optional contribution in return, towards raising our enormous revenue-defraying or providing for our sources of taxation, local and general-or supporting our systems, institutions, our habits of industry, labour, expenditure, and consumption. These are wholly local, and depend upon ourselves; whilst you propose, with a hand of vast and liberal profusion, to lay open every source we possess, or advantage we enjoy, to the free and open competition of others, who, as far as I can discover, while we are to part with substantial good, have nothing to give or even to offer to us in return. If I understand you rightly, you are also disposed to lay open our coasting trade to the foreigner, which certainly, in many instances, would be not only gratuitous, but without a pretence to reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity might be urged by the United States, if she proposed to us to admit British shipping to participate in carrying on their coasting trade, provided the same privilege were conceded by us to American shipping in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom. If such an uncalled-for, unnatural, and inconvenient concession, with a sacrifice of local feeling, were to be made, I can discover no serious advantage it would be productive of to the interests of either, whilst it would be found to prove a source of great jealousy and risk of misunderstanding. But come nearer home, and let us suppose that the excess of shipping belonging to the ports of Hamburgh and Bremen, built and fitted equally well with British shipping, though at a lower cost, navigated and provisioned on more favourable terms, and now spread over the ocean and advantageously employed in the commerce of the world, which seems rather a favourite object of yours-I say that if these bottoms from the opposite coast were to be employed in our coasting trade— let us suppose that great branch of it carrying the supply of coals from Newcastle and its neighbourhood to supply the consumption of fuel by nearly two millions of our population residing in London and its vicinity, employing many hundred sail of British ships, and many thousands of British seamensuppose this trade laid equally open to the shipping of Hamburgh and Bremen, what have they to give us in return? I answer, nothing, literally nothing; for they have neither coast nor coasting trade of any kind or description. Yet in this mania of liberty you with others appear disposed to make such vast and uncalled-for sacrifices. You may say that what we give up is to be occupied by others, and that the general trade and commerce of the world is to be extended and increased by it. That may be true; but the concessions and sacrifices are to be ours-the gains and advantages are to be given to others—whilst this country, raised to power and eminence by the advantages of situation, united with well-regulated liberality in our intercourse with others, but with a due regard to our own interests, supported by the wisdom of our laws and institutions, has gained a pre-eminence in the affairs of the world, which these new-fangled doctrines and theories are calculated to undermine, and ultimately to break