waiting to express his opinions, rose to address the House. On rising
he had to encounter an unusual demonstration of hostility from the
Protectionist benches; and for the first few sentences these unseemly
interruptions continued; but he soon imposed silence upon his opponents
by turning round disdainfully and saying, “this is not a matter to
be disposed of by clamour, but by deliberate reason. It is possible
the opinions I avow may be erroneous, but, depend on it, you show no
confidence in the strength of your own if you have no better answer
to give me than boisterous clamour.” This appeal to be answered by
arguments alone secured the ex-minister a hearing. His speech, however,
was not one of his happiest efforts. He went over the same ground as
preceding speakers, referring to many parts of the evidence, produced
mainly to show that England need not fear competition even with the
Americans; he warned the House that the claims of Canada could not be
long resisted, remarking that it will benefit Parliament to examine
into the state of the Navigation Laws, with a view to an extensive
alteration of them. He, however, avoided giving a direct opinion on
many essential points; and, with respect to the policy of opening the
coasting trade or continuing the restriction, he reserved his views for
the present. Nor did he offer any opinion as to the policy of requiring
for every “British ship” that three-fourths of the crew should be
British seamen. He also reserved his judgment as to the mode by which
Government proposed to make the alterations: his first impression
being to proceed by reciprocity treaties, and to make concessions to
such Powers as were willing to make equivalent concessions to us. On
the other hand, it did not escape him that these reciprocity treaties
were themselves sources of constant trouble. The “favoured-nation
clause,” he added, seems simple enough, but when you come to act on it,
practically, these treaties involve us in great difficulties. There
was, he said, an admitted difference between the case of differential
duties on navigation and on the imports of goods under a tariff. And he
felt that it was most difficult to determine whether the concessions
any given country is willing to make, or has the power to make, are
equivalent to those made by some other, the commercial demands and
commercial produce of which may be of a totally different nature.
Again, with regard to reciprocity treaties, great difficulty he thought
might ensue in the event of war; and the power Government proposed to
retain of re-imposing restrictive duties would be found very difficult
to exercise. It would in his judgment invert the relations between the
Crown and the Parliament. The House of Commons would be favourable,
and relax, the Crown would restrain. The House of Commons would give
universal privileges, and in the course of four or five years the
invidious duty would be thrown upon the Crown of withdrawing privileges
the House of Commons had granted. Sir Robert, to avoid this ungracious
duty, threw out the hint that the Act should be made limited in
duration, so as to come again before Parliament. Suppose, he suggested,
the trade were to be opened for five years; at the end of that period
the privileges given would necessarily expire, and every country would
have notice that they had the means of averting the re-establishment
of restrictions by entering into some further arrangement with this
country. He preferred to see the object effected in that way rather
than by new reciprocity treaties; in short, that America, as well as
other nations, should do what she had proposed by legislation rather
than by treaty.
There was some renewal of hostile interruption at the conclusion of Sir
Robert’s speech; but it seemed clear that he felt by no means disposed
to run at once a race with the Whigs in a Free-trade policy as regarded
navigation; at least, it was evident from his speech that his mind was
not then made up on many essential points, and, further, that he had
doubts as to the wisdom or expediency of immediate and unconditional
repeal.
[Sidenote: The resolution carried by 117,]
This important and remarkable debate was closed by a short speech from
Lord John Russell, who apparently did not then take that interest in
the question which might have been expected from his position as Prime
Minister, and considering the views he had long entertained on all the
great questions of progress. The House then went to a division on Mr.
Herries’ amendment, or rather on the previous question, when there
appeared, Ayes 294, Noes 177, being a majority of 117 in favour of
going into committee upon the Navigation Laws.
[Sidenote: but abandoned for a time.]
By this decision the ground was cleared for the Ministerial measure;
but as the above result was not arrived at until the 9th June, it
was manifestly hopeless to expect that any Bill could be carried
through both Houses of Parliament during that session; the more so
as the Committee of the House of Lords was still sitting. Hence
many who were anxious for a settlement, seeing the great majority
by which the resolution was carried, censured Government for having
delayed the measure until so late a period of the session. During
the ensuing month, however, the subject was avoided on both sides;
the Lords’ Committee adjourned _sine die_, with no other result
than the printing of the evidence; and on the 10th August, when Mr.
Labouchere laid his resolution in form upon the table, he announced
the intention of Ministers to abandon the measure for the present
session, hoping to re-introduce the subject at an early period the
following year. In fact, a tacit understanding had been come to by all
parties that the struggle should be deferred, and, in this spirit, Mr.
Labouchere carefully avoided any remark that might lead to discussion.
He, however, announced his intention of bringing in a Bill _pro
formâ_, as preferable to making any further official statement. The
original resolution was then laid on the table unopposed, although Mr.
Gladstone criticised its form, and Mr. Robinson denied that the House
had affirmed the principle of the Government measure; they had, he
said, only negatived the counter-resolution proposed by Mr. Herries.
So jealous, indeed, were the Protectionists, that they would not allow
the resolution to be laid upon the table till the Minister had given
his assurance that no evasion should be practised, and that the Bill
should be exactly in conformity with Mr. Labouchere’s resolution.
The original Bill bears date 16th August, 1848, and was prepared and
brought in by Mr. Bernal, Mr. Labouchere, and Lord John Russell. It was
entitled “A Bill to amend the laws in force for the Encouragement of
British Shipping and Navigation.”[96] Its provisions were strictly in
accordance with Mr. Labouchere’s statement and resolution, and reserved
the coasting and colonial coasting trade, with power of retaliation
against foreigners who might decline to reciprocate.
[Sidenote: Temper of Shipowners.]
Thus ended the first great Parliamentary struggle of 1848. The
shipowners had so far succeeded that they had staved off, for a while,
the impending danger; but the great majority in the Commons declaring
it expedient to revise the existing laws, left no doubt on any
reasonable mind that a sweeping change would be effected in the ensuing
session.
It will have been noticed that the main question in any proposed
alteration of the Navigation Laws was, whether foreign countries, and
especially the United States, would respond to our liberal policy, and,
in a spirit of fairness, make such alterations in their navigation
laws, tonnage dues, and tariff, as would promote increased commercial
intercourse on the footing of an honourable competition. Of course the
Protectionists did not assent to all this; but the temper of the House
of Commons plainly indicated that a great relaxation of restriction was
inevitable, the only real doubt being as to the best mode of securing
reciprocity. The Ministers of the Crown saw clearly that the shipowners
were alarmed at the vast change threatened, while the periodical press,
during the autumn of 1848, teemed with the most alarming statements of
impending ruin to all classes connected with ships and navigation. The
Shipowners’ Society gave extensive circulation to a variety of fugitive
publications, all advocating the defence of the national interests and
condemning indiscriminate repeal. On the other hand, there were many
whose authors were strongly in favour of reciprocity;[97] the number
in favour of total and unconditional repeal being comparatively few.
But as “Repeal,” or “No Repeal,” was the popular cry, it became more
and more manifest that unless some pledge were given that foreign
nations would reciprocate our concessions, it would be difficult, with
all the influence of the Free-trade party, to carry the Bill through
Parliament, and especially through the Upper House.
[Sidenote: Efforts of ministers to obtain reciprocity by a circular
from the Foreign Office.]
It became, therefore, of the utmost importance to extract from Foreign
Powers some intimation of their intentions. Hence Lord Palmerston,
in his own name, addressed a circular from the Foreign Office, dated
22nd December, 1848, to her Majesty’s diplomatic agents in various
countries, requesting information on those points.
In this circular, Lord Palmerston informed his agents that the
measure for modifying the Navigation Laws would be again submitted
to Parliament on its re-assembling; and, as the principle of some
modification had been practically accepted, there was no doubt that
many extensive measures would receive the sanction of Parliament. These
diplomatic agents were furnished with a statement of the existing
Navigation Laws, and of the Registry Acts, together with a notice
of the changes proposed; these being the sweeping away all existing
restrictions, with the exception of those directly relating to the
coasting trade of Great Britain and of the British possessions abroad,
all other trades being thus opened to vessels of all nations. The Bill
had, in fact, left to all foreign British possessions power either to
open their own coasting trade, if they should think fit, or to regulate
that trade with the consent of the Queen in Council. It also gave them
power to deal in like manner with the trade between one colony and
another.
It was likewise explained that ample powers were reserved by the
Crown for the imposition of differential duties, prohibitions, and
restrictions, on ships of such countries as should still subject
British ships to various duties, restrictions, or prohibitions. It was
further intended that the Bill should not come into operation for some
months after the day on which it was passed, in order that Government
might have time to ascertain the dispositions of Foreign Powers, and
be able to frame proper orders for such differential duties as might
be required whenever the intended relaxations should take effect
towards ships of such nations as were willing to adopt the principle of
reciprocity.
Finally, it was pointed out that, on the one hand, the definition
of a “British ship” was no longer to signify one of British build;
but only that she should be owned by a British subject, and be
navigated by a crew whereof three-fourths were British subjects; the
definition foreign ship being purposely omitted, in order that any ship
acknowledged by the law of a particular country to be a ship of such
country should be also recognised as a ship of that country by British
law.
With this view, Lord Palmerston desired the diplomatic agents to inform
him what restrictions were actually in force against British vessels
at such countries where they were resident, what voyages they might
engage in (with the goods they might carry), and what differential
duties or charges, direct or indirect, they were liable to, from which
the national vessels were exempt, and, above all, whether any further
restrictions or differential duties were then contemplated.
In this circular Lord Palmerston disclosed the intended policy of
the British Government, in that, while not attempting to make the
alteration in its law strictly dependent on the legislation of other
countries, it was yet prepared to consider the general policy of each
State. His agents were, therefore, instructed to ascertain whether the
Governments to which they were accredited would accept advances on
the part of Great Britain, with the object of placing their ships on
a footing of equality; the only reservation being the coasting trade;
or whether they would require any particular privileges or exemptions
for their national vessels, thereby rendering “it impossible for this
country to concede to their shipping the whole of the advantages which
would, under the contemplated measure, attach to the shipping of such
States as may place British and national vessels on a footing of more
perfect equality.”
Practically, Lord Palmerston offered, on the part of the British
Government, to remove nearly all the restrictions of the British
Navigation Law, whenever such a proposal was met in a spirit of
corresponding liberality, at the same time, however, reserving the
right to take such course as Government might deem necessary where no
such reciprocal feeling was shown.
[Sidenote: Reply thereto of America.]
[Sidenote: Mr. Buchanan’s letter.]
It is unnecessary to enter at great length into the explanations
given in reply by foreign Governments. Some of these are, however,
too important to be omitted in a work of this kind. Pre-eminently the
disposition of the United States, or rather the opinion of Congress,
as well as of the Executive, was essentially necessary to be known
on this side of the Atlantic. Consequently Mr. John F. Crampton, our
Envoy at Washington, lost no time in bringing the question before the
then American Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan.[98] That gentleman in
reply said, that the most satisfactory answer he could give was to
furnish a copy of the first section of the Act of Congress, approved
on the _24th May, 1828_, intituled “An Act, in addition to an
Act intituled, ‘an Act concerning discriminating Duties of Tonnage
and Import, and to equalise the duties on Prussian Vessels and their
Cargoes.’” The substance of this law will be found in another part of
this work,[99] and it will be remembered that it conferred a power on
the American President to reciprocate by proclamation any abolition of
discriminating duties of tonnage or imports made by foreign nations.
Mr. Buchanan pointed out with just pride that Congress twenty years
previously had offered reciprocity of trade to all the world, and that
England might, by complying with the fair and equitable conditions of
that Act, have at any moment placed her vessels and their cargoes,
both in our direct and indirect foreign trade, on the same footing
with those of America. Mr. Buchanan added that, previously to 1828,
reciprocity in commerce and navigation had been practically adopted by
his Government in specific treaties with Denmark, Sweden, the Hanseatic
Republics, and Prussia, and had since been carried out in other
treaties concluded with Austria, Russia, &c., all of these being still
in force.
But the following remarkable observation made by Mr. Buchanan at the
close of his letter, gives conclusive testimony that when Mr. Bancroft
offered “to give us all,” _i.e._ the coasting trade, this offer
was wholly unauthorized by the American Government.[100] The words of
Mr. Buchanan were: “I might add that the President, in accordance with
the spirit of this Act (of 1828) has already made a specific proposal
to Great Britain through Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, dated 3rd
November, 1847, to conclude a treaty providing that “British ships may
trade from any port in the world to any port in the United States,
and be received, protected, and, in respect to charges and duties,
treated like American ships, if, reciprocally, American ships may in
like manner trade from any port of the world to any port under the
dominion of her Britannic Majesty”: but _of course, this proposal was
not intended to embrace the coasting trade of either country_.”[101]
Mr. Buchanan did not confine himself merely to this honest, frank
disclaimer. While his own opinions, as well as those of the highly
liberal and intelligent Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. R. J. Walker,
whose admirable report was published at the same time, were decidedly
in favour of meeting the change proposed by reciprocal legislation, he
did not conceal from Mr. Crampton that it was probable some difference
of opinion would manifest itself in Congress upon this question, from
the unwillingness felt in some quarters to throw open the ship-building
business in the United States to the formidable competition of British
shipbuilders, and more particularly to that of the shipbuilders of the
British North American colonies.
Many persons in England shared the apprehensions expressed by Mr.
Buchanan, especially those who, having watched throughout the progress
of the agitation for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, were aware
of the strong Protectionist feelings then and still prevalent on the
seaboard of the States, though not shared to the same extent by the
non-navigating classes: they did not, therefore, believe that Congress
would allow the President to put even the Act for 1828 in force without
a serious struggle. However, though no opposition was offered, the
expressions of Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Crampton warranted a reasonable
doubt lest, when it came to the point, whether reciprocity would be
granted to the ships of Great Britain. That no difficulty was started
on the other side was mainly due to the meritorious reports of Mr.
Walker, whose zeal in the cause of freedom of commerce and navigation
deserves the highest encomium.
[Sidenote: Reply of other Powers.]
The application made to France with a view of ascertaining the
disposition of the Republic to enter into a course of mutual
Free-trade had no result. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in a letter dated 31st
January, 1849, (misdated 1848, see p. 209), complained of our partial
non-execution of the clauses of the Convention of 1826; but, as
regarded future legislation, he said in substance that, as in England
the question was being subjected to the gravest consideration, so in
France, now that her mission was to march in the way of liberality, the
greatest circumspection was necessary. The subject was referred to
the competent authorities, and a few vague words about a desire on the
part of the Republic to follow the principles of reciprocity closed the
despatch, for whatever the opinions of the President may have been, the
people of France were not then prepared to recognise the principles of
Free-trade.
Sardinia expressed a very honourable desire to meet us on the
basis of reciprocity. With Russia a practical reciprocity already
existed. In Austria no differential duties existed between national
and English vessels. The answer, however, given by Count Bülow on
the part of Prussia was by no means satisfactory, inasmuch as he
could give no pledge as to future legislation, the policy of Prussia
being bound up with the Zollverein States. The answer from Belgium
presented difficulties. That from Portugal intimated general, but
very equivocating and undecided, Free-trade principles, to the effect
that, as the peculiarities of the commerce of the different nations of
Europe were so various, the Minister of Portugal “could not believe in
the complete acquiescence of those same nations with the plan which
England proposed to follow.” A glance was directed to the benefits
of Free-trade, and Viscount de Castro added: “But if this is not the
time for restrictions, neither can it be for Portugal that of reducing
the few that exist, as that would be the means of entirely destroying
the mercantile navy.” Lord Palmerston was, however, consoled for the
unfavourable answer by the assurance of the Portuguese Government
that whatever were the facilities the nations of Europe might adopt
in correspondence with the Bill then under discussion in the British
Parliament, England would not obtain from any of those nations the
almost entire monopoly she then enjoyed in her maritime intercourse
with Portugal. The Viscount de Castro hoped, therefore, that “in
Council” no exception would be made to injure the trade of Portugal.
In spite of the want of success (and they received but scanty
support) Ministers met in their applications to foreign countries for
reciprocity, they resolutely persevered in their policy, resting for
their chief support almost wholly on the Free-trade party in the House
of Commons. The principles of Free-trade had become the established
and predominant policy of the nation, and navigation alone was the
exceptional branch which, until then, had successfully resisted
innovation.
[Sidenote: Progress of Free-trade views.]
It was very remarkable, that in the celebrated Petition of the London
merchants to the House of Commons, so far back as 1820,[102] from
which the Free-trade movement may be dated, no mention is made of the
Navigation Laws. Mr. Tooke, who drew the petition, directed chiefly
attention to the then unacknowledged fact that freedom from restraint
was calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the
best direction to the capital and industry of the country. That the
maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, the
rule of every merchant in his individual dealings, was as strictly
applicable to the trade of the nation; but had Mr. Tooke at that time
hinted anything about navigation, or the abrogation of the existing
Navigation Laws, he would have exposed himself almost to personal
danger. The success, however, of the Free-trade measures which had
been adopted since 1842 had totally changed the current of public
opinion, and it was now only the shipowners, and the still powerful
Protectionist party in Parliament, which resisted this last crowning
measure of Free-trade. The opposition of the shipowners arose from a
deep-seated conviction that utter and inevitable ruin to their class
would result from the abrogation of the Navigation Laws.
[Sidenote: Parliament of 1849.]
Parliament assembled on the 2nd of February, 1849. The commercial and
manufacturing interests were rallying, but had not as yet effectually
revived from the prostration occasioned by the commercial crisis of
1847, and the general want of confidence resulting from the shock of
the foreign revolutions in 1848. The shipping trade was in a state
of transition, as it was not until some time later that the gold
discoveries in Australia gave a fresh impulse to the “long voyage”
trade, and that towards a region of the globe which promised but a
slow, however certain, future development of wealth and navigation. The
shipowners were, in fact, still suffering a periodical depression of
trade after two or three very prosperous years.
In the Speech from the Throne delivered by her Majesty in person, she
said: “I again commend to your attention the restrictions imposed on
commerce by the Navigation Laws. If you shall find that these laws are,
in whole or in part, unnecessary for the maintenance of our maritime
power while they fetter trade and industry, you will no doubt deem it
right to repeal or modify their provisions.”
[Sidenote: Death of Lord George Bentinck, 21st September, 1848.]
When the House of Commons assembled, a great void was felt in the
absence of Lord George Bentinck, who, during the recess, had been
snatched away by death in the very pride of manhood. His devotion to
the cause of the shipowners and Protectionist principles rendered his
loss deeply felt by many classes. On the day of his interment, which
was dark, cold, and drizzling, this feeling of respect was paid in
a manner almost reverential. From nine till eleven o’clock that day
all the British shipping in the docks and in the river, from London
Bridge to Gravesend, hoisted flags half-mast high, and minute guns
were fired from appointed stations along the Thames. The same mournful
ceremony was observed in all the ports of the United Kingdom; and
not only in these, for the flag was half-mast high on every British
ship at Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Havre.[103] Whatever may have been
the political errors of Lord George Bentinck, he was eminently the
friend and champion of the shipowners. Shortly before his death he had
renounced the leadership of his party in the House of Commons, and Mr.
Disraeli had succeeded him. In the House of Lords the re-appointment of
the committee of the preceding year was slightly mentioned; but upon
an intimation from the Marquess of Lansdowne that the measure to be
introduced by Government would not be delayed for the report of this
committee, the shipowners abandoned whatever designs some of them may
have had to prolong the inquiry.
[Sidenote: Mr. Labouchere’s new resolution, February 14, 1849.]
On the 14th February Mr. Labouchere, still President of the Board of
Trade, moved a fresh resolution almost in the identical terms employed
in the preceding year. He recapitulated at great length the arguments
in favour of repeal which he had employed in the previous session. It
will be unnecessary to dwell upon these here; but his new light with
regard to the coasting trade deserves a place in tracing the progress
of our mercantile marine: on this branch of the subject he seemed to
tremble before the superior abilities of Mr. Gladstone; and the remarks
of that gentleman intimating a strong desire to surrender the coasting
trade, with a view to obtain in return that of the United States,
evidently made considerable impression upon his mind, so that he
scarcely knew what to grant or refuse. Mr. Gladstone asked, not merely
that we should give colonial trade for colonial trade, but our coasting
trade for theirs. It was asserted that the American trade, say from New
York to California, was a foreign, or colonial, rather than a coasting
traffic. But to argue that a voyage from London to Malta was to be held
part of a colonial trade, while a voyage from California to New York
was to be considered part of a coasting trade, was preposterous, and
Mr. Labouchere affected to believe that the United States would not
persist in a policy so contrary to the dictates of justice and common
sense.[104]
[Sidenote: Proposed change in the coasting trade.]
The fresh consideration which Mr. Labouchere had given to his measure
enabled him now to propose a plan which, while it did not imply a total
abolition of all restrictions, would effect a considerable modification
of them, and at the same time enable us, as he conceived, to get,
_without cavil or hesitation_, such a measure from America as
the important interests of this country demanded, without exposing
our revenue to danger, or exciting alarm among those engaged in the
coasting trade of this country.[105] Such were the sanguine but vain
expectations of Mr. Labouchere. He tried to make it appear that there
were two branches of the coasting trade, which, although they went by
the same name, were yet essentially distinct from each other. There
was the trade, conducted principally either by steamboats or small
vessels, consisting in the carrying of goods and passengers to and fro,
and depending on local connection with the places between which the
trade was conducted. With that trade foreigners could not compete; and,
consequently, he illogically argued that it was not intended to disturb
that trade or throw it open to foreign competition; so that he proposed
to keep the coasting trade, which consisted of passing from one port to
another of the United Kingdom, on its present footing. Government had,
however, he said, resolved to abolish restrictions which prevented the
combination of a coasting with a foreign voyage. It was not proposed
that either a foreign vessel or an English vessel foreign bound should
be allowed to proceed from port to port in England and then return; but
that sailing from a British port, and being bound for a foreign port,
they should be permitted to carry from one British port to another, and
then clear out and proceed on their voyage. The Customs’ authorities
reported that this could be done consistently with safety to the
revenue, provided there was a restriction that the cargoes should
not be carried in vessels under 100 tons burden, so as to prevent
smuggling, although, as a matter of fact, the light dues and other
charges must effectually prevent such a trade. Such was the bungling
scheme respecting the coasting trade proposed by Mr. Labouchere,
whereby he attempted to satisfy all parties, and bring the Americans to
terms.
[Sidenote: Mr. Bancroft recalcitrates.]
[Sidenote: Hence withdrawal of the coasting clauses.]
When Alderman Thompson asked whether any intimation had been received
from the American Government as to any convention with respect to the
coasting trade, Mr. Labouchere answered, that in a recent interview he
had had with Mr. Bancroft, that gentleman said, “he should be willing
the next day to sign any convention which should include the coasting
trade”, and Mr. Labouchere believed him to be sincere;[106] though, by
Mr. Buchanan’s letter of the 9th February (which had not yet reached
England), the American Secretary of State had expressly said, “_the
coasting trade is of course reserved_.” As a matter of course, when
Mr. Buchanan’s letter reached England all Mr. Labouchere’s visions of
reciprocity in the coasting trade vanished. At a subsequent period Mr.
Labouchere, curiously enough, entered into a defence of Mr. Bancroft,
“who was a most honourable and straightforward man.” Be that, however,
as it may, he certainly deceived Mr. Labouchere; and, indeed, Lord
Palmerston also, who up to the 5th March, expressed himself in the
strongest manner that the reply of the American Government would fully
bear out Mr. Bancroft’s pledges. Such was the ignominious rejection
of these clauses relating to the coasting trade, which had been
inserted in the Bill of 1849 to meet “the conciliatory disposition”
of Mr. Bancroft, but which his superiors at Washington sternly and
unequivocally repudiated.
[Sidenote: The debate.]
[Sidenote: Alderman Thompson, &c.]
[Sidenote: Mr. Ricardo.]
The debate on Mr. Labouchere’s resolution brought out again all Mr.
Herries’ arguments and adverse predictions about repeal. Alderman
Thompson complained that the United States minister was recalled with
every change of Presidency, and that Mr. Bancroft was notoriously
more liberal than President Taylor, who had been elected upon the
principle of Protection to native industry. Mr. Banks, Mr. Hildyard,
Sir John Tyrrell, and the Marquess of Granby followed Mr. Herries and
Alderman Thompson in the same line of objection; whilst Mr. Hume,
Colonel Thompson, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. John Williams, maintained the
Free-trade line of argument. Mr. J. L. Ricardo vehemently supported the
extreme views of Free-trade, and said emphatically to the shipowners:
“Depend upon yourselves—depend upon your energies as Englishmen—depend
upon the resources of this country and the wealth which commands the
resources of the world, and do not trust to Acts of Parliament. It
would be better to send forth our ships free as the winds which filled
their sails, with liberty to go where they would, and come from where
it suited them, than to start them from our ports encumbered with the
8 & 9 Vict. cap. 88, and ballasted with twelve volumes of Hertslet’s
‘Commercial Treaties.’” The resolution was agreed to without a trial of
strength, and the Bill was brought in.[107] It contained twenty-three
clauses.
[Sidenote: Meeting of the Shipowners’ Society.]
Upon the 2nd March, the second reading of the Bill having been fixed
for the 9th March, the General Shipowners’ Society held their annual
meeting at the London Tavern. Their accustomed comments upon lights,
harbours, and pilotage; discriminating duties in foreign ports; the
East Indian salt monopoly; the Merchant Seamen’s Act; the Passengers’
Act; the Merchant Seamen’s Fund, and a variety of other points, which,
at ordinary times, usually occupied a large share of their attention
and space in their report—were on this occasion all subordinate to the
one question of all-absorbing consequence, the threatened impending
repeal of the Navigation Laws. To discuss special regulations affecting
maritime commerce, while the whole question of general policy trembled
in the balance, was both inconvenient and embarrassing.
[Sidenote: Their report.]
The committee narrated at great length the various steps taken by
Government since 1846 with regard to the Navigation Laws. In reviewing
the evidence taken before both Houses, the shipowners made it
appear that they were completely triumphant in establishing all the
various points on which they took their ground; viz., that no evil
susceptible of any remedy had been or could be proved, arising from
the practical operation of the Navigation Laws: that the maintenance
of the Protective principle on which those laws were founded was
indispensable to the maintenance of an extensive mercantile marine:
that the preservation of such a mercantile marine was equally necessary
for the existence of a powerful navy: and that, hence, the repeal of
the Navigation Laws would involve danger to the basis of our national
defence.
Having proclaimed their own triumph, they next turned their attention
to the Bill then before the public, and, pointing out the unsparing
criticism it had provoked, demanded the strenuous and uncompromising
resistance, not only of every shipowner, but of every friend to his
country. They accordingly denounced it “as fraught with consequences
destructive to the shipping interest, and dangerous to the welfare and
safety of the country;” in short, as one of the most unjust measures
ever submitted to Parliament.
The Committee next proceeded to analyse the Bill, justifying their
censure of its provisions. It was said to be a concession to the
demands of the West Indies and Canada. The demand having been made
under an official stimulant, the West Indian interest, perceiving their
error, they alleged, has now disclaimed it, and publicly declared
that they have no desire for the repeal. Canada, with selfish and
precipitate incaution, had put forward a similar demand; but the
demand for free navigation was coupled in the same document with an
inconsistent claim for the re-enactment of a Protective duty in favour
of her agricultural produce. The expectation of benefit entertained
by the Canadians from the repeal of the Navigation Laws had, in the
opinion of the shipowners, as little real foundation as those the
West Indians had first entertained, but subsequently abandoned. Their
Committee expressed doubt of any beneficial reciprocity from the United
States, especially as any commercial treaty must be controlled by
two-thirds of the Senate.[108] They treated the power of re-imposing
restrictions as in principle opposed to every prudent rule of State
policy. The coasting-trade clauses, of course, met with condemnation.
If, they asserted, the censure cast upon shipmasters was deserved, the
injustice to the owner was flagrant. If unmerited, the measure was
sustained by cruel calumny.
[Sidenote: The manning-clause grievance.]
But the most notorious as well as the most important and disqualifying
inconsistency was the compulsion on a British shipowner to man his ship
with British seamen. This was magnified into a stupendous grievance. It
was said to force the shipowner to conduct his affairs contrary to his
conviction of his own interest, and according to the arbitrary dictates
of an inconsistent and tyrannical Act of Parliament. The Committee,
kindling with indignation at the mere recital of their grievances,
averred that if the Navigation Laws were repealed, a British registry
must be regarded as a badge of slavery, and an instrument of
oppressive interference; nor did they doubt that to escape its bonds,
unaccompanied as it then would be by any benefit whatsoever, British
capital would to a great extent be invested in foreign shipping, to be
engaged in the British carrying trade.
[Sidenote: Policy proposed.]
With these views, they enjoined union among themselves. They trusted
that shipowners would abstain from promulgating separate opinions, or
allow themselves to be drawn into controversy and disunion, as, by
these means, successful resistance would be impossible. They called on
the shipowners at the several outports to send deputies to the “central
committee in London for upholding the principles of the Navigation
Laws.”
By these means, they argued that there would be an opportunity for
a careful consideration of the future steps to be taken during the
progress of the Bill through the House of Commons. They further
suggested, that every possible endeavour should be made to enlist
the sympathy and engage the support of other powerful interests. The
principle they proposed was the disclaiming all desire for monopoly,
and the advocacy of such moderate and just protection to all interests
as would admit of foreign competition, so far as might be sufficient
to stimulate to the utmost domestic energies, but, at the same time,
would limit this competition within such bounds as to prevent domestic
energies from being crushed in the struggle. They concluded by
reminding the shipowners that “Union is Strength,” and by expressing
a fervent hope that this contest, which their enemies had insultingly
designated as a struggle “for the last rag of Protection,” would, in
its results, roll back the tide on their opponents, thus leading to the
universal application of the principles of just and moderate protection
to domestic interests, and superseding for ever the rash and delusive
theories which, in recent legislation, had successively involved every
interest of the State in difficulty, distress, and ruin.
[Sidenote: Agitation in the country.]
The agitation thus invoked by the central body of shipowners in
London was responded to by their fellow-shipowners throughout
the country. Meetings were held at Belfast, Bristol, Dartmouth,
Devonport, Dunfermline, Dundee, Exeter, Exmouth, Fleetwood, Glasgow,
Gateshead, Hull, Hartlepool, London, Liverpool, Leith, Lynn, Montrose,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Portsmouth, Penzance, Perth, Sunderland, Shields,
St. Andrews, Swansea, Saltash, Tynemouth, Weymouth, and Yarmouth.
The petition from London was signed by 27,000 persons of the most
respectable classes; while that from Liverpool comprised 24,700 names,
not shipowners exclusively. This petition, eloquently drawn up,
expressed alarm at the progress of a measure which proposed to take
away from this country advantages it had so long and so successfully
enjoyed, and to invite, unwisely, foreign nations to share those
advantages with us; nations, too, utterly unable, even if willing,
to confer on us any adequate equivalent in return. It pointed at the
evident result of the substitution, to a great extent, of foreign for
British and colonial shipping, the employment of foreign labour and
capital in lieu of our own, and the creation of new relations between
foreign nations and our own colonies; thereby weakening the ties which
bind the latter to the mother-country, and diminishing British power
and influence throughout the world. They did not fail to show, above
all, the consequences the measure would have on the supply of seamen to
the Royal Navy.
The second reading of the Bill was fixed for the 9th March, when each
party mustered all its forces. The shipowners throughout the kingdom
were in a state of great excitement. It was true that among them were
many who were ready to accept the measure as proposed by Government,
if other nations would only reciprocate; and there were even a few who
were so extreme in their views of Free-trade as to desire that the
Bill should be carried as it stood, but the majority were vehemently
opposed to repeal; and, though some fears were entertained that the
second reading of the Bill would be carried in the House of Commons, it
was confidently anticipated that a considerable majority in the Lords
would, under the brilliant leadership of Lord Stanley (Lord Derby), who
had warmly espoused their cause, defeat its progress and throw out the
Whig administration.
FOOTNOTES:
[95] All these figures may now (1875) be at least doubled, except the
number of men, as the improvements in mechanical contrivances have
materially reduced manual labour since the repeal of the Navigation
Laws. In the case of steam ships to nearly one-half. See following
table:—
-------+----------------------------------+--------------------------------
| Sailing Ships. | Steam Vessels.
+-----------+---------+------------+-----------+--------+-----------
Years. | | | Proportion | | | Proportion
| Tons. | Men. | of Men to | Tons. | Men. | of Men to
| | | 100 Tons. | | | 100 Tons.
-------+-----------+---------+------------+-----------+--------+-----------
1852 | 3,215,665 | 146,286 | 4·55 | 165,219 | 13,277 | 8·04
1854 | 3,516,456 | 146,522 | 4·17 | 212,637 | 15,894 | 7·47
1869 | 4,677,275 | 152,186 | 3·25 | 880,028 | 43,304 | 4·92
1870 | 4,519,141 | 147,207 | 3·25 | 1,039,969 | 48,755 | 4·69
1871 | 4,343,558 | 141,035 | 3·25 | 1,290,003 | 58,703 | 4·55
1872 | 4,245,904 | 137,101 | 3·23 | 1,515,704 | 66,619 | 4·40
1873 | 4,067,144 | 130,877 | 3·22 | 1,680,953 | 71,362 | 4·24
1874 | 4,037,564 | 128,733 | 3·19 | 1,827,024 | 74,873 | 4·10
-------+-----------+---------+------------+-----------+--------+-----------
[96] The original Bill will be found in vol. iv., Session 1847-8, p.
495.
[97] It was on this occasion that I first appeared before the public
as a politician. Following in the wake, but a long way astern, of
Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, I addressed a number of letters
to Lord John Russell, which appeared in the ‘Morning Herald,’ and
were afterwards republished in a pamphlet. They had a very large
circulation, and caused considerable excitement among shipowners at
the time. They were written in a homely style, commencing, “I am a
plain man of business, daily to be found at my office in one of the
City lanes, in the midst of my clerks, in the centre of a large dingy
room. Business is my politics, not politics my business. If I have
a leaning it is towards Free-trade principles,” and so forth. But I
soon learned that my “principles,” as I laid them down, were, however
plausible, fundamentally and radically wrong. Sound enough they no
doubt were, _if all nations had been prepared to adopt them_; and
if they could have been applied to the world at large, no system could
have been more perfect. But, unfortunately, Foreign States were not
prepared to adopt Free-trade; and if we adopted retaliation against
those which did not, we reverted to Protection in its most pernicious
form. Consequently we pursued the policy most likely to suit our own
interests, and very wisely did not attempt to enforce it on other
nations. Therein Government was right and I was wrong.
[98] See ‘Parliamentary Papers,’ vol. li., 1849, p. 237, _et seq._
[99] _Ante_, p. 63.
[100] In truth, the policy of the American Government, since that
country became an independent nation, has with few exceptions been
throughout in favour of Protection. When Congress was first inaugurated
in 1789, one of the measures of that year (4th July) was “An Act for
levying Duty on Goods,” &c., and another (20th July, 1789) was passed,
entitled “An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage.” Indeed, so thoroughly
Protectionist were the great founders of the Republic, that Mr. Adams,
writing to Mr. Jay in Paris on the 26th February, 1786, says: “If the
United States would come to the resolution to prevent all foreign
vessels from coming to their ports, and confine all exports and
imports to their own ships and seamen, _they would do for anything
that I know the wisest thing which human prudence could dictate_.”
Further he says: “On the other hand, if the United States would adopt
the principle of the French economists, and allow the ships and
merchants of all nations equal privileges with their own citizens, the
consequence would be the sudden annihilation of their manufactures
and navigation.” And this has been in a great measure the opinion
entertained by the Americans throughout, no doubt under the impression
that, with so vast a territory, where they had within themselves almost
everything they required, they could do without foreign nations. They
have not yet seen the advantages they would derive by being allowed to
purchase in the cheapest market, wherever that market may be,—home or
abroad.
[101] See Mr. Buchanan’s letter in full, vol. li., ‘Parliamentary
Papers,’ p. 239.
[102] It was presented on the 8th May, 1820, by Mr. Alexander Baring,
afterwards Lord Ashburton. The whole case is reported in Tooke’s
‘History of Prices.’ Appendix, p. 332.
[103] Vide ‘Lord George Bentinck: a Political Biography.’ By the Right
Hon. B. Disraeli. Pp. 421, 422. See also p. 409, a curious story of the
marine picture in the Miracle Room at the cathedral of Antwerp.
[104] The Americans have, however, persisted in this policy to this
day; a fact which cannot be too often repeated.
[105] It may be said that the reason for maintaining the coasting trade
was not so much the fear of injuring the shipowners employed in it as
destroying “the nursery for our seamen.”
[106] See ‘Hansard,’ March 23, 1849, vol. ciii. p. 1229.
[107] The original Bill, and the Bill as amended in Committee, will be
found in vol. iv., 1849, pp. 331 and 347.
[108] In the first draft of the Constitution of the United States,
the power of Congress was limited by a special provision that “No
Navigation Acts should be passed without the assent of two-thirds of
the members present in each House.” See Pitkin’s ‘Political and Civil
History of the United States;’ and, though this proposal was afterwards
reported against, it remains in force to the present day.
CHAPTER IX.
The debate, March 1849—Speech of Mr. Herries—Mr. J.
Wilson—Question of reciprocity—Doubtful even in the case of
shipping—Difficulty of the “Favoured-nation” clause—Marquess of
Granby—Mr. Cardwell—Mr. Henley—Mr. Gladstone—Burdens to be removed
from Shipowners—Conditional legislation recommended—Views on the
subject of the coasting trade—Americans not Free-traders—Smuggling
in the coasting trade—Mr. Robinson—Mr. Clay—Mr. T. A. Mitchell—Mr.
Hildyard—Mr. Ricardo—Mr. H. Drummond—Mr. Labouchere’s
reply—Majority of 56 for Bill—Committee on the Bill—Coasting
clauses withdrawn—Mr. Bouverie’s amendment opposed by
Shipowners’ Committee—Mr. Gladstone’s scheme also opposed by the
Shipowners—Questions of reciprocity, conditional legislation,
and retaliation—Details of American Law—Mr. Bouverie’s plan
rejected—Mr. Disraeli’s speech—Third reading of Bill—Mr.
Herries’ speech—Mr. Robinson—Mr. Walpole—Sir James Graham—Mr. T.
Baring—Lord J. Russell—Mr. Disraeli—Majority for Bill, 61.
[Sidenote: The Debate, March 1849.]
The House of Commons, though seldom much interested in maritime and,
as was conceived, in intricate questions, was, on this occasion, full
to the overflowing. The subject was, indeed, one of crowning interest.
The repeal of the Navigation Laws would, as the extreme Free-traders
had remarked, sweep away “the last rag of Protection;” as others more
pompously had expressed it, would form the “capital of that majestic
column of unfettered commerce which their own hands had reared.”
The Protectionists, on the other hand, looked on the measure as the
final overthrow of our naval power and the destruction of our maritime
commerce. The shipowners mustered in great numbers about the Commons;
and the author, who had not, at that time, found a seat in the body of
the House, was favoured with one in the reporters’ gallery.
[Sidenote: Speech of Mr. Herries.]
Mr. Herries was once more selected as the champion of the shipping
interest; and, on the question being put that “this Bill be _now_
read a second time,” moved an amendment that it “be read a second
time that day six months.” If Mr. Herries was not gifted with great
eloquence, he possessed at least great experience, and a thorough
knowledge of his subject. His speech in opposition to the Bill was of
the most elaborate character. He insisted, that the more the measure
was examined, the more the shipowners and the public were adverse to
its passing. He examined at great length the correspondence from our
colonies and from Foreign Powers, contending that that from Canada
was useless, if not repugnant. In point of fact, he said, taking
his text from the report of the Shipowners’ Society, the opinion of
the Canadians had changed, and the public sentiment there appeared
decidedly adverse to repeal. A similar change of feeling seemed to
have come over the West India colonists, and they had shifted their
ground. Germany would do nothing until the central German government
was appointed, which, in his opinion, would probably be about the
Greek Kalends! The United States pointed out the existing law, but
could not answer us till Congress had been consulted. The replies
from other nations were gone over _seriatim_, and the conduct of
Belgium in adhering to what was thought best for Belgian interests was
applauded as a wise and liberal course. No foreign Government had given
a distinct answer except Belgium, and that was not a favourable one.
We had abandoned, he said, some of our restrictive laws in relation
to European navigation, and wisely abandoned them, because we could
not maintain them any longer. That was the ground of Mr. Huskisson’s
modifications: but we ought, at present, to hold what we could, and
to concede only what we must, in matters of navigation. He admitted,
amidst the derisive cheers of the repeal party, that the Navigation
Laws imposed restraints on commerce, and so far operated unfavourably;
but the question to be considered was whether the gain to be derived
from the abolition of these laws was a sufficient inducement for
running the risk of the loss to which this abolition must lead. All
prudence and sound judgment was opposed to repeal. The voice now rising
from every quarter would soon reach those in whose hands the government
was placed, and they would learn that their first duty was to uphold
British interests, maintain British commerce, and promote British
enterprise.
[Sidenote: Mr. J. Wilson.]
Mr. James Wilson, who replied at great length to Mr. Herries, had a
few years previously started a Free-trade journal, the ‘Economist,’
and, having obtained a seat in the House of Commons, became a staunch
and formidable advocate of an extreme Free-trade policy. He was a
master in statistics, and, as figures were the rage at the time, he
happily seized the moment which led to a political fortune, and,
using his knowledge of them to the best advantage became a valuable
adjunct to the ministry of the day. His speech on the present
occasion showed the beneficial action of Free-trade in the removal
of needless restrictions, and, further, that, though our merchants
had been exposed to great competition, the aggregate commerce of the
country had been proportionally augmented; he therefore asked why
the shipping interest should be exempted from a rivalry which other
interests had successfully encountered. He then demonstrated the
little real advantage the Navigation Laws gave to British shipowners,
who, by the very policy of those laws, were exposed to competition in
the long-voyage trade in the very places where competition was most
injurious to them; and, further, that all the tests fairly applied to
the question proved the ability of British shipowners to compete with
the foreigner. In some cases, too, he held that the Navigation Laws
acted as a protection to foreign at the expense of British ships; and
while, practically, of little benefit to the shipowner, there could be
no doubt that these restrictions operated injuriously, especially in
emergencies, on consumers, and, ultimately of course, on shipowners
themselves. If a commercial marine was necessary to support our navy,
Free-trade had increased and would increase that marine.
[Sidenote: Question of reciprocity.]
But perhaps the most important part of Mr. Wilson’s speech was that
relating to the question of reciprocity. The general question was,
indeed, beginning to resolve itself into three points. All parties
had come to the conclusion that some change was necessary; but it
remained to be decided whether reciprocity, conditional legislation
and retaliation, should be the principle of the measure. Mr. Gladstone
last year had strongly urged the principle of reciprocity in some cases
by special treaties. Mr. Wilson very strongly combated this principle.
Nothing he thought would be more prejudicial to the spread of
Free-trade principles among continental nations than that this country
should sanction the notion entertained by foreign Governments, that the
British Government was willing to make concessions not so much for the
general benefit of commerce, as for the sake of other concessions, to
be thus obtained from foreign countries in favour of England. Foreign
nations considered England as an old and wealthy nation, and expected
to be overreached in forming commercial treaties.
He objected, therefore, to the principle of reciprocity, as it would
actually throw difficulties in the way of those who were willing to
meet us. On any principle of reciprocity they must adopt that of
equivalents, and this was impossible. Other countries had no colonies,
and had, consequently, no equivalent advantages to offer in return
for those conferred by England. He admitted, however, that there was
a great distinction between reciprocity in produce and reciprocity in
shipping. If they imposed retaliatory duties on the produce of various
countries, for the purpose of meeting duties imposed on their own
goods, they did not visit the same interests with this retaliation. For
example, cotton and woollen goods were sent to Prussia: we received
from Prussia, corn, timber, and wool. If Prussia imposed high duties
on cotton and woollen goods, we could only retaliate by putting high
duties on the corn, timber, and wool of Prussia when imported into
England. The Prussian Government punished the woollen manufacturer
and the cotton manufacturer of England by imposing high duties on
their goods; and, then, the English Legislature punished them again
by imposing high duties on the raw material from which those goods
were manufactured. Nothing could be more monstrous than such a course
of proceeding. If we acted on the principle of reciprocity, we ought
to give perfect freedom of trade to those who gave perfect freedom of
trade to us. If the United States admitted our goods duty free, we
could not do less than admit the corn of the United States free.
[Sidenote: Doubtful even in the case of shipping.]
[Sidenote: Difficulty of the “Favoured-nation” clause.]
Suppose, again, Russia, on the Black Sea, imposed a duty of 50 per
cent. on manufactures, we must retaliate by a duty of 50 per cent.
on Russian corn and timber. We must, in fact, have distinct treaties
and distinct tariffs, and there would hence result a most complicated
system of international commerce. Reciprocity meant that or nothing.
But, after thus stating his views on reciprocity of produce, Mr. Wilson
admitted that by imposing restrictions on foreign ships corresponding
with those imposed on our own, we should have the advantage of dealing
with the same interest, and the weapon would be more likely to be
effectual, in that those, for whose sake duties were imposed abroad,
would be subject to corresponding disadvantages in this country. But he
was wholly opposed to reciprocity even in shipping. He had shown what
variety of treaties would be required if the principle of reciprocity
was adopted with regard to manufactures and produce; and he felt
convinced that a corresponding or analogous difficulty would arise from
adopting that principle in the case of shipping. Very intricate and
complicated regulations would be required. Thus, supposing we found a
country disposed to give all, we ourselves would be obliged to give
all. But then it must be borne in mind that there were twenty countries
with whom we had already treaties, and to whom we were bound to extend
the advantages obtainable by the most favoured nations: and, therefore,
if, now, we gave privileges to any one country, we must extend the same
to all the other countries which stood in the same position.
Suppose, he said, that Hamburg were to give this country all that
it required, and that, in return, its ships were placed on the same
footing as British ships; what guarantee should we have that a third
country, which had given us nothing, would not derive the same
advantages as the shipowners of Hamburg, or that the sugar of Java,
and the coffee of South America, would not be brought to this country
in their ships? There would be no end of evasion. The United States
would reciprocate; Prussia would do the same; Russia and the ports of
the Hanseatic League would follow their example: what, therefore, had
this country to fear? It was admitted that we should not expect the
same reciprocity from France, Spain, or Belgium; but, in these cases,
should we be really worse off than we are now? At this moment France
and Spain had great privileges in this country. France had the right,
not according to treaty, but from the general policy of our Navigation
Laws, to send her produce direct to this country in her own ships.
She, however, availed herself to a very small extent of this privilege.
Nine-tenths of the importations of Spanish colonial sugars came
likewise in British bottoms. As far as regards the reservations at the
discretion of the Queen in Council, Free-trade unrestricted would most
assuredly be the rule and restriction the exception.
[Sidenote: Marquess of Granby.]
The Marquess of Granby followed on the side of Protection, urging the
mischief that would result from the great number of persons thrown out
of employment; he pointed out how uncertain were the advantages to be
derived, and the reality of its evils; but despite of disadvantages,
if Englishmen were but true to themselves and their country, he felt
that we should be able to weather the impending storm, and retain the
command of that “glorious element” which was our natural protector, so
that the flag of England might still for years to come “wave triumphant
over every sea.”
[Sidenote: Mr. Cardwell.]
Mr. Cardwell, although he could not share in the gloomy apprehensions
of Mr. Herries or the eloquent doubts of the Marquess of Granby, felt
the importance of this question and its bearing on the mercantile
interests of England and her colonies. He warned the House of the
danger of not taking timely steps with regard to what was called the
“long-voyage” clause, which some of the witnesses before the Lords’
Committee regarded as a fundamental principle of the Navigation Laws;
and he showed that the effect of maintaining this clause would be to
defeat the policy of the warehousing system, and rob us of a large
share of the commerce of the world. There was nothing more important
than that great interest known by the denomination of the “warehousing
system,” which had been the growth of comparatively recent years and
was the offspring of a judicious relaxation in the Navigation Laws:
this system he held had made this country the entrepôt between regions
furnishing tropical produce and the great consuming countries of
Europe. Mr. Cardwell then urged the importance of the Canadian claims,
and described the keen competition going on between Canada and the
United States.
[Sidenote: Mr. Henley]
Mr. Henley went into a long argument against the Bill, especially
animadverting upon Mr. Wilson’s having derided reciprocity, while
nevertheless the Bill legislated for it, and Government had been in
correspondence with foreign Governments for the purpose of securing
it. “What did the Government intend to do,” he asked, “on the subject
of impressment? If the masters were to be taken from a superior class,
were they still liable to be impressed?”[109] The experiment of
Free-trade had not in Mr. Henley’s opinion been sufficiently tried to
justify the application of that principle to another great interest. If
the country were polled, every man, he was sure, would cheerfully pay
the hardly-appreciable advance in prices, rather than run the risk of
a failure in an experiment so dangerous. No one had attempted to deny
that obstruction was here, and inconvenience there; but when you came
to balance the possible risk with the possible gain, no one would be
disposed to run that risk, which he for one feared must take place if
the measure were carried. It was a great interest to tamper with, and
involved not only capital and industry, but the national defences.
[Sidenote: Mr. Gladstone.]
[Sidenote: Burdens to be removed from Shipowners.]
The debate was adjourned to the 13th of March, when it was resumed
by Mr. Gladstone, with his usual ability, in an elaborate speech.
He supported the second reading of the Bill, as furnishing the
only opportunity of inducing the House to agree to a change in the
Navigation Laws. He denied that this change would be the destruction
of the shipping interests, and thought it was a fitting time for
effecting numerous alterations. Mr. Gladstone, however, differed from
many who supported the measure. His doctrine was still that they should
not abandon the path of experience. In his opinion, it was only on
principles analogous to those of Mr. Huskisson that we could safely
depart from the system of navigation we had so long pursued, interwoven
as this had been, for centuries, with our national policy. There were
several demands the shipowner might fairly make upon the Legislature
when about to be deprived of protection. He was entitled to the removal
of every peculiar burden by which he was now hampered. If we exposed
him to unrestricted competition with foreigners, we should give him a
drawback, or a remission of the duties on the timber he required for
the construction of his ships. He should also be relieved from the
restraint with respect to the manning of his ships. There was another
compensation to which the shipowner was entitled. By repealing the
Navigation Laws, he would have to undergo competition from the Baltic,
sharp as far as it went, and from the United States, all over the
world. He was therefore entitled to ask that he should be admitted
to those fields of employment from which he was then excluded. The
policy pointed out by experience, Mr. Gladstone contended, was that of
_conditional_ relaxation. He had never entertained the notion that
we should proceed by treaties of reciprocity with foreign Powers. There
were difficulties in the way of doing so which a wise Legislature would
avoid. The American system, so far as it went, should be our model.
By adopting it, he considered that difficulties inseparable from the
system of reciprocity treaties would be avoided.
[Sidenote: Conditional legislation recommended.]
The immediate effect of conditional relaxation would be to give vessels
of such States as conferred privileges on our shipping corresponding
advantages in our ports. Such a course would be in accordance with
precedent and experience; was demanded by justice, and would be
found easier of execution than the plan proposed by the Queen’s
Government. There was in his mind an insuperable objection to any form
of retaliation. Every word urged against the system of reciprocity
told with augmented force against that of retaliation. He would join
in opposing that feature of the plan, regarding it, as he did, as a
material defect. But if Government would not consent to legislate on
the subject, conditionally, he would advise it to do so directly,
without the accompaniment of retaliation. In fact, the conditional
system was that on which we now, practically, acted with regard to many
of the maritime nations of the world.
[Sidenote: Views on the subject of the coasting trade.]
[Sidenote: Americans not Free-traders.]
[Sidenote: Smuggling in the coasting trade.]
There was another feature in the Government proposition Mr. Gladstone
regarded as defective. He was of opinion that the mode in which it
proposed to deal with the coasting trade would be found ineffectual.
Before we could expect to get the advantage of the American coasting
trade we must throw our own unreservedly open to that country.[110] Any
chance we could have of getting from America a share of her coasting
trade must depend upon our offering her our entire coasting trade,
leaving her perfectly free to accept it or not, under the regulations
now affecting British ships engaged in it. But we must not expect of
America that she would fetter herself towards other countries by those
particular regulations which it was proposed to lay down, and which do
not give up the whole coasting trade, but only portions of it; to any
such regulations we could not expect that America would agree. “If we
proceed by _un_conditional legislation, and offer up our colonial
trade instead of giving up our coasting trade, I believe she will get
our colonial trade, and may then be ready to give up some comparatively
insignificant advantages in return; _but America is not a lover of
Free-trade in the abstract_. The Protectionist principle is very
strong in America,” he continued, “although it is not so strong with
reference to shipping as to manufactures.”[111] For these and other
reasons Mr. Gladstone insisted on the expediency of throwing open
the coasting trade to the foreigner, “if he could find his way into
it.”[112] At present the uniform and invariable rule, he added, is to
insist on the strictest possible separation between the outward and
inward-bound goods, between foreign trade goods and goods coastwise;
and, in point of fact, with a system of drawbacks and high duty goods,
there would be the greatest danger to the revenue, or we must undergo
the most enormous expense, if we do not insist on the separation
of cargoes. But if a vessel is allowed to take in goods to carry
coastwise, duty paid, she might be taking in tobacco in Liverpool, duty
paid, to carry it coastwise, while at the same time she was discharging
tobacco at Liverpool, not duty paid. This would be fraught with great
danger. Mr. Gladstone then pointed out the conflicting interests of
various colonies; and that the only way to render justice to all was by
conditional legislation.
[Sidenote: Mr. Robinson.]
The substance of the speech of Mr. Robinson, Chairman of Lloyd’s, who
followed Mr. Gladstone, was, in the event of the Bill passing, to claim
indemnity for the shipowner. Would Government, he asked, take the duty
off timber; the duty on the timber for a vessel of 200 tons being
300_l._? There was also the duty on marine _assurances_; and,
indeed, all the taxes now pressing on the British shipowner, but from
which the foreigner was free. Would Government relieve the shipowner
from the apprenticeship restrictions, and allow him to man his ship
with foreign seamen? Government, he felt sure, could not give any such
assurance, and if they did and the promise was realised, Mr. Robinson
doubted if, even then, the British shipowner could compete successfully
with the foreigner.
[Sidenote: Mr. Clay.]
Mr. Clay, the extreme Liberal member for Hull, who would perhaps have
lost his seat had he voted for repeal, made a Free-trade speech, but
ended by voting against the Government measure. The position he took
was that as long as the burdens of the shipowner remained, protection
must be conceded to him. Mr. Hornby, who represented another of the
outports, recommended that concessions should only be made _pari
passu_, and that we ought not to give up the all-important maritime
advantages we possess.
[Sidenote: Mr. T. A. Mitchell.]
Mr. T. A. Mitchell reproached Free-traders like Mr. Hornby for voting
against repeal, and especially animadverted on Mr. Gladstone’s
procedure, whose speech in its general effect was surprising, as coming
from an advocate of Free-trade. A more effectual mode, in his judgment,
could not have been taken to damage the whole scheme. Mr. Mitchell
ardently supported repeal, not believing the average rate of freights
would decline in consequence; moreover, the repeal, he thought, would
enable us to escape the inordinately high freights which, in times of
sudden emergency we were now called upon to pay.
[Sidenote: Mr. Hildyard.]
Mr. Hildyard urged very strongly the importance of the coasting trade
of the United States, and the necessity of securing it. He admitted
that the coast of England was a difficult and dangerous one, and
that there was not much chance of America competing with us in that
trade. On the other hand, the coasting trade of America was of great
importance. An United States committee on harbours and rivers,
during the preceding year, had shown that no fewer than eight States
were mainly dependent upon seven great lakes for their commercial
intercourse; and that the line of coast of these eight States was not
less than 3000 miles; while, on the Mississippi and its tributaries,
fourteen States in 1846, with a population of 6,500,000, relied for
their easiest means of intercommunication. The sea-board of Maine
was more valuable still; so that it was of very great importance, if
concessions were to be made, that we should participate in the coasting
trade of America.
[Sidenote: Mr. Ricardo.]
Mr. Ricardo, while supporting the propriety of freeing the shipowners
from many of the burdens imposed on them, argued that the retaliatory
clause could not possibly be maintained, and that the proposed
reciprocity system was equally untenable.
[Sidenote: Mr. H. Drummond.]
Mr. H. Drummond, in one of his witty, splenetic speeches, opposed the
Bill. The object, he said, of every statesman in past times had been
to prevent capital from going out of the country, on the ground that,
if capital went out of the country, the labour of the country would
not be employed. Now every successive minister had to get up, and,
on every question brought forward, to go against every principle he
had previously defended, and so to take the opposite side of every
view he had before maintained. There were Fates presiding from which
no minister could liberate himself; while, as for the House itself,
there would appear to be a spell over them, rendering them passive
and helpless; while every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer
picked away at their livers _ad libitum_. The most celebrated
statesman of antiquity said: “There is in maritime States a corruption
and instability of morals, for they import not only merchandise but
morals, so that nothing can remain entire in the institutions of
their country.” The only quarrel, Mr. Drummond added, he had with the
Free-traders was with respect to Adam Smith, that they never would read
beyond one page of him. And yet, it was by men actuated by similarly
interested motives, that the House was now guided. The manufacturer
sent out to Africa for cotton; he employed African labourers in its
cultivation; he brought it home in an American ship; he spun it
into yarn by his machinery, and then sent it in a French vessel to
be exchanged for French cloth or silks, or other articles of French
manufacture. So that the whole process might be perfected without the
employment of a single English labourer. The poet exclaimed:—
“Lives there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land?”
Yes! at Manchester there were a thousand such. Not content with
bringing accusations against the English sailors, not content with
slighting the opinions of their officers, they now said this country
had a superstitious reverence for the navy. He would not deny that they
might have had such a feeling, for there was a time when they had a
national faith; there was a time when they venerated, worshipped even,
the statesman who guided safely the destinies of the country; when
they reverenced the magistrates who presided over the administration
of their laws; when they gloried in the soldiers and the sailors who
maintained the greatness of the nation throughout the world; when the
noblest _credo_ that they had was “Rule Britannia!” and when the
finest anthem in their ritual was “God save the Queen!”
[Sidenote: Mr. Labouchere’s reply.]
After this protracted debate, Mr. Labouchere rose to reply. He went
over the chief points urged against repeal, and asked for no vote in
favour of it but from those who admitted the propriety of a departure
from the system of the Navigation Laws. He was ready to consider any
suggestions, in reference to the details, provided they were not
inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. He saw no reason why
the _present_ retention of the timber duties should operate as
a bar to the immediate repeal of the Navigation Laws. He opposed Mr.
Gladstone’s views as narrow and erroneous, and contrary to the true
policy of the country. Our commercial policy should not be made to
depend upon the views and caprices of foreign States.
[Sidenote: Majority of 56 for Bill.]
The House at length divided, when there appeared
for Mr. Herries’ amendment (that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months) 210
Against it 266
----
Majority in favour of the Bill 56
----
It will be remembered that the opinion of the House in favour of an
extensive change in the Navigation Laws was carried in a House of
only 411 members by a majority of 117 members. Now, after a year’s
reflection, we find that in a House of 476 members, the majority of
117 had dwindled down to 56! This great diminution of the apparent
power of Free-traders resulted partly from a general depression of the
shipping interests, but, principally, from the great exertions the
Shipowners were making to agitate the country in their favour. The
announcement of the diminished majority was hailed by the opponents of
the measure with loud and prolonged cheering. Every vote was scanned
with the most hostile criticism, and Mr. Cardwell, the newly-elected
member for Liverpool, was especially censured for voting against the
interests of that great maritime port. The Shipowners now took fresh
courage, and issued fresh denunciations against the measure, and
against the whole of the Free-trade journals—ministerial, Peel, and
Cobdenite—which had joined in full cry for the repeal of the Navigation
Laws. The agitation against repeal was renewed with fresh vigour on
the part of the Shipowners’ Society. It was now fondly hoped that,
by agitation, the majority in the House of Commons would diminish
in future stages of the Bill, in which case there could be no doubt
that the House of Lords would throw it out, and perhaps compel the
resignation of Ministers.[113]
[Sidenote: Committee on the Bill.]
[Sidenote: Coasting clauses withdrawn.]
On the 23rd March, the motion for going into Committee on the Bill gave
Mr. Labouchere an opportunity of withdrawing the “Coasting clauses”
he had previously paraded as an important feature of it. The tone and
manner of the right honourable gentleman betrayed the humiliation
he was doomed to undergo. He discreetly, however, held his tongue
respecting the flat refusal he had received from the United States
with respect to their expected reciprocation of the coasting trade,
expatiating, instead, at great length, on certain conferences he had
had with Sir T. Fremantle, the head of the Board of Customs, the
upshot being, that whereas Sir T. Fremantle had previously said that
the new proposed regulations regarding the Coasting trade would not
endanger the revenue he had now changed his opinion, and, with the
officials under him, had come to the conclusion that, if not absolutely
impossible, it would be extremely difficult to frame any regulations
which should not leave the revenue of the country exposed to great
danger if the distinction were done away with between the coasting and
general trade of the country—that is, if a foreign or a British ship
were allowed to combine a coasting with a foreign voyage.
Mr. Hume saw at once that if the trade were entirely laid open this
difficulty would be removed; but, although this was admitted, Mr.
Labouchere plausibly answered that to say to an American, “You may
come here and carry coals in our coasting trade, but you must not
combine that with a foreign voyage,” would be quite illusory. To
open the coasting trade in this manner, it was urged, would excite a
great deal of unnecessary alarm among the shipping classes; and, so,
the coasting clauses were hastily withdrawn. Of course, the refusal
of the American Government to reciprocate in the coasting trade
did not escape the sagacity of Mr. Herries, who, delighted at the
withdrawal of the obnoxious clauses, declared the excuse made about
the revenue to be wholly unsatisfactory; moreover, that it was made
known, unfortunately, just after the communication from the American
Government, so long delayed, had been laid on the table, by which it
appeared that Government was not, otherwise, prepared to make the
proposed concessions on the subject of this trade.
[Sidenote: Mr. Bouverie’s amendment opposed by Shipowners’ Committee.]
However, in the meantime, Mr. Bouverie, member for Kilmarnock, a
Free-trader, had given notice of a long amendment[114] to the first
clause of the Bill, which was, substantially, to the effect that the
several restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Acts recited
in the _1st Clause_ (i.e. the old Navigation Laws), with certain
exceptions, should continue in full force, till it should be shown
that British ships were not subjected in foreign countries to the like
restrictions and prohibitions. It might have been supposed that the
Shipowners would have consented to such a compromise: but they showed
no disposition to accept this proposal. Indeed, their hostility to any
alteration mainly led to their ultimate discomfiture. At a meeting of
the Central Committee for upholding the principle of the Navigation
Laws, it was unanimously resolved, “That the fatal consequences of
the repealing Clause, _No. 1_, in the Navigation Law Amendment
Bill, would not be removed by the amendment of which Mr. Bouverie had
given notice; and, as they were convinced that this clause would still
prove destructive to British navigation, they trusted it would not in
any form receive the sanction of friends to the shipping interest in
Parliament.”
[Sidenote: Mr. Gladstone’s scheme]
This was, perhaps, the last chance offered to the Shipowners: they,
however, relied upon throwing out the Bill, and rejected every offer at
modification, or conditional relaxation of the existing law, their aim
being to uphold those laws in their integrity. Mr. Gladstone’s views,
on the other hand, favoured the adoption of conditional legislation,
but not exactly in the way proposed by Mr. Bouverie. He proposed to
divide the whole trade of the empire into two divisions only: the
first of them relating to domestic or British trade; including under
that head the trade coastwise and the colonial trade. He proposed to
enact a law, not dependent on the discretion of the ministers of the
Crown, otherwise than that it would be their business to ascertain
when any country was disposed to give Great Britain perfect freedom
in its foreign trade, and to provide in such a case that it should
receive in return her foreign trade. Whenever any nation would propose
perfect freedom in all maritime trade, both foreign and domestic, it
would be placed on equal terms with British vessels in all ports,
foreign, colonial, and coasting. Mr. Gladstone, however, contemplated
a provision for the foreign trade of the colonies by dealing with that
trade irrespectively of the conduct of other countries. He suggested
the repeal of every direct restraint on the importation of tropical
produce—or non-European produce—from Europe, that being a restraint
which, according to the actual law, affected British ships as well as
those of foreign countries. He was also for the repeal of all fiscal
restraints, and of every restraint of the nature of a tax on the
British Shipowner. He would have set him free, alike with respect to
the command and the manning of his ship; he would also have allowed a
drawback on the timber used in the construction of ships.
[Sidenote: also opposed by the Shipowners.]
Such were Mr. Gladstone’s views, which he was sanguine enough to
imagine would have been acceptable to the shipping interests, had he
proposed a scheme embodying his opinions, and invited the Legislature
to make the necessary fiscal alterations. But when Mr. Gladstone
saw that both the Government and Shipowners rejected Mr. Bouverie’s
proposal, a form as it unquestionably was of conditional legislation,
he relinquished his intention of bringing his plan before the House, as
it had in fact no chance of being accepted by either party.
Such was the temper of all parties when the Bill went into committee on
the 23rd March, 1849; Mr. Herries, before the Speaker left the chair,
having intimated his intention of opposing the Bill during all its
stages, believing that it could not be rendered a good Bill, whatever
alterations might be made in it.
Upon going into committee, Mr. Bouverie brought forward his amendment.
He disclaimed any desire to defeat the measure, which he had supported
by his vote, still less did he hanker after Protection, for it was
strictly in the sense of Free-trade that he proposed it. He only
differed with Ministers as to the mode by which the changes proposed
should be effected. They had entered into reciprocal relations with
almost every other maritime nation. The United States had a complete
system of reciprocity: it was the foundation of their navigation
system, and it was an example it would be well to follow. The clause
he proposed would supersede the necessity of tedious and vexatious
negotiations. Out of a score of reciprocity treaties to which England
was a party, there were only four which contained the “favoured-nation”
clause; and it was idle to expect that, through the instrumentality
of any such compacts, genuine or extensively reciprocal advantages
could be established as between England and the other nations of the
world. It might be difficult, if not wholly impracticable, to realise
the principle of reciprocity in the case of tariffs, but it was not so
difficult to apply the principle to shipping. Nothing was so easy as to
say, we will relax our Navigation Laws, and make certain arrangements
with respect to our shipping interests, on the express condition that
other countries will adopt similar arrangements and similar relaxations
in our regard.
[Sidenote: Questions of reciprocity, conditional legislation, and
retaliation.]
If these views were unsatisfactory to the Shipowners, it is certain
they were still more so to the extreme Free-trade party. The question
had now resolved itself into the expediency of reciprocity, conditional
legislation, and retaliation. The extreme Free-traders demanded liberty
of navigation without any legislative restriction whatever, and the
plan of Government conferring a power of retaliation, though one little
likely to be resorted to, was of course the plan least objectionable
to the Free-traders. They contended that the Bill as it stood enabled
the country to receive concessions from foreign countries by making
concessions to them; but, if Mr. Bouverie’s motion was carried, they
asserted that, retaining in our hands the power of retaliation, we
should be compelled to resort to such measures whenever equality was
disturbed.
[Sidenote: Details of American law.]
Both parties in truth exaggerated the difficulties of their opponent’s
scheme, being attached to their own. The real question at issue was,
which country should take the initiative in a Free-trade policy. Mr.
Wilson, as an extreme Free-trader, insisted that the law of America
sanctioned reciprocity on their part, without having recourse to
Congress, which the members of the Shipowners’ Society controverted.
There can be no doubt that the American Law of 1828 did so authorize
the President to reciprocate any relaxation of the Navigation Laws we
might on our part resolve on. But when Mr. Buchanan had so recently
reserved the American coasting trade, repudiating the unauthorized
pledge previously given by the American envoy, and had further frankly
stated to Mr. Crampton,[115] that “it was probable some difference
of opinion would manifest itself in Congress upon this question,
from the unwillingness felt in some quarters to throw open the
ship-building business in the United States to the competition of
British shipbuilders, and more particularly to that of the shipbuilders
of the British North American colonies;” we might have been quite sure
that Congress would, if necessary, interfere, and, by some special law,
annul the liberal principle of the American Law of 1828.
Mr. Wilson and the Free-traders, affecting to be better informed on
the state of American law than the Shipowners, went into the opposite
extreme, and expressed their entire confidence in the complete
reciprocity of the Americans; asserting further, that without going
to Congress, the Executive could extend to every country similar
concessions as were extended to them. Such was the impression on both
the contending parties. As to Mr. Bouverie’s amendment, though it, in
some degree, resembled Mr. Gladstone’s views, that gentleman complained
“that his scheme had been withered by an unkind shadow cast over it by
the member for Kilmarnock,” at the same time, refusing to discuss a
plan not dissimilar to his own, and adhering to his opinion, that, as
foreign countries were in the habit of adopting measures to meet their
own wants, England ought to be allowed to do the same, but only on the
principle of reciprocity.
[Sidenote: Mr. Bouverie’s plan rejected.]
It is unnecessary to pursue this point any further. A long debate
ensued on it, in which Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Bright delivered, with
their usual force, their extreme, but then unpalatable, Free-trade
opinions, while Mr. Roundell Palmer opposed any change hostile to the
principles of the Navigation Laws. It appeared from the general feeling
of the committee, that Mr. Bouverie’s amendment had not the slightest
chance of being adopted, and he was desirous of withdrawing it. Mr.
Wawn, however, insisted upon a division; and when a division was taken,
only fifteen members voted in favour of Mr. Bouverie’s scheme of
conditional legislation, while 132 voted against it.
[Sidenote: Mr. Disraeli’s speech.]
Various other divisions took place on the consideration of the Bill
in committee, and numerous important alterations were then made, so
that only eighteen clauses were carried up to the sitting of the
23rd March. On the motion to report progress, Mr. Disraeli protested
against the whole Bill, which, by the withdrawal of ten clauses and
the modification of four more, had received that night a serious check.
He compared the proceedings to those during the French Revolution, on
the day when the nobles and prelates vied with each other in throwing
mitres and coronets to the dust as useless appendages. That day was
still called “the day of dupes;” and, remarked Mr. Disraeli, “the
same appellation might be applied when referring to the events of
that evening. We have had,” he continued, “two years of protracted
legislation against the Shipowners of England.” The course Ministers
had pursued during those two years formed no exception to the rash
policy which had characterised their proceedings with regard to the
agricultural and colonial interests. “Have your deliberations been
graver or more thoughtful? This” (holding up the Bill), “this,”
exclaimed Mr. Disraeli, “is my answer. Ministers acting in this
manner,” he continued, “did more than injure and destroy the material
interests of the nation; they laid the foundation of a stock of
political discontent, which would not merely diminish the revenues
of the kingdom and the fortunes of its subjects, but would shake the
institutions of the country to its centre.” After Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Labouchere had spoken in reply, the committee reported progress.
When the committee resumed its sittings on the 26th March, the
Retaliatory Clause (19) became a subject of discussion. The several
leaders again delivered their opinions on this much-controverted
point, the Free-traders wishing to omit the clause altogether; while
Mr. G. Sanders intimated an intention of making the Bill operate
for a limited term, so as to ascertain whether Foreign Powers would
reciprocate or not. The clause, however, was finally carried without a
division; but Clause 22, enabling the Queen to reduce the differential
duties in certain cases, opened the wide question of dock dues and
light dues, in which public and private rights were so confusedly
intermingled that it was ultimately withdrawn. The remaining clauses
passed with some opposition, the preamble, however, being agreed
to. Thus this celebrated Bill now assumed a formal shape; but its
opponents, conscious of their power in the House of Lords, gave notice
of a last trial of strength upon the third reading.
On the 19th April, Captain Harris made an ineffectual attempt to
carry a clause, on the consideration of the Report, enforcing the
apprenticeship laws, and Mr. Gladstone obtained a modification of the
Bill with regard to the mode of finally adjusting the intercolonial
trade by the colonial legislatures.
[Sidenote: Third reading of Bill.]
[Sidenote: Mr. Herries’ speech.]
During the Easter recess, meetings of the shipping interests had been
held in various outports, and the whole power of the Shipowners had
been put forth to defeat the Bill. On the 23rd April the Bill stood for
the third reading, and the venerable Mr. Herries once more headed the
party of Anti-Repealers to make a last effort in the House of Commons
to reject the Bill. His speech was well prepared, and suitable to the
occasion. He very briefly alluded to the points already decided, but
dwelt with great force on the Bancroft letter, asserting that nothing
had passed relative to the United States, which ought for a moment to
weigh with Parliament, in changing its determination to maintain the
Navigation Laws. “Let English commerce now speak!” he exclaimed. “Look
at the petitions against the Bill, comprising the greatest names in the
City.[116] In Liverpool 47,000 persons had signed petitions against
the Bill; and among these were 1000 mercantile firms of great note and
respectability. This was without precedent in the history of petitions;
whilst a counter-petition contained but 1400 names, among which were
not found 100 trading firms.” Mr. Herries denied that the subject had
any necessary connection with Free-trade. The experiment might be
continued, and yet, with perfect consistency, while abstaining from any
interference with the main structure and fundamental principles of the
Navigation Laws. These laws had always, he alleged, been considered
an exception to the general laws affecting trade. After an elaborate
speech, Mr. Herries concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third
time that day six months. Alderman Thompson seconded the amendment.
[Sidenote: Mr. Robinson.]
A very animated discussion ensued. Mr. Robinson went over the old
topics, and said that the new republican Government of France had
advertised for the importation of 38,000 tons of coals into France, one
of the conditions being that they should be imported exclusively in
French vessels. So much for the Navigation Laws of France. The National
Assembly had also introduced another measure by which the importation
of salt in French vessels subjected to a duty only of 75c., while that
imported in British vessels was required to pay a duty of 2f. 75c. So
much for Free-trade with France. He trusted the majority in favour of
the ministry would be so small as to induce the Government to pause in
their career.
Mr. Macgregor, in a very long speech, supported the Bill, though he
wished it had been a more complete measure.
[Sidenote: Mr. Walpole.]
He was followed by Mr. Walpole against the Bill, who quoted the
Venetian proverb,[117] and said—“Let us first be Englishmen, and
then economists.” He considered the Navigation Law the wisest of our
regulations. It had given us safety and independence at home; it had
afforded security to our colonies abroad; it had protected our trade
in every part of the world, and it would protect it, if the laws were
not repealed, against all chances of war; and, while it had done
this effectually and completely, it had also preserved for them the
supremacy on the ocean, by which more than once they had been able to
bid defiance to the whole world, when our honour and interests were
assailed. Mr. Walpole concluded by borrowing the splendid peroration of
Mr. Disraeli in that gentleman’s speech at the second reading.
[Sidenote: Sir James Graham.]
Sir James Graham next rose, and, differing much on some points from
the supporters of the Bill, intimated, in an exhaustive speech, his
intention of voting for the third reading. Pointing to Sir Francis T.
Baring, who sat on the Treasury Bench as First Lord of the Admiralty,
the head of the house of Baring, he expressed his disbelief that he
would be an assenting party to a measure which, in his conscience,
he felt would be injurious to the character and welfare of that
commercial navy, to which he and his family for generations had been
so much indebted, or that he would give the weight of his influence to
a measure which, in his judgment, risked the power and greatness of
the Royal Navy, more especially confided by her Majesty to his care.
Liverpool had been mentioned. Why, the two members for Liverpool have
voted for the Bill.[118] So also did the two members for Newcastle and
Glasgow.
Sir James Graham added, that, however valuable reciprocity might have
been, when Mr. Huskisson considered the question in the abstract, he,
Sir James, was not much attached to it now. It might have been wise
and politic at the time; but he could not help thinking that it made
the interest of others the measure of our interest, he had almost said
it made the folly of others the limit of our wisdom. With respect to
reciprocity and to retaliation, which is reciprocity in another shape,
as a general rule he would rather leave the Navigation Laws as they
were than adopt that principle. What is retaliation? he asked. It is
this: because some foreign nation does that which is more injurious
to herself than it is to ourselves, we, in the spirit of blind,
vindictive passion, proceed to do that which is more injurious to
ourselves than to our rivals. To reciprocity and to retaliation, as a
rule, Sir James was opposed; but he supported the Bill, on the whole,
because without having recourse to either the one or the other, and
considering the character of the people of this country, their capital,
their undaunted courage, and the advantages they possessed in the race
they had already run, he was satisfied that any measure throwing open
the trade of the world would greatly increase commerce, and that the
lion’s share of the addition would fall to our lot. Every reason, he
argued, existing, in the days of Mr. Huskisson, for the relaxation of
the system existed in a yet stronger degree at the present moment; and,
quoting the expression employed by Lord Stanley, _Vestigia nulla
retrorsum_,[119] as applicable to the recent Free-trade policy, he
concluded a highly elaborate speech by remarking that Protection or
no Protection was the question at issue; and, as the present measure
would crown the work they had already accomplished, he was opposed
to reaction, and favourable to progress tempered by prudence and
discretion. Upon these grounds he supported the third reading.
[Sidenote: Mr. T. Baring.]
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.]
Lord John Russell as Chief Minister of the Crown wound up the debate
on his side. He was aware that the law had been almost worshipped as
the _charta maritima_ of this country, and that, much of our
prosperity and commerce having been attributed to this law, it had
been thought profanation to alter it. He thought this was an opinion
founded in error, and that, at no time, had this law been essentially
advantageous to this country. He then went over the history of the
Navigation Laws, quoting authors of various times who wrote of the
fluctuations in trade and public policy, and having reviewed the
several points of the question, came to the conclusion that with
respect to the greater part of the nations of Europe and of the world,
we would obtain fair and equal terms of navigation, provided we were
ready to give the same terms to them. He went farther; he boldly
said that nobody could doubt that in the case of the United States
of America, or in those of Prussia, Russia, or Austria, the fullest
reciprocity would be conceded. The nations which would not give equal
terms were, at the most, only three or four—France, Spain, and
Belgium, and perhaps one other.
[Sidenote: Mr. Disraeli.]
[Sidenote: Majority for Bill, 61.]
Mr. Disraeli assumed the privilege of the last word, and, in reply,
quoted the last report of the Shipowners’ Society, which has been
already given, intimating their readiness to discuss the policy of
amending the Navigation Laws on all points not involving fundamental
principles. He next took a rapid review of the effects of repeal on
the Australian and other colonies, arguing that, if Canada had not a
Protective duty on corn restored to it, as demanded by the Legislative
Assembly, Canada would be lost to the British Crown. “Woe to those
statesmen and to the policy which plucked this jewel from the Crown of
England! No shuffling change in the Navigation Law could compensate
the people of Canada for what they had lost, and which they felt so
acutely.” Mr. Disraeli then referred to the papers from foreign Powers,
arguing that they were valueless, and, especially, that everything
respecting the United States was a _tabula rasa_, all that we had
heard last year having been obliterated as an element of consideration.
The last division on this famous Bill now took place upon the third
reading, when the Ayes were 275; Noes, 214; Majority, 61.
FOOTNOTES:
[109] This may appear unintelligible: while actually masters they could
not, it is true, be taken; but Mr. Henley said they might be, while
changing from one ship to another, and that he knew of instances in
which mates had been impressed, placed on board a man-of-war, and kept
there for seven years.
[110] While the second reading was under discussion, ministers did not
present the papers from the United States, in which the coasting trade
was reserved. They discreetly kept the secret up to the last moment
before the division. Had the Bill thrown open the whole coasting trade,
we now know the Americans would have declined to reciprocate.
[111] This is quite true, but the reader has had this fully accounted
for by the antagonistic interests of the non-navigating and navigating
States. The opposite feeling was disclosed in the very first debates of
the Republic.
[112] The entries and clearances of foreign vessels in the coasting
trade of the United Kingdom are quite insignificant.
[113] In the ‘Shipping Gazette,’ March 17, 1849, there is a list of the
51 members of seaport towns in the United Kingdom who voted in favour
of the Bill. Mr. Hudson, Sunderland; Mr. Barnard, Greenwich; Lord J.
Stuart, Ayr; and Lord J. Chichester, Belfast, were absent.
[114] The Amendment would occupy two pages; it will be found in
‘Hansard,’ vol. ciii. p. 1206.
[115] _Vide_ Letter of Mr. Crampton, 18th February, already
referred to.
[116] At the head of the London petition were the names of Thomas
Baring; Charles Baring Young; Fred. Huth and Co.; Ransom, Norton, and
Co.; Palmer, McKillop, and Co.; H. Davidson; Masterman, Peters, and
Co.; Spooner, Atwood, and Co.; Fletcher, Alexander, and Co.; Bosanquet
and Co., &c.
[117] “Let us be first Venetians, and then Christians.”
[118] Yes! But they lost their seats by it.
[119] Literally, “You can’t retrace your steps.”
CHAPTER X.
Debate in the Lords, May 7, 1849, on second reading—Speech of
the Marquess of Lansdowne—Lord Brougham—Condemnation of Mr.
Porter’s statistics—Protected and unprotected Trade—Voyages to the
continent—Napoleon’s desire for ships, colonies, and commerce—Earl
Granville—Earl of Ellenborough—Increase of foreign peace
establishments—Earl of Harrowby—Earl Grey—Lord Stanley—Admits
need of modifications—Canada not our only colony—Majority for
the Bill, 10—Duke of Wellington votes for it—Proceedings and
debate in Committee—Lord Stanley’s amendment—Rejected by 13—Earl
of Ellenborough’s amendment—Claims of Shipowners, and fear of
competition—Amendment rejected by a majority of 12—Bill read a
third time—Timber duties, &c., admitted to be grievances—Lord
Stanley’s protest—Royal assent given, June 26—Coasting trade
thrown open, 1854—Americans, October 1849, throw open all except
their coasting trade.
[Sidenote: Debate in the Lords, 7th May, 1849, on the second reading.]
[Sidenote: Speech of the Marquess of Lansdowne.]
Although the majority in favour of the Bill had slightly increased
since the division had been taken on the second reading in the House
of Commons, the Shipowners were not discouraged, believing it would be
thrown out by the Lords. They knew that the ministry had staked their
reputation upon it, and that the fate of the Government depended on
the result, but they confidently believed that the Upper House would
reject “so pernicious a measure.” The Bill was at once carried up to
the Lords, and read a first time on Tuesday, 24th April; and on Monday,
7th May, the Marquess of Lansdowne moved the second reading in a long
and elaborate speech. He contended that the origin of the Navigation
Laws during the Protectorate of Cromwell did not arise so much from a
commercial or political want as from a desire to punish the Dutch for
their loyal support to Charles I.[120] He admitted, however, that there
were then good grounds for trying the experiment how far the national
arm could be strengthened by restriction, and how far the naval force
of the country could be thus increased. The noble Marquess next traced
at length the changes contemplated by Mr. Pitt, and the incidents of
the war with Napoleon, contending that the law, by successive changes,
had ceased to be a suit of impenetrable armour, and was now only an
imperfect garment of shreds and patches, manufactured out of parchments
from statute books. He, further, showed the increase of our shipping
since the relaxation of the shipping laws, maintaining that the dread
of foreign competition was altogether irrational, and demonstrating, by
statistics, the large share of the American direct and carrying trade
we had already secured in open competition with American ships hence,
and with foreign ships from their own ports to American shores; while
we were, at the same time, able to bear off the chief share of the
Russian trade from the Baltic ships even within the heart of their own
country. He briefly referred to the colonial bearing of the question,
and said that the West Indies were subject to great troubles, and
Canada engaged in a difficult competition with the United States, the
whole trade of the St. Lawrence depending on the repeal of that part
of the Navigation Laws still in operation, the complete opening of
that river alone, he thought, being sufficient to enable her to retain
the trade now fast passing through the United States. The Marquess
quoted Bonaparte, whose aim, when at the summit of his power, had been
to obtain ships, colonies, and commerce. Bonaparte conquered one-half
of Europe; the other half he seduced or entrapped into negotiations.
He could create monopolies everywhere, and did so unscrupulously;
but the genius of English commerce overcame those monopolies. Ships
he could not get; colonies he could not acquire; commerce he could
not establish; and was this, he asked, a consequence of the British
Navigation Laws? No; it was British commerce and enterprise, which, in
spite of restrictions in all parts of the world, secured a footing;
and, in spite of edicts enforced by a million of bayonets, was
established and conducted successfully. The Marquess then explained
that the Administration depended upon this question, and were prepared
for all the consequences of a hostile vote.
[Sidenote: Lord Brougham.]
To the astonishment of the country, Lord Brougham, in one of the
ablest, or at least the most rhetorical speeches[121] he perhaps
ever delivered even in his best days, opposed the second reading of
the Bill. His Lordship had supported the other great measures of
Free-trade, and now did not escape the charge of inconsistency, which
he most eloquently denied. “I will only say,” he exclaimed, “that I
glory in what forms the subject matter of this taunt. I glory in having
obtained those immortal victories over antiquated error; in having made
to triumph the soundest principles of political philosophy, sweeping
away the groundless prejudices by which its progress was obstructed
heretofore. But if there is one passage of my political life dearer
than another to my remembrance, and any drop in the cup of exultation
more particularly sweet to my palate, it is the recollection of those
worthy, eminent persons, leaders of the revilers, the distinguished
statesmen whose support I enjoyed after passing a long life in
opposition to them on this very question, and who crowned themselves
with honour by abandoning their own errors in vindicating the truth.
But it is not now with them as with me. I make no change in my
opinions.” The noble Lord then plunged into the Orders of Council[122]
during the war, in the discussion of which he took such a conspicuous
part.
[Sidenote: Condemnation of Mr. Porter’s statistics.]
In speaking of the tables from the Board of Trade and Customs, he said
a lively impression prevailed on all sides, that they could prove
anything and everything. Indeed, it had been remarked, give me half an
hour, and the run of the multiplication table, and I’ll engage to pay
off the National Debt. In statistics it is easy to add a little here,
and subtract a little there, quietly to slip in a figure—it may be a
cypher among your data—slyly to make what seems a reasonable postulate
in your premises, but which turns out to be a begging of the question;
and, behold, you gain your point and triumph; until, it is found
that your adversary, having access to the same stores of arithmetic,
proves his case, and refutes yours, with the same facility. Such are
statistics when severed from sound principle and plain reasoning. But
how little are these to be relied on when prepared by those in the
employ of one party? To trust oneself among such details would be
perilous in the extreme. “My noble friend has fared forth into the
labyrinth with such bad success, that his fate seems to warn me how I
venture to follow his perilous course. But there remains to deter me,
like a beacon on the same coast, the sad wreck of another adventurer,
the good ship _Board of Trade_, G. R. Porter, Master, cast away
on the shoals of these faithless waters.” The noble Lord then assailed
Mr. Porter with the whole force of his sarcasm. He said: “Mr. Porter,
showing the comparative progress of English and American tonnage, takes
the whole of one part and only part of the other, and thus makes out
the result which suits his argument. Lord Hardwicke, the chairman, put
this question to the witness, after stating the entire difference of
the two returns, the difference being total in one case and partial
in the other. ‘Then, consequently, these returns are not to be taken
compared together, as showing in any degree the comparative value of
British and American tonnage?’ Mark the answer of the hapless Mr.
Porter. ‘Certainly not.’” The noble Lord then went on tearing, in the
opinion of the opponents of the Bill, Mr. Porter’s evidence to shreds.
“I am reminded,” said his Lordship, “of the cooking of the returns.
But here we had called up the chief cook to examine him. We asked,
‘Is this dish pure?’ ‘Not at all,’ he answered. ‘Is it nutritive?’
‘Nothing of the kind.’ ‘Is it safe and wholesome to eat?’ ‘Certainly
not?’ ‘Have you any means of correcting its poison by an antidote?’ ‘I
am not sure; I rather think I have; but I am not certain.’” The noble
Lord then referred to the reciprocity treaties; the fact being that
these treaties were all respecting differential duties; all of them
were grounded on the comparatively sound principle of only relaxing our
monopoly in favour of those States who agreed to give us the _quid
pro quo_; whereas the present scheme was to give the _quid_
without the _quo_; to sweep away all restriction at once with
every country before we secured an equivalent from any one; and so far
from proportioning our sacrifice to our gain, to sacrifice everything
before we gained anything.
[Sidenote: Protected and unprotected trade.]
“On the statistics of the protected and unprotected trades,” continued
his Lordship, “it is, that the greatest errors have been committed. It
was among these shoals that Mr. Porter had left a wreck, as a beacon
to warn us how we follow his course. He, no doubt, had steered to the
best of his ability, and quite unconsciously had been cast away; but,
that he acted under the bias of a strong prejudice in favour of his
ally and relative, the author of the present Bill, is very much to be
suspected, for we all know that the Bill is really Mr. Ricardo’s, who,
in 1847, moved the Committee on the Navigation Laws, the Government
being afterwards pushed on by their supporters, impatient at seeing
them hold their places and do nothing.” After dissecting these tables
with a ruthless hand, Lord Brougham asked how any rational man could
place reliance upon tables thus framed, and thus abounding on their
face with errors the most fatal. Their great concoctor is asked about
these errors, and he cannot deny them, so he says the heading of the
return is wrong, and that instead of “unprotected,” it should have been
“less protected.” Indeed! But that is just giving up the whole value of
the table, and making it utterly useless—utterly unfit to be the ground
of any inference whatever—utterly foreign to the present question. For,
observe, we can understand what is meant by a trade unprotected by the
Navigation Laws, and compare it with one that is protected; but a trade
“less protected,” how is that to be defined? Less protected than what?
What does this tell us? What makes more, what less? How can we compare
them together? All depends upon how much more and how much less, and
this Mr. Porter does not affect to show.
[Sidenote: Voyages to the continent.]
“But,” exclaimed his Lordship, “this is not the worst of it by a great
deal!” He then sifted the whole returns about the voyages to the
continent, to which I have already referred. “My Lords, I will readily
give a large licence for exaggeration to that lively class of persons
who contribute to our amusement by their powers of imagination, drawing
upon their fancy for their facts, and on their memory for their jests.
To these men I render all grateful homage, as among the gayest of
our sad species; so far as fourfold, or even tenfold, I am willing
to extend my licence. But what shall we say of a hundredfold, nay, a
hundred-and-fiftyfold, and that, not by the lively wit, but by the
plodding dealer in returns, tables, and trade and shipping statistics.
I must really send them away to bury themselves and their errors in
the recesses of the trade department, and no longer hope to obtain any
faith here. I have done with such food, such dry food even when it is
honestly prepared and fairly served up.”
Lord Brougham then entered fully into the merits of the general
question, calling upon their Lordships not to part rashly with what
had been called the miserable remnants, the fragments of a worn-out
system. “Fragments, indeed! They are of gigantic size; they are the
splendid remains of a mighty system; they are the pillars of our navy;
the props of our maritime defence.” He showed that there remained the
almost entire monopoly of our home trade, and the perfectly rigorous
monopoly of our colonial trade, employing above a million and a half
of shipping, and 20,000 seamen, with a capital that gave export and
import to between fifteen and sixteen millions sterling in the year. He
further insisted that the restrictions affecting Canada could be easily
removed without unsettling our whole policy.
The policy of the Navigation Laws rested, in his opinion, on the
position that, without such a partial monopoly as they gave to British
shipping, we never could maintain a sufficiently ample nursery for our
navy, an object of primary importance to every insular empire, and,
therefore, to be sought at a considerable sacrifice of the wealth
unfettered commerce might more rapidly accumulate.
[Sidenote: Napoleon’s desire for ships, colonies, and commerce.]
The Emperor Napoleon I. has been cited as having wished “for ships,
colonies, and commerce.” The quotation is not quite accurate.[123]
He inveighed against “the ships, colonies, and commerce of England,”
and mentioned these as the object of his hostility; whence Mr. Pitt,
at a Guildhall festival, gave as a retaliatory toast, “the ships,
colonies, and commerce of England,” a retort which derived its point
from the French Emperor’s hostility against these special objects. Lord
Brougham, in his splendid declamatory style, showed how Napoleon must
have wished in vain—for we had swept the seas of his navy, captured all
his colours—because we had created our own marine, which, he argued,
owed its existence entirely to the encouragement the Navigation Laws
gave to ship-building, and the facilities lent by the same laws to the
manning our fleets, which that encouragement had created. For nearly
two hundred years, he continued, we had abided by that policy; and
holding steadily our course, neither swerving to the right nor to the
left, never abandoning it, only adapting it to varying events which
have altered the distribution of dominion in other regions, we have
upheld the system which has made our navy the envy of our rivals, the
terror of our enemies, and the admiration of the world. “Are you,”
exclaimed his Lordship, with one of those bursts of ready eloquence for
which he was so conspicuous in debate, “prepared to abandon a system
to which you owe so precious a possession, not only the foundation of
your glory, the bulwark of your strength, but the protection of your
very existence as a nation?”
“The Bill,” continued Lord Brougham, “contained the seeds of fresh
agitation and new demand.” The coasting trade, as well as the manning
clauses, “would excite new agitation by other Ricardos and other
Cobdens.” In framing his judgment on this great question he had
listened but to one voice, the voice of public duty, sinking all party,
all personal considerations. He did not on any account, personal or
public, desire any change in the government. But he was prepared to
encounter that, rather than see the highest interests of the empire
exposed to ruin. This measure he could not bear, because our national
defence could not bear it. To sweeten the bitter cup which it would
fill, we are told, and he firmly believed it, that it would encourage
slavery and stimulate the infernal slave-trade; since, whatever
cheapened navigation between this country and the mart for slave-grown
sugar—whatever lets in the Americans, the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch,
to bring over the sugars of Cuba and the Brazils—must of necessity
increase the African slave-trade, by which the increase of those
sugars was promoted. “When this new ingredient is poured into the
chalice commended to my lips to-night I can no longer hesitate, even
if I felt doubts before. All lesser considerations of party policy
or Parliamentary tactics at once give way; and I have a question
before me on which I cannot pause or falter, or treat or compromise;
and, regardless of the comfort in any quarter, careless with what
arrangements of any individuals my voice may interfere, I know my
duty, and will perform it: as an honest man, an Englishman, a Peer of
Parliament, I will lift that voice to resist the further progress of
the Bill.”
[Sidenote: Earl Granville]
Earl Granville, in replying to Lord Brougham’s speech, defended Mr.
Porter, and especially his statistics; but, as the reasons he and
his party gave in support of the measure have in a great degree been
confirmed by events, and by the success of the change they then so
boldly advocated, it is more desirable to record at greater length
the opinions of the opponents to the Bill. From these a lesson may be
taught to other nations, which still cling to a policy in favour of
which no more powerful arguments could be adduced than those urged
by some of the ablest men of the period, arguments, however, which
experience has shown, in almost every instance, to have been fallacious.
[Sidenote: Earl of Ellenborough.]
Lord Ellenborough[124] was unwilling, under existing circumstances, to
diminish our marine by one ship, or our seamen by one man, and this
Bill would tend to undermine the strength of our navy, both in ships
and men. He contended that, as there had been a much larger increase
in the British tonnage employed in the trade with the British North
American colonies than in that of all the rest of the trade with
America, fragmentary as the system might be, it evidently produced the
effect it was intended to produce, the maintenance and increase of
British navigation, and, therein, the security of this country. The
noble Lord then drew a picture of our colonial empire, and pointed
out the great and increasing demand on our naval resources for purpose
of defence. He next directed attention to the well-appointed navy
of the United States, of Russia, France, Austria, Naples, and other
Continental Powers; and said we should do wrong if we did not consider
the present state of the navies of foreign Powers in conjunction with
the changes which have taken place in their military position. The
military peace establishments of foreign Powers were now equal to
their war establishments of former times; while the substitution of
railways in the place of ordinary roads will enable States to bring a
preponderating force, suddenly, from the most distant quarters to the
port of embarkation, and then they will find “a steam bridge” from the
continent to these islands.
Lord Harrowby, in an exhaustive speech, argued that wherever the
“interests of commerce and navigation were at variance” those of
navigation must predominate, as essential to the defence and security
of the empire; but his Lordship, and all other speakers, entirely
failed to prove that they ever were at variance. Nor can they be so.
They rise and fall with each other; and are essentially one and the
same. Indeed, if closely scrutinised, they will be found to have no
antagonistic principles; and further, that whatever antagonism existed
was caused by the operation of the Navigation Laws. Lord Grey, who
followed Lord Harrowby, clearly showed that while these laws were of no
advantage to the Shipowner, they were, from their practical working,
serious drawbacks to his success, and that, instead of affording him
any real protection, they were detrimental to his best interests.
He further showed that the Navigation Laws were unfavourable to the
development of the warehousing system; and, afterwards, dwelt at great
length on the colonial part of the question and on the claims of
Canada; asserting, also, that we could only perpetuate the connection
between the mother-country and the North American colonies by engaging
the confidence and participating in the affections of their people.
The Navigation Laws were, he remarked, among the proximate causes of
the revolutionary struggle which had ended in the independence of the
United States. He concluded with an impressive appeal to the House not
to peril the interests of the country by rejecting the Bill.
[Sidenote: Lord Stanley.]
[Sidenote: Admits need of modifications.]
Lord Stanley,[125] on the second night of the debate, rose at a
quarter-past one o’clock, to answer Earl Grey, then Colonial Minister.
After alluding to the recent Free-trade policy, with which this
question was not connected, his Lordship asked whether they were
prepared to abolish a system which, for two centuries at least, had
formed the basis of our national greatness and the foundation of our
naval strength. He had no objection to the modifications the Navigation
Laws had undergone, nor might he object to some further modifications
now. But it was not on the modification of these laws that the House
had now to decide, but upon the momentous question of their entire
abolition. Were they prepared for such a step, when it was admitted
that, if taken, it must be irrevocable? Earl Grey, he said, treated
the Navigation Laws as disadvantageous to the mercantile interests
of the country. The merchants had not made this discovery, but the
Queen’s Government had made it for them. The whole case, as based
on its assumed benefits to the commercial marine, therefore fell to
the ground; and the objection to the Bill, founded on its injurious
tendency, so far as the navy was concerned, remained unchallenged and
unrefuted.
[Sidenote: Canada not our only colony.]
[Sidenote: Majority for Bill, 10.]
In Canada, as in all other colonies, the withdrawal of Protection was
regarded as a great grievance, hence the repeal of the Navigation Laws
was demanded by them only as a consequence of that event. But our
North American colonies were not confined to Canada. The shipbuilding
colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were opposed to repeal. The
exceptional case of Canada might be met without entirely abrogating
these laws. Having severely condemned Lord Palmerston for his circular,
Lord Stanley then endeavoured to show that the warehousing system
owed its origin to existing prohibitions, and that its increase or
permanence depended upon their maintenance. He strongly objected to the
proposal of admitting a foreign-built ship to British registry. It was
essential, he maintained, to keep up the number and efficiency of our
private building-yards, which would speedily decrease in number were
such a proposal adopted. The question, indeed, could not be decided by
one vote. The British merchants, the British Shipowners, the British
seamen, and the British mechanics would not be satisfied with a Bill
passed by a bare majority of the House, under pressure never heard of
before, and with menaces such as had been thrown out. The people of
this country will never know when they are beaten. The Marquess of
Lansdowne having replied, repelling in indignant language the charge
of having used menaces, the House went to a division at half-past four
o’clock on the morning of the 10th May, on the question that “now”
stand part of the motion. There appeared, Contents, present, 105;
Proxies, 68; Total, 173: Non-contents, present, 119; Proxies, 44:
Total, 163: Majority, 10!
[Sidenote: Duke of Wellington votes for it.]