The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY

surprised him quite, and had led him to believe that the
House was not going into that Committee then with any
prospect of a satisfactory issue.—(Hear, hear.) It was
a very extraordinary occurrence in a Bill long projected,
carefully prepared, to which the utmost attention of the
Ministers must have been shown, that on going
into a Committee on that Bill, the Minister
should commence by telling them that he
meant to make a very important alteration.
Ha thought that the Government would have done much
better to have withdrawn the Bill altogether than at the
last moment to come down to the House with an im-
portant alteration, which totally altered its character.
He was not, however, disposed to offer any opposition
to the Bill going into Committee. But this much he
might observe, that there had been three separate Bills,
and all founded upon three very different positions.
There was the Bill of the Government, the amended pro-

position of the Government, and the proposal or his
Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), which, if introduced
earlier, might have been useful for the amendment of
the other two. He (Mr. Herries) always listened to
any proposal which came from that Right Hon. Gentle-
man with much respect, and only regretted on the pre-
sent occasion he had not been more active. He repeated
that he should offer no opposition to the Bill being taken
into Committee, but on the proposition that the Bill
pass into a law of the land—believing that it was es-
sentially and fundamentally an un-English Bill—he
should,give it his most decided and strenuous opposition.
Mr. ROBINSON stated his intention to oppose the
third reading of it.
The House then went into Committee on the
On the first clause being read,
Mr. LABOUCHERE proposed the introduction of
words into it, to the effect that the Bill should come
into operation on Ist January, 1850, which was agreed to.
Mr. BOUVERIE then moved the following proviso
as an amendment:—" That the several restrictions and
prohibitions in the aforesaid Acts contained, as to the
voyages in which ships of any foreign conntry may en-
gage, or as to the goods which they may import into, or
export from, the United Kingdom or any British pos-
session, or as to the goods and passengers they may carry
either coastwise from one part of the United Kingdom
to another part, or from any British possession in any
part of the world to any other British possession (except
such of the said restrictions and prohibitions as are
hereby authorised to be removed or varied by the pro-
per legislative authorities of British possessions), shall
remain and be in full force respectively till it shall be
made to appear to the satisfaction of her Majesty in her
Privy Council, and it shall be declared by her Majesty's
order in Council, that British ships are not subjected in
such foreign country to the like several restrictions or pro-
hibitions, as to the voyages in which they may engage, or
as to the goods which they may import into or export
from such foreign country, or any possession thereof.; or
carry coastwise b any part of such foreign country:
provided further, with respect to the restrictions and
prohibitions in the aforesaid Acts contained, (as to the
goods which the ships of any foreign country may im-
port into or export from any British possession, her Ma-
jesty, by her order in Council, may direct, that the whole,
or any part, of such restrictions and prohibitions, shall
cease to remain or be in full force as to the ships of any
foreign country, although the like restrictions and pro-
hibitions respectively, as to the goods which any British
ship may import into or export from any possession of
such foreign'country, shall not in all respects have been re-
moved."Thellon.G entleman disclaimed alldesire to embar-
rass the Government, and also leaning towards protection.
He believed that as to these laws protection had not a
leg to stand upon. The system of protection was radi-
cally opposed to the best interests of the shipowners,
but he differed from the Government as to the mode in
which the change should be effected. He did not pro-
pose his amendment with a view of retaining our restric-
tions, but to make it the instrument of forcing the re-
moval of the restrictions of other nations. The naviga-
tion laws of the United States were founded upon reci-
procity, and the House could not do wrong in following
their example. It had been objected to the plan of Mr.
Gladstone that his amendment would involve the Go-
vernment in endless negotiations with foreign Powers.
That was, however, an objection which could by no
means be made to his (Mr. Bouverie's) amendment, as
his clause would be self-working. Such an objection ap-
plied the rather to the proposal of the Government. But
of a score of maritime powers with whom we had trea-
ties there were not above three with whom we had the
most favoured nation clause. He might be told that the
Government had failed in obtaining reciprocity of tariffs,
and that they would also fail in obtaining treaties for
reciprocity in shipping. But the two cases were by no
means analogous. He excepted from his clause the co-
lonial coasting trade and the inter-colonial trade, which
it would be better to leave to the Legislatures of re-
spective colonies, and he would add a proviso giving
power to her Majesty in Council to remove certain re-
strictions and prohibitions upon the trade of foreign
ships 'with those colonies, even although those restric-
tions should not be removed by such foreign. nations.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving his amendment.
Mr. WILSON, in opposing the amendment on the
part of the Government, did not believe that the Hon.
Member was adverse to the liberal policy of the Go-
vernment with respect to the navigation-laws. The Go-
vernment plan was not only the best, but the only plan
by which they could avoid repeated and intricate nego-
tiations with other powers. If they were to have con-
ditional legislation the Government must hold in their
hands the power of retaliation, so that they might re-
store the equilibrium by retaliatory measures. That re-
ciprocity for which the Hon. Gentleman was an advocate
must be regarded as a principle very nearly akin to re-
taliation. If we refused to other countries advantages
which they denied to us, that refusal would be quite in
the nature of a penalty for their non-compliance with
what we conceived to be a reasonable demand. The plan
of the Hon. Gentleman, and those wbo thought with him,
appeared to be nothing less than a distinct prohibition—
such, at least, be thought, would be its practical effect.
The Hun. Gentleman proposed this, that England should
not concede any commercial privileges except to those
nations which proved to the satisfaction of the Queen in
Council that they had made or were ready to make
similar concessions to England. What was that but re-
taliating upon them on account of their not being free-
traders? The Hon. Gentleman had talked of similar re-
strictions, appearing altogether to forget that there was
scarcely any such thing as similarity in the matter of
restriction. It seemed to him that the Hon. Gentleman
could scarcely have considered the probable conse-
quences of the proposition that he had made. He
would take the case of Belgium, which was perhaps, more
restrictive than any other country that could be named;
yet, with all its restrictions, it possessed not one which
could be [called similar to those which prevailed in
this country. In the first place, Belgium had no
colonies. She had no prohibitions whatever upon
the long voyage trade. She did not prohibit
the importation of goods from Asia, Africa, or America,
through England. All that she did was to lay on dif-
ferential duties. In this way he might go on through
all the countries of Europe, without finding one in which
the restrictions were precisely similar to those which
prevailed in England. Single instances might, perhaps,
be discovered here and there, but upon the whole it would
be found that dissimilarity was the rule, and resemblance
the exception. The restrictions which England imposed
were of the exclusive character. Many other nations
restricted by differential duties, but this country did so
for the most part by means of exclusions. Perhaps the
Hon. Gentleman would say that we ought to permit a
free trade with those, and with those only, which en-
tirely threw open their;trade to us. Suppose that were
to happen with the United States, and that that republic
were to repeal at once all their restrictions, what would
happen as soon as we allowed the United States to go
into our colonial trade? All the countries with which we
had treaties would immediately demand like privileges.
Holland would at once insist upon such an advantage
on the ground of treaties. Holland by a treaty not
terminable had a right to trade to Java and the In-
dian Archipelago upon the terms of the most fa-
voured nation. He did not forget it might be said that
with some countries our treaties were terminable. He
would put this question to the House—were they pre-
pared to disturb the whole of our existing treaties with
foreign states for the purpose of carrying out the views
of the Hon. Gentlemau ? In his opinion the course
which the Government proposed to take would better
carry out the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman than
his own plan. Let them suppose this intended recipro-
city system established to the fullest extent, what would
there be to prevent the cotton or the sugar of America
being conveyed to this country via Rotterdam? and,
surely that which could, under any circumstances, be
done indirectly. had much better be directly sanctioned.
Then let the House for a moment reflect upon the blow
which they would strike against the warehousing trade
of this country if they assented to the proposition of the
Hon. Gentleman. Our relations with Russia, Prussia,
Spain, and France forbade the adoption of any such
proposition; and, in his opinion, nothing would do more
for our warehousing trade than the Bill which her Ma-
jaw(eriesirtreiyeva'ersd,hheearre.) Government had submitted to the House.—
warehousedi n n t
or
foreign
ihngen presenttshhiisps.c stateuGn Goods
roydosf
excepting
xnt htceeenplwdtaiendg,
for
ru goodsehh oa
home
might,e ranvoa
sdsoeudbitn,
tobea rleaswh,i pt
hpeee;
cßoinllsunmowptbioenfore th
warehousing but
i f h e
trade might enjoy the benefit of articles intended for
home consumption. The Right Hon. Member for the
University of Oxford proposed or suggested to divide
the trade of this country into the foreign trade of the
whole empire, including that which our colonies carried
on with foreigners; and, secondly, into the domestic
trade of England, including her intercourse with her
own colonies; and, having made this division, the Right
Hon. Gentleman proposed that a foreign state might be
at liberty to give us the benefit of either division, and
accept a similar privilege in return—that other countries
might be free to give us one or both of those advantages.
Now, such plans were open to very grave practical ob-
jections. What, for example, were they to do with the
Dutch, as regarded Java and the East Indies? Suppose
Holland were to concede to us that class which related
to foreign trade, and that the United States of America
conceded both, Holland might then demand, upon the
ground of treaties, and without any further concession,
to be put on the same footing as the United States.
Upon the whole, then, he did not hesitate to say, that
the Government plan was better calculated than any
other to carry out even the views of the Hon. Member
for Kilmarnock.

Mr. GLADSTONE said he should state in one sen-
tence why he could not vote for the proposed clause.
There was this practical difficulty in the way of the plan
of the lion. Member, that foreign restrictions were in-
commensurate with those which prevailed in this coun-
try, and the clause would, therefore, not attain the object
in view.

Mr. GIBSON observed that the only question was
one which lay between the British shipowner and the
British public. The shipowner told the public that they
must use no vessels but his. It was not a haggling with
foreigners about a little more or a little less. The
object was, to get rid of restrictions upon the civil rights
of her Majesty's subjects. He was glad to find that
09132 g 119 a, Aleuabcra 144 rsAched the reciprocity stage.

It was like the stage of convalescence. He once had I
been in that stage himself, but he was now perfectly re-
covered;
and be doubted not that the reciprocity
gentlemen would soon be as much free traders as he
was. They had lately, through their Minister at the
Court of Sweden, insisted upon the grant of
rights under treaty for the advantage of this
country. Whatever privileges, with regard to na-
vigation, they might grant to any foreign country,
whether conditionally or gratuitously, Sweden might
claim at their hands; and the United States, and all
those countries whose treaties with England contained
the favoured nation clause, might claim any privileges
which might be granted to Sweden. He thought, there-
fore, that it would be most difficult to carry out practi-
cally any attempt at reciprocity, conditional legislation,
or retaliation. With respect to the principle of orders
in Council, be doubted whether it was wise to leave the
regulation of trade to the Executive, or to permit them
to levy duties on the import of commodities without the
consent of Parliament. He thought it was far better, if
any imperious necessity arose for interference with the
trade of the country, or for the increase of taxation, that,
as a general rule, application should be made to Perlis:
ment for the regulation of such great and important inte-
rests. He found, from a paper he held in his hand,that the
effect of existing Orders in Council was absolutely to
forbid the colonies of England from commercial commu-
nication with one-half the world. The British colonies
in America and the West Indies were interdicted from
such communication with Belgium, Sardinia, Naples, the
Papal States, Tuscany, Greece, the Ottoman Empire,
Brazil, Peru, the Republic of Uruguay, and other coun-
tries; and they were not permitted to communicate
directly with Spain or France. There was one excep-
tion with regard to France. The Governor of the Mau-
ritius wanted a little ice to cool his champagne—
(Laughter)—and therefore French ships were allowed
to carry ice to the Mauritius from the adjacent island of
Bourbon. He would ask whether such a policy was
calculated to cement the ties of affection between the
mother country and the colonies? He considered, on
the contrary, that it was calculated to make those colo-
nies desirous of separation, that they might attach them-
selves to other countries which would allow them greater
privileges. It was true that the existing orders in
Council would be terminated by this Bill, but he wished
to have some assurance that they would not be restored.
He would vote against the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Kilmarnock.
Mr. R. PALMER would oppose this Bill now, as he
bad done on a former occasion, because be believed with
Adam Smith, who was a great authority with Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, that the navigation-laws were well cal-
culated to maintain the shipping interest. Unquestion-
ably, if the flourishing condition of the shipping inte-
rest of this country was any proof of the conduciveness
of those laws to effect the object they were intended to
promote, the question might be safely rested upon that
test. He confessed that he did not think the amend-
ment worth supporting, because he believed the object
of :that amendment would not be insured by its provi-
sions. He considered that they ought, in legislating
upon a question of this kind, to look at the interests of
this country, and not at what foreign States might do
or might not do. He was not frightened by the state-
ment that Prussia or America had held out threats as
to the course they would take if we did not accommo-
date our navigation-laws to their wishes, because he was
satisfied those countries would do exactly what they
thought best calculated to promote their own
interests, whether we altered our navigation-laws
or maintained them.—(Heear, hear.) He thought,
therefore, that if the House considered the navi-
gation-laws tended to promote the political and ship-
ping interests of this country, they ought to uphold them
without any regard to the threats of foreign powers, who
could not injure England in commercial matters half so
much as England might injure them. Suppose the case
of a foreign country possessing harbours, rivers, and ma-
terials for building ships, and otherwise in a position fa-
vourable for establishing a great maritime power; did
they believe that such a country, being desirous of
creating a commercial and warlike navy, would net
adopt navigation-laws if it deemed them likely to pro-
mote their views? If the shipping of such a country
had to compete with us, they could in no other way
so advantageously introduce themselves into the
markets of the world as by adopting that course
of policy. How, then, would the legislation now pro-
posed operate upon countries so situated? They bad
been told that no reliance could be placed on the
alteration, by France or Spain, of their navigation-
laws ; and by the legislation now proposed a direct
advantage would be given to the ships of those foreign
states which chose to retain restrictions after this coun-
try had parted with them. It was clear that, when they
had abolished their navigation-laws, France, maintain-
ing or even increasing its restrictions, would have just
the same advantages in competition with English ships,
whether in this country or in the colonies, as those na-
tions which traded with us on the freest principles. But
would English ships have the same privileges in France?
No; the advantage would be all on the side of the French
ships, which would have the preference in their own
ports, and would be admitted on the most favourable
terms in ours. The experience of the period since the
navigation-laws were adopted had shown that the mer-
cantile navy and the commerce of a great country like
England could increase and flourish under such a system;
and it appeared to him that these laws were in the nature
of an insurance, which it was worth while to keep up,
even at some cost of national interest.
Mr. BRIGHT observed, that the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down had referred to Adam Smith in
support of his views; but he (Mr. Bright) would be
sorry that Adam Smith, or any other Adam—(A laugh)
—should be held up for ever as a guide of the policy
of this country. Adam Smith justified the navigation-
laws, not upon the principles of protection advocated
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but because he thought
they gave strength to that naval influence which this
country had been so anxious to possess. If, however,
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer) had read the evi-
dence
given before the Committee, or had attended to
the facts brought forward in the course of this discus-
sion, he would have found that the danger anticipated
by Adam Smith was purely imaginary. There was no
country from which England had anything to fear as re-
garded naval superiority, except the United States, and
those States would give, and had already given to the,
ships of this country, all the privileges and advantages
we proposed to give to them. If our throwing open our
navigation should be unfavourable to our naval supre-
macy, the opening of their navigation by the United
States must be equally unfavourable to the maintenance
of their naval power. He would oppose the motion of
the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because, if they
waited to open their ports until 'other nations opened
theirs, he did not see why the same argument should not
have held good with regard to corn and other articles,
in which free trade had been adopted. He hoped the
Government would withdraw the retaliatory clause
which had been alluded to, for he believed that, in no
probable circumstances, would they be able to carry it
into operation.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, in reference to the obser-
vation of the Hon. Member for Manchester relative to
the foreign correspondence which had been produced,
that the Government had thought it their duty to furnish
the House with all the information which they could
procure, and to take every means to throw light on the
views and intentions of foreign powers respecting a sub-
ject of this great and national importance.—(Hear.)
With regard to the question of reciprocity, that had been
fully and ably dealt with by the Hon. Member for West-
bury, and he thought he should only be weakening the
case by endeavouring to go over the same ground. How-
ever plausibly the principle of reciprocity might sound,
any Hon. Gentleman attempting to put his reciprocity
views into the shape of an Act of Parliament would im-
mediately
u discovercorse._(Ha, h
er the extreme
Ttremheoupgrh on principleacticald
difficulties
h
ultie waesins
opposed to the strict reciprocity plan, yet, being fully
aware of the great facilities it might afford to Govern-
ment in carrying out a Bill like the present, he most
attentively considered the question in all its bearings,
for the purpose of seeing whether, consistently with his
duty, be could engraft reciprocity on the Bill, but he
abandoned the attempt in despair.—(Hear.)
Mr. BERRIES had heard with surprise the emphatic
declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman that be had
thought it his duty to furnish the House, previous to the
consideration of this question, with all the information
he could collect respecting the intentions of foreign
Governments, for he recollected that last year the Bill
was discussed in June, and the first application to foreign
states with a view of ascertaining their opinions on the
subject was dated only in December following, being six
months after the introduction of the last Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) The communications which had taken place had
succeeded in obtaining only from a very few powers—
for instance, from Sweden and our excellent and respec-
table ally the King of Sardinia, any distinct explanation
of what they intended to do. With respect to the reta-
liation clause in the Bill, the amendment now moved,
and the suggestion of the Right Hon. Member for Ox-
ford University, he thought it ;_had been satisfactorily
proved that they were all liable to objection, and pre-
sented only a choice of difficulties. He looked upon
them all, however, as a homage paid to the principle
of reciprocity—(Hear, hear)—but he apprehended that
the most-favoured-nation clause stood in the
way of the complete working of any of those proposi-
tions. With respect to America, it had been stated that
by the laws of that country as they now existed the con-
sequence of the passing of the present Act would be im-
mediate reciprocity on the part of America. The
Secretary for the American Government adverted speci-
fically to an Act which he said would accomplish that
object, but any one reading the Act would perceive that
the American Secretary was mistaken; and though it
was contended by the promoters of the present Bill that
there was another Act which would effect the purpose
desired, no reference was made to it in the communica-
tion from Mr. Buchanan. But if America had already
passed all the necessary Acts, any application to that
countrywould have been superfluous, and therefore he
was inclined to doubt that such was the case. It was
stated that Mr. Bancroft represented that there was a
general disposition on the part of America to meet this
country in the relaxation of the navigation laws; but
that was not consistent with the statement that an

American law existed by which, if England relaxed her

navigation laws, the American navigation laws would
immediately be relaxed. There appeared a sort of
mystification in this, and something requiring further
explanation. He thought the Hon. Member for Man-
chester had put the present question in the fullest and
fairest form, when he had said that we ought to legis-
late for our own well-considered interests, and not in re-
ference to other countries; but he differed from that
Hon. Member as to the particular course that should
now be pursued Iv the House. Tho retaliation clause
would lead to dangerous disputes with other countries, if
attempted to be carried out, but he looked upon it merely
as a blind.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE, in reference to what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Member, wished to say that, during
the whole in,ercourse ho had bad with Mr. Bancroft on
this subject, it was impossible for any man to have con-
ducted himself la a 1:119/0 straightforward Aud 41419 W"