The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-24 00:00:00

arises from the consciousness that the whole argument 1
in favour of ttie Bill now before the House has been
exhausted by the masterly speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Ripon.—(fleer, hear.) He
went so completely through the argument, and touched
on all parts of it in so convincing a manner, and he has
been so little answered by the Hon. Gentleman who last
spoke, that I feel great difficulty in addressing the
House on this subject. Nevertheless, having a deep
sense of the importance of this question, and feeling
that, after a year of delay, after an inquiry by a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and by a Committee
of the House of Lords, and after the measure has been
twice recommended in the speech from the throne, it is
high time that our deliberations on this subject should
end in a settlement of this question, I sin induced to
address the House before it goes to a division on the
subject. I was glad tai hear the Honourable Gentleman
who spoke last admit in a somewhat different spirit
from that evinced by the Honourable and Learned
Member for Midhurst that all restrictions of themselves
required defence; that there must be a strong case made
out for them; and that consequently the burden of proof
lies on those who attempt to support them. Every one,
I think, must admit that it is no crime for a person to
wish to bring wool from Australia to supply our manu-
facturers in a Bremen ship, and that there is no moral
guilt in attempting to bring hides from Holland, and na-
turally no sin in attempting to introduce America cotton
from Havre. The only crime, teen, must consist in the
violation of your prohibitory law, and that prohibitory
law must require strong grounds for its defence.—
(Hear, hear.) This question has been treated by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst in a speech of
great ability as one to be divided historically, economi-
cally, and nationally; but I do not think that on any of
these grounds there is a sufficient defence for the present
state of the law. I am aware that the law has been al-
most worshipped as the charta maritima of this country
and that much of its prosperity and commerce has
been attributed to the law, and that it has been
thought profanation to alt• r it. But in my judgment
that opinion is founded in error, and at no time has this
law been essentially advantageous to this country.—
(Hear, hear.) Let us look to its origin. Did it arise
from any views of commercial wisdom, or from any of
those views of protection which are now said to be so
conducive to our prosperity? It arose from a wish on
the part of the Protector Cromwell, inspired on the occa-
sion by the enmity and indignation of St. John against
the Dutch, to cripple and destroy the commercial marine
of Holland; and so little did the law answer in any other
view that the Right Hon. Member for Ripon quoted
correctly Roger, Coke, and various other writers who
followed in the course of a century, showing that the na-
vigation laws, in a commercial point of consideration,
were most injurious to this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Whether it was our interest to destroy the navigation of
Holland at that time we need not now much discuss; but
we do know that 40 years afterwards it was the chief ob-
ject of our policy to maintain the power of Holland, and
effect with that country the most close and intimate
alliance.—(Hear, hear.) What was the next effect which
we find produced historically by the navigation-laws
and the restrictions connected with them. We find that
the vexatious and intolerable nature of these restrictions
provoked the loyal and attached friends of the British
connexion in America to resistance.—(Hear, hear.)
What next was the effect of regulations of a similar
kind? You prohibited Ireland from trading with any of
your colonies. You fettered her by the most severe re-
strictive regulations; you produced resistance in Ireland;
and it was only by abandoning those regulations that
you succeeded in pacifying Ireland. I say, therefore,
that in a historical point of view the provisions of the
navigation-laws have been mischievous, and not condu-
cive to her welfare. Then, Sir, in an economical view,
I think there is almost a confession—a confession by the
Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, a confession by the
chief of those authors who have defended the system
—that, economically, the regulations must be injurious,
that these restrictions must tend to diminish the
wealth of the country, and that no other defence can be
found for them but their tendency to promote our naval
power. I need not, therefore, go into the various matters
in which the present laws are injurious. These have
been shown in evidence before the Committee. They
have been shown, in various instances, to have delayed
and obstructed the commerce of this country. But then
it is said, that whatever may be the injury which our
commerce has suffsred,t however unwise those restric-
tions may be in a commercial point of view, they have
tended to keep up a commercial marine, from which the
sntarveyngotfh. so
this country
I thhiansh derivedthere areits
many reasons resources and
for
doubting that assertion; and I call it an assertion be-
cause, after all the argument and all the evidence from
men of high naval authority, or from persons of high
economical authority—from Adam Smith—from those
who have taken part in this debate, I see nothing like
regulations; I see nothing
proof that our navy hasderimveodreittshasntreanngathssferrotmionththosee
t
here are regulations which tend to monopoly, and,
therefore, they must bo beneficial to the commercial
other ( L o ud
hand, cries
areo f
t"hlel er, ae
' the truth of this assertion. In the first doubting ar'sohnesario"r)
in-
stance, there is the character of oar people, eminent:).
Im,
eatr marine
seeof this
what, coounn country.—(Loud
attached to naval pursuits, readily embracing the marine
as a
profession distinguished among the nations of the
world as a naval people. I own I was astonished to hear
the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last, complain
that if we pass this Bill, we oblige the shipowners of this
country to employ interior woikinen.—(Hear, hear.) I
ask him, why inferior workmen ? (flear, hear.) I am
ted I that a great portion oe. the commercial marine of
the United States, of which many are so jealous, con-
sists of the se very Britie li seamen whom you now call
inferior workmen.—(hear, hear.) What is it, then,
that has made the masters and the seamen of our British
commercial marine in any way inferior ? What is it
that has tended to cripple their energies, or to diminish
their skill ? What can it be but the constant invariable
effect of protective lives—(Heer, hear)—and of telling
men " Do not trust to your own energies, do not trust
to your own powers, because, in default of industry—in
default of skill—we will give you a law which will
protect you against all competition ?" (Hear, hear.)
And yet, in spite of these "inferior workmen," we know,
that in 1848 236,000 men belonged to the commercial
marine of England—(Hear, hear)—we know—we must
know that that is not a number which could be produced
( hear.) But what is the
among a nation that was not essentially a nation loving
the marine as a prafession, and eminent among the na-
tions in that respect.—Hear,
next reason? We were told, I remember, about 1824
and 1826, that Mr. Huskisson had introduced measures
which would totally ruin tho commercial marine of this
country—(Hear, hear)—that the shipping must be ut-
terly destroyed—(Hear, hear)—that the state of distress
was something which had scarcely ever been paralleled,
and that it was owing to his measures. Now those
measures did, to a very great degree, introduce com-
petition with other nations; they gave reciprocity
in some instances—they did away with restrictions
without reciprocity
in others; and what has been the
consequence? I have here the tonnage of the Bri-
tish empire as it stood in 1523, in 1840, and in
1849—1 will trouble the House with only those num-
bers; our tonnage in 1823 was 2,506,760, in 1840
3,226,681, in 1849 4,052:160. That is the mode in which
the tonnage of this empire has increased under this sys-
tem of modified competition. In the same period the
number of men employed has risen from 165,000 to
236,000. I say this is a reason for believing that we
can stand Competition, and that we may go further in
that courses—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member
for Midhurst (Nit.. Walpole) admitted that the plans of
Mr. Huskisson were successful, that there had been a
great increase in the amount of tonnage and number of
men, but he said—" As you have been so successful,
stand where you are; you have succeeded, you are going
on well, and therefore be contented with the position
t
which you have reached." Now that is not modemy I
considering questions of this kind.—(Hear,
.hear.)
and at
direction, and it has been eminently successful,
that is
the same time has been a cautious experiment,. .
the same direction—
consider that if you have made an experiment in one
a reason for going further in
still
as I trust, with greater
hear)—to be attended,
we have already
taken than the measures that
taken —Meat-, hear.) I have mentioned two grounds
for confidence that our commercial marine will not be
(Hear, hear)—a reason for greater progress— (Hear,
injured by the proposed repeal of the navigation laws.
I go to another ground, to which I do not see that there
can be an answer. It is, that not only is this amount
of tonnage employed and this number of men in the
trade of the United Kingdom, but a great portion of it
is employed in a trade in which we have no protection
whatever—in the carrying trade to Russia, to Trieste,
and to parts of Austria, where we meet the other
nations of the globe, and where those nations, be they
Swedes or be they Americans, if they have such an ad-
vantage as is said, would drive us out of the trade and
disable us from such competition.—(Hear, hear.) I do
not really see what answer there can be to this state•
ment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Hew is it that some
say that the Swedes and Norwegians navigate so
cheaply and are paid such very low wages, and the
same gentleman, or others, say that the Americans
receive such high wages, and their ships are manned so
well, that they must beat us? Whatever the case is, we
are told that the British shipowner, the British master,
is to be beaten. I believe, on the other hand, that, with
the energies of this country left completely free, you
have not to dread the competition of any nation upon the
globe.—(Hear, hear.) I believe—and I by no means
regret—that foreign shipping will increase, as it
has increased in past years ; but I believe
that British shipping will increase in a manner com-
mensurate, or probably in a greater proportion, and that
the only result will be a general increase in the com-
merce of this country and of the world.—(Hear, hear.)
t ld iann rho
h o but
spoke I was
last,
a hsatp.
We are told that the manner in which wo have proposed
this Bill is a conclusive argument against our suo-
ceee g ;happy that thedon
ht, with honourablehis
expe-
rience, -
rience, has considered the measure in all its details,
fully concurred in the ' opinion we entertain, that a
Bill framed on strict grounds of reciprocity—
a 13ill declaring that you must follow other nations in
every particular—would lead into inextricable difficul-
ties, and that it would not have been wise to propose it.
—(Hear.) If that is the case, what other course could
h t
we take, with our opinions, than proposing a total repeal
impose o
w Righte uponil
!lave
r u e
by
s—
. Hon.
of these laws, leaving it to the Queen in Council to exer-
cise a power, if it shall be thought fit, of imposing upon
(oouutihrrea present
.) nationslo
larwc retainings r
I ic t h
i nt
quites that
agree with tpower, which theywi
which
Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), that in ordinary cases
when you attempt to impose a restriction, because a re-
striction is imposed upon you, you are injuring yourselves
more than obtaining any benefit; but there are cases where
the restriction may be put on from national rivalry and
national animosity, cases is which in former instances
we have succeeded by putting similar restrictions on
other nations; and therefore I think the Crown should
not be deprived of that power. But in many cases, such
as the instance which has often been referred to, of the
colony of Trinidad, 1 believe you Might Very ogely give

to Trinidad the trade with Venezuela in ships not built
in Venezuela, and which are prohibited from trading
with Trinidad by the present navigation-laves, even
though you can have no equivalent advantage on the
other side.—(Hear, hear.) We are told that we shall
not obtain from foreign nations similar advantages. The
information that I derive from the papers laid before
Parliament is of a totally different kind.—(Hear, hear.)
I conclude that, with respect to the greater part of the
nations of Europe and of the world, we shall obtain fair
and equal terms of navigation with those countries, pro-
vided we are ready to give those terms to them.—(Hear.)
Nobody can doubt it with regard to the United States of
America; no one can doubt it with regard to Prussia, er
Russia, or Austria. Indeed, I think the nations which
will not be prepared to give those equal terms, reduce
themselves to some three or four—to France, Spain, and
Belgium, and perhaps one other ; the list can hardly be
extended beyond that.—(Hear, hear.) But lot us take the
opposite case—let us take the case that this Bill is re-
jected, and that you wait for some years before you take
any measure; what will be the case then? Prussia has
told us (I do not consider it a threat, I consider it a fair
declaraticn), " If you continue these restriction, if you
think them wise, I will copy your wisdom, and give you
the same terms that you give me." I cannot see that
there is anything offensive in that, or that we have any
reason to complain of such a declaration.—(Hear, hear.)
Russia has already proclaimed the same thing; she -has
proclaimed, with regard to other nations, that she will
impose upon them the restrictions they impose upon her
shipping, but she will not do ',so with regard to England
because she has a treaty with England; and how long
does that treaty last? It expires in 1851; and from that
time Russia will be at liberty to impose restrictions upon
us. Is it wise to wait till you are subject to them, and
then endeavour to negotiate in order to take off those
restrictions on both sides?—(Hear.) I remember that
Mr. Huskisson held a very different, and, I think, a much
wiser doctrine? I have here the words which he used,
after speaking of what is now called the " threat from
Prussia," and the conduct likely to be adopted by her,
he said—" The immediate lesson which I derive from it
is this, that it is a part of political wisdom, when danger
is foreseen, not supinely to wait for its approach, but,
as far as possible, to take timely measures for its pre-
vention."—(Hear, hear.) That is the course that we
are now taking.—(Hear, hear.) We are told that there
is no popular cry for this measure—that there is no de•
mend for it on the part of public opinion; but I think
we are bound, if we see such dangers before us, if we
have the information which enables us to judge, not to
wait till the people of this country come to us complain-
ing and saying—" Our navigation is subject to restric-
tions, you knew that it would be so, you might have
prevented it, it was your duty to settle these questions,
but you have allowed this to come upon us, and you are
to blame for the injury we are suffering."—(Hear,
hear.) I ask the House, then, to agree to this Bill, and
to endeavour to procure a settlement of this question.
—(Hear.) I am the more impressed with the necessity
of arriving at the settlement we propose, from the
considerations which have been adverted to by the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). He has quoted the
statement of a Noble Lord, that, with respect to protec-
tion, we ought to retrace our steps. We know very well,
not only that this is a declaration from a person of high
authority and in a commanding position, but that in
many parts of the country, from certain classes, a cry
has been raised for a renewal of protection, not upon any
trifling article, not upon any imported goods, with re-
spect to which the great mass of the people of this
country can be indifferent, but they have asked at once
for a renewed duty on the import of food.—(Hear, hear.)
Now I beg Hon. Members to consider what would be the
probable consequences of any attempt of that nature.—
I am reminded of abet the Right Hon. Gentleman
said at the conclusion of his speech, when he stated that
we were making agitators ; and he called upon us not to
promote agitation, or irritate the minds of men. Now the
agitation and irritation produced by our proposal to re-
peal the navigation laws are not very considerable or
very alarming—according to the opinion of any one.
But if we were to declare that we were about again to
impose a tax upon food ; that we were not satisfied
with the low price of corn, then, I believe, we should
have an agitation and an irritation of a very
different description.—(Loud cheers.) I believe that
you would then have the mass, the great mass of the
people who are now quiet and contented—(lronical
cheers from the Protectionists, and counter cheers from
the Ministerial benches)—l again repeat it, " who are
now quiet and contented," and I rejoice that they are
enabled—with regard to articles both of necessary food,
and of those slight comforts which they enjoy—that
they are enabled to purchase them at lower rates than
perhaps they have been able to procure them in the
memory of man in this country—ot any one now living.
I believe that if you were to proclaim that you were
about to impose a tax upon the importation of corn, that
these classes would agitate from the fear of the suffer-
ings which they would have to endure, and of the scarcity
which you by your legislation would attempt to expose
them to.—(Cheers.) Who would feel the benefit of
such a state of thing? The farmers, you tell us, are
asking for a duty upon corn. If that duty were
small an advantage would be gained to the revenue.
But a protection, to be effsc'uil, in the opinion of
the farmers, must not be the protection of a small
duty, and no benefit would be derived from it. If
any benefit is to be derived by them we aro told
it must be by a high duty; but is it imagined that there
could be imposed upon the nation a high duty upon
corn ? In the present state cf this country does any
man imagine that, even although this House, by a ma-
jority of four to ono should pass such a law, and if it
should pass the House of Lords without a dissentient
voice being raised against it, does any one believe that
such a law could be maintained and enforced in this
country?—(Loud cheers.) Well, Sir, then I ask this
House, do not, by the rejection, give a signal fur fresh
1 and renewed agitation on the subject of the corn-laws.
Like the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon,
I rejoice in the tranquillity with which we passed
through a year remarkable in its revolutions and con-
vulsions, in almost every country in Europe. I believe that
there were three things that contributed mainly to your
tranquillity, to the preservation of confidence, and to the
loyalty of the people. I believe that the first of these
causes was the attachment of the people to the form of
their own ancient institutions, and in the next place
that it was very much owing to the removal of those
grosser abuses in the representation of the people which
the Reform Act proposed and carried under the Admi-
nistration of Lord Grey.—(Hear.) I believe that if you
had had such flagrant abuses as Gatton and Old Sarum
that what might have been a call for reform would have
swelled into a cry for revolution.—(Hear, hear.) I be-
lieve the third reason why the people were so tranquil
during the agitation of the past year was that the
grievances which they felt from the high price of food,
caused by your legislation, bad been removed, and that
by the Act of 1846 there had boon removed all the im-
pediments by which the people were prevented from pro-
curing that food as cheaply as it could be introduced
from every foreign nation.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that
to these three circumstances you aro indebted mainly
for the position in which you stand—a position which is
gratifying t every native of this country—and a posi-
tion which is conspicuous among all the nations of the
world. I ask you to maintain that position by the met us
by which you acquired it.—(Cheers and counter cheers.)
I ask you not to refuse a reform which is pointed out
by reason which is the result of inquiry and which is in
conformity with the principle that Parliament has
already deliberately adopted. If, on the other
hand, you announce that you are about to purses
the course of re-action, and if you induce men to
think that yc u doubt of the soundness of those princi-
ples that you have adopted, if the opinion prevails that
the shipping interest is not alone to be left as the sole
protected interest in the country, and that you are about
to restore that protection which Parliament has taken
away, then I say you will be giving the signal for an
agitation of which indeed you may have been proved of
having commenced the operation, but of which you will
not see the end without the deepest regret and sorrow.—
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—There are only two considerations
which lead me to address the House at this late hour (a
quarter past twelve), and these aro the general desire of
the House that the debate should terminate to-night—
(Cheers)—and the remembrance on my part that I shall
not trouble them for more than a few minutes. I have
on another occasion entered more fully, with the indul-
gence of the House, in the discussion of this great ques-
tion; and I now only take the liberty of venturing to
express the general feeling with which I shall give my
vote on this occasion. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Ripon has told us that he considers the
motion before the House to be in short the capital which
is to be placed on the column that we have been so
long engaged in raising. But if the column that we have
raised be one that, in the symmetry of its outline and
the general beauty of its design, has somewhat disap•
pointed our expectation; if it is found when we have
raised it that it does not realise the expectations of our
creative fancy, then we may fairly hesitate before we in-
cur the additional outlay of raising an expensive capital
upon a column of an ill-fashioned design.—(Cheers.)
This is an oratorical illustration which placed the matter
in its right light. The Government measure appears to
be brought forward to realise a theory.—(Cheers and a
laugh.) You are called upon to deal with an important
interest not from any popular appeal, or apprehensions
of a great national grievance, but because. you are told
that the repeal of the navigation code of England is to
complete a great experiment. But we say that the time
which has been appealed to this evening has tested that
experiment. We believe and imagine that that experi-
ment has failed, and the argument which you urged
with such effect twelve months ago in favour of a pro-
position which was necessary to complete an experiment
that bad not then failed does not tell this session with
the same effect when the Right Honourable Member
for Ripon, who denied that reaction could ever occur,
admitted that reaction and progress were analagous,
and when the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) has
deprecated a change of the agricultural system in con•
sequence of the distress and discontent which he said it
would occasion.—(Cheers.) You have brought forward
your plan on theory, and it is necessary you should have
a case to support it. What did you du? You made a
case. With a foregone conclusion you nominated a Cou
mince of inquiry, a Committee which you will permit
me to say, has not conducted its investigations
manner which has generally raised the character of the
But Committees of this House.—(Hear, hear.) B
have you had this Committee of inquiry—no sooner
sooner
n soeneerisior
had
i
j
it gone about collecting evidence to u
that had already been adopted, thanitst_iwyasa decision
that
the case was not sufficiently substantiated by the incon-
venience which you alleged the commerce of this coun-
try was enduring. It was, therefore, necessary to give
another colour to the changes which you were about to
bring forward, and ultimately (I think I state it fairly),
your case, which was to justify you with practical men,
as your theory was to justify you with theoretical
men, rested upon three positions—commercial inconve-
nience, colonial discontent, and foreign menace.
twelve months elapsed, and this subject was very deeply
audj corefµlly considered, We are now zeta pm. Qui,

patent to form an opinion than we were two years ago,
and how doss the case stand? Your theory has blown
up, and your cam has broken down.—(Laughter.)
Your first case of commercial inconvenience was said
to be in the high freights which were paid by the con-
sumers in England, in consequence, as you said, of the
restrictions placed upon the shipping by the navigation
laws. But the last thesis we heard maintained by an
Hon. Member, who is supposed by some Gentlemen to
be a great authority—l mean the Hon. Member for
Westbury (Mr. Wilson) was, that these restrictions
have not raised freights at all.—(A laugh.) It has
been shown that the cases in which they have that effect
are exceptional cases. I did not expect to hear again
until I heard from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Ripon, to night, of the celebrated cochineal case.
" Ground nuts," I believe, the R ght Hon. Gentleman
forgot.—(A laugh.) But he told us himself how these
petty and exceptional inconveniences could be met. One
Gentleman had given us to-night a list of enumerated
articles which may be applied to the long voyage trade,
to remove all those inconveniences. When the Right
lion. Gentleman the Member for the Ueiver.s ty of Ox-
ford (Mr. Gladstone), emitted to bring forward those
propositions which we all looked for, I was surprised to
hear the Right Hon. Gentleman say, on the authority of
some anonymous paragraph, that it was quite evident the
shipowners would never consent to any change. I rep% t
ted to hear that observation made by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, because I know it has produced a very injurioue ef-
fect in many quarters, giving evidence on the part of the
shipowners of this country of bigoted obstinacy, and,
coming from so high an authority as the Right Hon.
Gentleman, naturally not b, ing double f for its accuracy.
—(Hear.) I happen to hold in my hand the last report
of the Shipowners' Society, dated the sth of March of
this year; and what do I read in the conclusion of their
address to the people of this country? They here ex-
press their readiness to discuss, at the proper time, fully
and impartially, all questions bearing on the practical
amendment of the navigation-laws—they consider them-
selves precluded from now offering any special sugges-
tions; but guided, they observe, by principle, they avow
they will be ready hereafter frankly to state their opi-
nions, impartially to weigh those, of others, and to con-
cede with liberality when they cannot convince on all
points not involving fundamental principles.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, after such an expression of opinion, so
recently made by so important a society on this sub•
ject, I must express ny surprise that the Right Honour-
able Gentleman should have lent the high authority of
his justly influential name to the expression of an
opinion of so contrary and injurious a character.—
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, what comes of the case of
colonial discontent? I cannot understand, though I have
listened with great attention to this debate, that the
instances adduced this year on that head much enrich
the factitious case of the Government. True it has been
shown, and no one has denied, that there was on the
part of the English colonies, a feeling more or less
diffused that the repeal of the navigation-laws would
operate some advantage in their favour. The Hon.
Baronet referred to the memorial from Australia—a
memorial which I believe has never been presented to
the House. It is not a new document. I alluded to it
last year in some observations I took the liberty of
making, because it so happened that in consequence of
that memorial I received from the harbour-masters of
the ports in that part of the world statements which
were afterwards given on oath before the House of Lords,
from which it appeared that between the Ist of January,
1846, and the 30th of June, 1847, sixty-one ships cleared
from London for Sydney, of which eighteen loaded with
a cargo home, and the other forty three proceeded to
other places in search of freight. 'Within the same
period twenty-seven vessels cleared for Hobart Town;
fourteen loaded home—the others came home in ballast;
twenty-five cleared to Port Philip; twelve came home
with cargoes, the other thirteen without. Between
November, 1846, and June, 1847, twenty-one cleared
for Port Adelaide from London, of which seven only ob-
tained cargo. I want to know who, in the face of such
facts as those, can argue that our colonies are suffering
from want of ships, or that any alteration in the naviga-
tion-laws can supply them with carrying at a cheaper
rate. I will not dwell on the West India colonies, be-
cause the Government feel that that part of the case has
already broken down. If this question was settled last
year there might have been some argument on the part
of those colonies; but the Government admit in the
same breath that the feeling in those colonies is very
much reversed. True that in Trinidad there is the old
feeling in favour of repeal—by the bye, there was a me-
morial from Guiana in favour of the repeal of the na-
vigation-laws; but it is generally understood in this
House that the moment the West India colonies found
that the change in the navigation laws would not alter
their relative position in the market with Cuba and the
other Spanish colonies, all desire for such a change
ceased.—(Hear, hear.) One important case—the most
important—that of Canada, remains behind; but that
has been treated to night in a manner that will not soon
be forgotten in this country.—(Hear, hear.) True it is
that the Legislative Assembly of Canada has petitioned
the Crown in favour of the repeal of the navigation-
laws; but in the same document the same assembly has
required justice to its industry—in the same document
the same assembly has required the re-institution of that
ss. duty which they enjoyed—(Hear)—and if that docu-
ment is in the hands of the Government, no argument in
favour of repeal of the navigation-laws can be drawn
that by the. surest rules of logic is not equally an argu-
ment in favour of the Si. duty.—(llear, hear.) But we
have been informed by a high authority on this subject
to-night, that if the ss. duty is not given back to Canada,
in all probability Canada will cease to belong to the
British Crown. What great responsibility, then, was
there in that statesman who counselled you to disturb
the arrangement you had made with respect to the im-
portation of corn from Canada; and is it possible that
tiny one can believe—and still least of all I should have
expecte 1 tho Right Honourable Member for Ripon—
that any paltry change in your navigation-laws
can reconcile the people of Canada to your
rule, which they feel has taken away that protection
from their industry, and has in fact virtually dis
solved every political tie that subsisted between you?—
(Hear.) It is well the people of England should know
to-morrow the solemn opinion of one of their greatest
public men. It is well they should know to-morrow that
they must be prepared for rebellion in Canada—that they
must be prepared to lose that proud possession of the
Crown, and mainly because the people of Canada have
been deprived of that just protection to their colonial
industry which they enjoyed.—(Hear, hear.) But
I cannot believe that the people of England can for a
moment suppose their coming forward to offer the Ca-
nadians some shuffling change in the navigation code of
England can be any compensation to the people of Ca-
nada, who feel so acutely on this subject, and who, ac-
cording to the Right Hon. Gentleman, are prepared to
act so decidedly.—(Hear, hear.) Well, the colonial case
is not stronger this year. It rests on Canada, and on a
document which, if it proves anything, proves that the
policy of the House of Commons is to protect the in-
dustry of Canada.—(Hear, hear.) And what is the
foreign case? The Foreign-office has bean extremely
busy on this subject, as if the Noble Lord wished to
prove to the cmatinent that hereafter the House of Lords
had little to do with the Government of this country.
The moment Hon. Gentlemen come to a vote—which
even iu this Parliament I have proved they have some-
times repented, for *Arcady the majority has dwindled
down
.to half the amount—(Bear, hear)— a Secretary
of state instructs our diplomatic agents, from
Vienna to Vent zuela, to communicate with foreign Go-
vernments on the reciprocal alteration of their maritime
code, on the same principle that the year before we com-
municated with the Consuls of England for the purpose
of obtaining the most authentic and accurate information
respecting the bad conduct and qualities of English sea-
men.—(Hear.) And here I must say that the lion.
Member for Huntingdon was very much misrepresented
by the Noble Lord, for the Noble Lord argued the case
as if my Hon. Friend had conceded that the masters and
seamen cf our mercantile marine were guilty of the con-
duct and deserved the calumnious expressions which we
find in the official pap ,rs of the Government. But what
was the answer of foreign states to the invitation of
the Foreign-office? The dispatch of the Prussian Minis-
ter holds out no prospect of coming to any arrangement,
no wish to enter into any negotiation; on the contrary,
he adverts to the altered state of affairs, and says that,
" in the position in which this country finds itself it is
impossible for us at present to enter into any arrange-
ment with you;"—at the first blush, an excellent argu-
ment for not precipitating alteration and passing this
measure. But I read that document in this way. To me
it says, " Things are unsettled; but if the Whig Govern-
ment remains in office—if we succeed in our foreign po-
licy, and establish a national flag—if we appropriate the
harbours of Schleswig-Holstein, of the Northern Stases,
and mouths of the Elbe—if by the favour of the English
Government we become an important maritime power—
then we shall be prepared to open negotiations with you,
and to stand upon our rights."—(Hear, hear.) It is un-
necessary that at this hour I should touch upon the
other continental powers, though every case is I think
an additional argument in favour of our hesitating, and
against any precipitate movement. I must say a few
words, of course, upon the remarkable case of the
United States. I would ask the Right lion. Gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade if his Government
had been last year in the same position with the United
States as it is at present, would he have brought forward
this measure, or made the expression of opinionntethe
of
d
foreign states a part of his case? I was
other night with indulging in imaginative
occa-
sionally in reply by a member of t
but when I rectal to mind the sometimes confidential,
always interesting, and occasionally thrilling and even
solemn manner in which the Right
urable Gen-
h the flightsai
Government;
iontlly therinflet
Gen-
tleman rerealrd the communications
the
most
est conversationsirregular
manner were brought forward to
with Mr. Bancroft, w
influence the
debate,
eared in a public document ; and
w
States—the
with the U
and which never APP weknowof
nitheidch
in of the Govern-
ment
the slues-
tilen I recollect that this year
is, that it is a tabula rase, that all we have heat d
of
the United States and Mr. Bancroft is omitted from the
elements of consideration, I say it is one of the most re-
markable cases I ever recollect, and shows US the itn •
precipitately
elywe on this questiou—
(llear)—and fete deciding
greatshould gain by
portanee of not
lteheata Itlwr.elß"aanc°rloltfht'wtals'esos;:stilliecnalte. settlement.
I here which I will not read to the
House, as every lion. Gentleman will soon obtain it.
Its title is the " Report of the Committee of Ways and
Means on the subject of American Manufactures," pre-
sented to Congress on the last day of February this year,
when General Taylor, standing on the steps of the Go-
vernment-house at Washington, must have had that docu-
ment in his pocket, and no doubt its contents inspired that
peculiar protective character of his inaugural address
with which all Hon. Gentlemen are familiar. But one part
of this report is very germane to this discussion, as it
expresses in a solemn manner the opinion of the Com-
mittee, which for four years has given its tone to the
opinion of America, on the navigation-laws, and re-
commends that uo change or modification should be
adopted wider sny cixoutnitailmb—(ltrir, bur)