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

EVENING, MARCH 243 1849.

able manner than that gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He
stated this to prevent any misconception, though he did
not suppose that the Right Hon. Alen:ber intended to
impute to Mr. Bancroft anything more than a desire
to do the best for his own country. He did not think the
doubts of the Right Hon. Member as to the satisfactory
nature of the American communication well founded.
It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that the American
President had the right, under the circumstances stated,
to withdraw the restrictions without going to the Senate
for that purpose.
Mr. HERRIES observed that he never intended to
cast any reflection on the character or conduct of Mr
Bancroft.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON could not agree that
America had conceded all the advantages we were now
asked to concede ; what consideration could America
give us for the enormous advantage she would necessarily
derive from this measure? As for the argument that it
would increase the warehousing trade of this country,
he could hardly conceive of any measure more calculated
to injure it • at present nearly the whole of the produce
of our East Indian empire was brought to this country,
and hence supplied to the continent, but it would not be
so if continental ships were to be allowed to participate
in the Ritis Indian trade. The shipowners had been
taunted with their forebodings of ruin in 1826 as likely
to result from the reciprocity system introduced by Mr.
Huskisson, and the subseque44 increase of the shipping
in our great ports—in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and
Greenock—had been noticed; but foreign shipping had
increased far more considerably than English. What
the shipowners had feared was, that they would lose the
carrying trade with the north of Europe: and how stood
the fact? Why, between 1824 and 1846 the British
shipping employed in our trade with Sweden had
fallen off 26 per teat. ; in that with Norway, 71
per cent.; with Prussia, 33. In 1824 there passed the
Sound 4,363 British ships and 7,476 foreign; in 1844,
3,900 British and 12,164 foreign.--(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Alderman Thompson) agreed that this measure
would give a great shock to the shipping interest 4
this country; he thought the principle of-"the amend"-
ment now under discussion was, upon the whole, sound,
but there would be great difficulty in carrying it out, and
therefore he had considerable doubt whether he ought to
vote for it; but, if this proviso should be introduced, it
would not induce him to look with any more favour upon
the Bill than at present.
Mr. WAWN considered that the Bill offered a pre-
mium upon the building of ships abroad. Members for
manufacturing towns were voting for it; how would their
constituents like to haves duty imposed upon the im-
port of their raw material, and the foreign manufactured
article allowed to come in free? _

Mr. BOUVERIE would not put the Committee to the
trouble of dividing, after the very small encouragement
he had received; his amendment might be put and ne-
gatived.
Mr. WAWN said he would divide.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 15
Against it ... ... 132
• Majority against it ... —ll7
Clauses 2 to 10 were ordered to be struck out.
On clause 11, which re-enacts the restriction on the
coasting trade of Great Britain, being read,
Mr. GLADSTONE considered that this clause was
inconsistent with other parts of the Bill. The President
of the Board of Trade had told them that, in the opinion
of the highest authorities connected with the revenue
department, there would be no danger in admitting
foreigners to carry on the coasting trade on an equality
with British shipping. That being the case, he did not
think this clause ought to be retained in the Bill. Take
the case of the north-east coast of Scotland providing
oats for the Ldndon market. These oats would come
into the market in competition with the produce of Hol-
land and Denmark; but the Dane and the Dutchman
would bring their oats in the cheapest shipping they could
get, while the Sootsman would be compelled Lo bring his
in the dearer British ship.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would only say, that restric-
tions on the coasting trade had always been retained by
every foreign country, and as a matter of prudence, he
did not think the. Government would be justifiable in
proposing to throw open this trade to foreigners. The
Right Hon. Gentleman bad spoken of a great shock
being given to the mercantile interest, but he (Mr. La
bouchere) believed that those interests would be recon-
ciled to the present measure; and he was most unwilling
unnecessarily to increase any alarm that might exist by
admitting foreigners to the privileges of the coasting
trade.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 were also agreed to.
On clause 14, which proposed to empower the Legis-
tures of neighbouring colonies to regulate their coasting
trade,
Mr. DISRAELI objected to the term neighbouring
colonies " as one that would lead to confusion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said all the enactments of such
colonies could only become law when sanctioned by the
Queen in Council, and thus all difficulty would be ob-
viated.
Mr. GLADSTONE had also an objection to the term
" neighbouring colonies," though he did not lay very
great stress upon it, as he had an objection to the entire
clause.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, to ob-
viate the difficulty which had been raised, would propose
to introduce words to the effect that the Queen in Coun-
cil shall have power to declare what were neighbouring
colonies.

The clause, as thus amended, having been put,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he objected to the whole
clause. He thought that subordinate legislatures, which
were of the nature of corporations, should not be allowed
to legislate upon affairs bearing upon the property of
the subjects of foreign states. However great
might be the liberty which they allowed to
the colonies, still the Imperial Legislature must stand
between them and foreign states on all questions of
controversy that arose; and he could not see on what
principle the power of legislation should be given to
those colonies on matters affecting the property of fo-
reign states. Very great difficulties might arise out of
the passing of such la-vs as were authorised by the
clause, and in such cases who were to construe them?
It they were to be construed in the colony, then they
would place that colony in diplomatic relations to foreign
states. If they were to be construed in Downing-street,
the construction might be considered by the colonists as
a very great grievance. The home Government would
in fact be compelled to deal with foreign states, as re-
garded their shipping to our colonies, with reference to
colonial laws passed without their knowledge. They
could not call them to account, and yet they would have
to stand between them and foreign states on all questions
of claim put forward by the latter. This was a propo-
sition to which he could not give his assent, unless it
was shown that some great object was to be gained.
This was not an accumulative power, but one which it
was not in the option of the Government to put in
motion, and, therefore, When
Ministers should be asked
by any foreign state what was their intention with re-
spect to their inter-colonial trade, they would not be
able to give any satisfactory answer, and this diversity
of legislation would necessarily lead to great embar-
rassment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the object of these clauses
was to give the colonies the power of dealing with their
own coasting trade in the manner best suited to their
own purposes. The ingenuity of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had acted as a trap for his judgment. He said
that it was a strange thing to allow the colonies to deal
with matters which might involve this.country in dis-
putes with foreign powers. But there was only one way
in which that could happen. A colony might piss a law
to admit one foreign country to trade with it and exclude
another; and which might be against the stipulations of
a treaty with that other country. But in that case the
Queen would refuse her assent to any such law. As
the law now stood with regard to the power possessed
by the colonies of imposing duties on foreign articles
imported into them, precisely the same difficulty might
arise by the colonies admitting the produce of one coun-
try and excluding the produce of another, and which
might be in direct contravention of treaties between the
latter state and this country. But that had never been
done. The colonies had no interest in doing it ; and
the Queen would always have the power of disallowing
such acts.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed, that nothing was more
clear than the distinction between the regulation regard-
ing the importation of foreign goods and the admission
of foreign ships into our colonies. The origin of foreign
ships was known, but the origin of foreign goods was
not. In 1843 Lord Stanley addressed a letter to the
colonial Legislatures, telling them that a distinction of
duties on foreign goods would not meet with the appro-
bation of the Imperial Legislature, because there was
no mode of determining to what country they belonged;
but foreign ships were et vi termini the property of fo-
reign subjects.
Mr. SCOTT could not perceive anything more em-
barrassing than the state of things which would follow
the passing of this clause. Suppose a colony were to
admit a foreign power into its coasting trade, and that
that power should afterwards be at war with the mother
country, 'what course would the Government then
pursue?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that no act of the colonial
Legislature could have any effect without the previous
assent of the Queen in Council.
Sir R. PEEL did not think the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had answered the objection. He understood the
objection of the Hon. Member to be this—supposing two
foreign pewees should have entered into a reciprocal coast-
ing trade with our colonies, and that the Queen in Coun-
cil should have given her consent; and then, supposing
one of those powers should be at war with this country,
what would be the relation of that power with the colo-
nies of this country?
Mr. LABOUCHERE apprehended that the circum-
stance of any power being at war with this country
would at once exclude the ships of that power from any
of the ports of her Majesty, and would override all
commercial arrangements that might have been entered
into between that power and any of the British colonies.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—But those colonies would
know nothing whatever of the foreign relations of
this country. They might be desirous of establishing
a coasting trade with foreign powers without know-
ing anything of the probability of a war. The
mother country, however, would be aware of her
relations with those powers. If that were so, was it
not better to reserve the power to the mother country
of determining what foreign states should carry on a
coasting trade with her colonies? Seeing that the
Crown was to determine what were to be neighbouring
colonies, and that it reserved to itself the power of as-
senting to the acts passed between any two colonies,
besides having a retaliatory power, would it not be more
consistent that the mother country should have an un-
reserved power of determining between what colonies
and what foreign countries a coasting trade should be
established.

Mr. DISRAELI apprehended the objection of the
J ight Hon. Gentleman with respect to any arrangements
between the colonies and foreign countries was not
tonoble. Zinn woo oialy winiciNl tights, A &Ow

ration of war would, by the law of nations, instantly de-
stroy all engagements, coinpaels, and conventions entered
into between our colonies with fureign powers; and by
modern practice the declaration of an embargo by the
metropolitan Government would settle the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that if a war took place before the Crown gave
its assent to the colonial enactment, the case supposed
would not arise. If, subsequently, then the case would
be the same, whether the arrangement took place by a
colonial enactment or by an order i❑ Council at home.
Sir G. CLERK considered that instead of this being
a relaxing clause it. was a restrictive clause, and he could
not see the advantage of it to the colonies.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said all he desired was to leave
it to the colonies to deal with their own coasting trade
as they pleased. No practical difficulty was experienced
in consequence of the separate powers possessed by the
East India Company with respect to their territories.
Mr. GLADSTONE held that the cases would only be
parallel if the authority in question were vested in a Go-
vernment carried on by the natives of India. But India
was governed by this country • it was governed by a
Court of Directors, and by a Board of Control represented
by a Minister in that House. As the Bill stood, it gave
entire freedom of trade to the vessels of foreign Powers;
and he objected to any clause giving colonial legislatures
the power of putting foreign trade in a less favourable
position than that in which it was placed by the general
provisions of the Bill.
Mr. LAROUCHERE put it to the candour of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and the fairness of the House,
whether such a construction should be put on the clause.
When this country reserved to itself it own coasting
trade, it was surely right to allow those colonies which
lay in juxtaposition to declare themselves to be as one
colony for the purposes of the coasting trade.
Mr. BERRIES agreed with the Right Hon. Member
for Dover (Sir G. Clerk) in thinkinc, that the clause was
wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the measure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the
Bill now preserved the coasting trade to England ; and
the principle was to preserve it to each colony for itself.
So far as it might be essential that neighbouring co-
lonies should be deemed for the purposes of the Act to
be one colony, the measure was restrictive. But no
colonial legislatures could exercise the powers conferred
on them by the clause unless the Queen in Council de-
clared the colonies to be neighbouring. The initiative
was in the Imperial power. _

Mr. HENLEY Wished to know whether the power
given to the Queen in Council was a virtual power, a
mere make-believe, or not? He preferred the proposition
of the Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford,
as less likely to occasion, bled feelieg between the colo-
nies and the mother countrY.
Mr. GLADSTONE would propose to negative the
clause, and was prepared to move an amendment, " That
it should be lawful for her Majesty in Council, on ad-
dress from the proper legislative authority of any British
possession, praying her Majesty to authorise the con-
veyance of goods and passengers from one pail of such
possession to another in other than British ships, to
issue an order in Council to that effect, in such terms and
on such conditions as should seem good to her Majesty.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause ... ... 158

Against ..‘` ... 104
Majority ...--54

The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 15.
On clause 16,

Mr. HASTIE moved as an amendment, that all the
words of the clause after " duly registered" should bo
omitted.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the object of the
amendment was to abrogate that pdtion of the law
which required British ships to be manned by a crew of
which three-fourths must be British seamen. He re-
peated the objections to the proposition which he urged
on a previous evening. It would lead to inconvenient
and even dangerous consequences to establish the rule
that a foreign-built vessel, with a foreign captain and
foreign crew, and with nothing British connected with
her except the owner and the flag flying.nt her mast-
head, should nevertheless be entitled to the:protection of
the British navy.
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Moffatt, and Mr. Clay supported
the amendment, urging that when the British shipowner
was about to be exposed to the competition of the whole
world, justice required that he should be permitted to
enter into the struggle on equal terms with his rivals.
Mr. BRIGHT also supported the amendment, and
said that a captain of a British ship had told him that
British seamen were a most turbulent set of men.
Mr. ROBINSON admitted that the British shipowner,
when deprived of protection, had a right to claim relief
from restriction, but at the same time the question raised
by the amendment involved the high consideration of
national defence.

Sir F. BARING contended 'that the adoption of the
amendment would practically throw open the whole
trade—not excepting the coasting trade—to foreigners.
There then would be nothing to prevent a naturalized
foreigner—the act of naturalization cost only 10s. 6d.—
from employing in our trade a foreign vessel with a
foreign master and foreign sailors.
Mr. GL ADSTONE wished to know whether, at pre-
sent, a naturalised foreigner might not build a factory of
foreign materials, by foreign w orkmen, place over it a
foreign superintendent, employ in it foreign operatives,
work up in it foreign materials, and export every
farthing's worth of the fabrics produced to foreign
countries ?—(Cheers.) He apprehended that the Right
Honourable Gentleman did not think such a state of
things was an evil, but, on the contrary, that it would
conduce to the wealth and prosperity of England.
Would the result be different if a naturalised foreigner
should employ a foreign ship and foreign crew in our
trade? He believed the appreprehensions expressed by
the Government were purely chimerical; but, at any rate,
when we were exposing our shipowners to competition
with the whole world, the principles, not only of free
trade, but of justice, required that he should be free
from restrictions.—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maintained that by
the adoption of the amendment the coasting trade must
necessarily be open to naturalised foreigners, who might
employ foreign ships and crews.
After a few words from Mr. W. BROWN,
Mr. LABOUC HERE said he believed that the amend-
ment, if adopted, would lead to great practical evils—
that it would excite alarm and panic among British ship-
owners, and would afford no settled relief to the mercan-
tile marine. He believed that our seamen were not in-
ferior to those of any other nation, and he hoped that,
as losig.as British ships claimed to be so, they would be
manned by a larger proportion of British seamen.
Alderman THOMPSON supported the amendment,
but: was afraid it would bear hardly on British ship-
oirvnees: If- the amendment were carried, there would
be Ali end to everything like British registers.
Mr. SCOTT observed that, by the 18th clause, the
Queen in Council had the power of doing away with this
16th clause.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was considered desirable
that the Queen should have the power of relaxing the
law in certain cases.
Mr. MI rCHELL said that considerable value was
attached to British registers, and his own conviction was,
that no sailors were so efficient as our own; but he felt
inclined to support the amendment, in ordered to test the
truth of the different stories they had heard.
Lord PALMERSTON begged the House to consider
the embarrassments which would be caused in case of
war by adopting the amendment. Suppose two foreign
nations at war, and then let the House imagine the faci-
lities which the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman would
afford to the merchant vessels of one of the belligerents
to assume fraudulently the character of British property.
Let them also consider the disFutes that would arise
when British ownership was claimed by one party and
denied by the other, and the political difficulties into
which this country would be drawn by ships being en-
tered as British ships, but owned by foreigners, and
manned by foreign sailors, while this country would be
called upon to claim the vessel as British property. These
difficulties it would not, in his opinion, be wise to incur
by adopting the amendment.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that, under the present law, a
foreign captain might be naturalised for 10s; and there-
fore the difficulty suggested by the Noble Lord existed
at present.
tiir G. GREY—The impression of the Hon. Member
was quite erroneous. The Secretary of State was bound
to require a certificate of past residence in this country,
and also an assurance of the intention of future
residence.

Lord PALMERSTON would just add, that if it were
so easy for a foreigner to evade the difficulty, it was
equally easy for a British shipowner to evade the diffi-
culty on the other side by a similar process.
After a few words from the Marquis of GRANBY,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 53
Against it ... 197
Majority against the amendment —144
Mr. HASTIE moved the omission of all words after
"duly registered," in clause 16, the effect of which would
be that it should not be necessary to navigate a British
registered ship with a crew three-fourths of which were
British seamen, or with one British seaman to every 20
tons.

Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the proviso to
which the Hon. Member objected was intended to re-
lieve the stringency of the previous clause. It did not
render it incumbent to have one British seaman for every
20 tons, but was contingent on the circumstance of three-
fourths of the erew not being British seamen.

Mr. BRIGHT thought that the clause requiring three-
fourths of the crew to be British seamen was imperative.
The proviso in effect meant that when the master of a
vessel had twice as many men as he wanted, he might
take as many more as he liked.— [Mr. LABOUCHERE-It
is not compulsory.] Then what was the use of it?—
(Hear, hear.) The effect of the clause was to create an
impression among the sailors that there would be a sort
of monopoly among British ships, and that for every 100
tone there must be five British seamen, and that while
the American vessel could come to Liverpool with three
er three-and-a-half men to every 100 tons, the English
ship should be burdened with more hands than she
wanted. The clause should be left out, for there was no
earthly use in it.
Mr. LABOUCHERE promised to consider the objec-
tions which had been urged against the clause if the
Hon. Gentleman withdrew his amendment.—(Hear.)
Mr. WA WN hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would well consider the subject, and would be just before
he was generous.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.
On the 17th clay se,

Mr. DISRAELI proposed, as it was understood the
Bill could not go through Committee that night, that
the Chairman should report progress.
Mr. LA BOUCHERE 11,,,d no objection to the motion
of the Hon. Gentleman if he would allow that and the
next clause to go through Committee.
Clauses 17 and 18 were then agreed to.
On the question b. ing put,
. .

. -
Mr. DISItAELI—Betore you agree that the report
49414 ke roceincl I wish t 9 make 90 or tW9 91;1304117

tions on the remarkable circumstances which have at-
; tended the progress of the Bill ihte night. I, its common
with In ,st Hon. Gentlemen present, came down to the
House expecting that occasion would have been taken
by one of the most eminent Members ot. the House to
develope one of the most important principles which
concerns the trade and navigation of this country,
namely, the application of the principles of reciprocity
to the Bill now under consideration. I think I was jus.•
tified in the anticipations in which I had indulged. It had
been no rumour, no transient idea, floating for a moment
through the atmosphere of Parliament, that reached
me. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), on every occasion
that offered itself, informed the House and the country
that he would take an opportunity of stating, in detail,
the reasons which he had allud, d to, rather than parti-
cularly intimated to the House, and that he would, b -
fore the Bill arrived at the stage it hal now reached,
offer to the House on occasion of deliberating on that im-
portant proposition, and of adjudicating on a subject
which so much interests the public out of doers. The
House, sharing in the interest which stimulated me, was
disappointed in my expectations. I confess, Sir, I was
very much surprised when I heard a Right Hon. Gen-
tleman on the opposite side of the House (Mr. La-
bouchere) make a communication almost as important,
certainly as interesting, and I think much more sur
prising.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the moment we went into Committee—l believe
even before it—stands up and informs the
House that he is going to withdraw one of
the most important portions of the new Bill,
and in tact that which is the only feature that distin-
guishes it from the Bill of last year.—(Hear.) When
I remind the House that of the 32 clauses contained in
the Bill, the alteration of the Right Hon. Gentleman
announced so suddenly caused the omission of ten, and
the serious modification of four, making 14 in all, they
can easily understand the surprise of those who had
given any attention to the details of the subject; but no
sooner had the Right Hon. Gentleman informed the
House of this great sacrifice on the part of himself and
of the Government, than the other Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Gladstone) rises, amidst the breathless atten-
tion of the House, to compensate us for the loss we hed
already experienced, by seizing on the occasion to en-
lighten us on the all-absorbing topic of reciprocity, an-
nounces that he also is about to-make a great sacrifice,
and that he, on his own part (imitating the example of
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite), is about to forego
the great principle of reciprocity, which he has once and
for all abandoned.—(Hear, hear.) I must do him the
justice to admit that in making this announcement he
entered into many arguments which must make us re-
gret that he did not give us the full development of
his reasoning. lie indulged us also with the reasons
whieh had induced him to adopt the resolution that
had so much surprised us—the first being, that if he
had insisted upon that resolution he was afraid he
would only be supported by a slight majority of the
House; and the last, that he was unwilling to embarrass
her Majesty's Ministers.-7-(Cheers.) By what means
the Right Hon. Gentleman thought he could embarrass
a Government so powerful as the present—even by a
slight minority—l am certainly quite unable to compre-
hend.—(Cheers, and a laugh.) We ell know the scho-
lastic ingenuity by which the Right Hon. Gentlenlan,
treating the intervening reasons between the first and
the last, might easily reconcile them. But, Sir, I con-
fess this was a scene to me almost unparalleled.—(Loud
cheers.) To behold those two eminent and Right Hon.
Gentlemen abandoning the children of their fond adop-
tion—to see them making those mutual sacrifices—
(Cheers)—l own when I saw it I was strongly reminded
of a celebrated day in the history of the French revolu•
tion, called, I believe, " the day of sacrifices," when
the nobles and prelates of the realm vied with and imi-
tated each other in throwing their coronets and mitres
down into the dust. If I am not mistaken it has since
been called " the day of dupes." I have only to hope
that the House and the country, when they recal the
surprising incidents of this evening, may not have
reason to find they had some share in the application
of a lesson on which I shall not further indulge.—(Loud
cheers and laughter.) There was one observation of
the Right Honourable Gentleman offered as a reason for
the erroneous calculations he entered into with respect
to the coasting trade, on which I must be permitted to
say a few words. The Right Hon. Gentleman has ex-
onerated the Chief Commissioner of the Customs from
any blame respecting these calculations. I feel interested
in the public reputation of that Gentleman. He is one
of my constituents.—(A laugh.) But while I feel grate-
ful to the Right Hon. Gentleman for exonerating, Sir T.
Fremantle, I cannot help feeling also that it would have
been more magnanimous on the part of the Government
if his name had not been introduced in the debate.—
(Cheers.) However, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Labouchere) may please to put it, he and his colleagues
are responsible for the error.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Labouchere.) Yes, the Right Hon. Gentleman is very
willing to accept it now; but why did he attempt to ex-
cuse his blunder by introducing the name of a gentleman
who never under any circumstances should have been
forced under our notice?—(Loud cheers.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to consider the
propriety of his course; the only difference between your
last Bill and that which is now before us consists of the
clauses in which he so egregiously blundered.—(Cheers.)
What is the result of your communications with foreign
powers, or what was the object of those communications?
As practical men, we aspired to nothing but to go into
Committee and review the details of a w ell-considered
measure. But now, having arrived at this stage of the
proceedings, with the results which are before us, we
cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that this Bill has
sunk under a paralytic stroke. This certainly is not a
source of triumph to us, though to some present it may
be a subject of jest and merriment. Out of doors it is a
subject of serious and mourtiful consideration. There is
great distress out of doors—many interests are griev-
ously suffering—l shall not now enter into the causes of
those sufferings; lam not disposed to enter into the
question of those causes. There are many men out of
doors who have been inclined to enter into the consider-
ation of those causes in a spirit of submission, and
who are still inclined to submit without a murmur; not
that their fortunes have not been injured, but that legis-
lation, with regard to their dearest interests, has been
precipitate, and that it scarcely ever has been matured;
that their interests have been sacrificed, not to necessities
foreseen by great statesmen of wisdom and prescience,
but they complain of this, that their fortunes have been
destroyed, and their happiness deteriorated by mea-
sures being undertaken suddenly without thought—by
measures having been blunderingly and hastily passed,
though those laws affected the greatest interests of the
country. The agricultural interest has deeply suffered,
not that I am now going to denounce the laws by which
that object has been accomplished, but what I complain
of is, that those measures were passed by Ministers who
did not propose the repeal of the corn- laws from convic-
tion, but in consequence of being panic-struck. A short
time before they advised such a proceeding they found
or thought themselves surrounded by a combination of
circumstances with which they supposed they could not
cope; they changed their opinion in a hurry, and a great
interest was sacrificed upon a very insufficient occasion.
—,(Hear, berate) Your victims would have been more
content if this had been done in a legitimate manner,
and after due deliberation. How different would be the
position of stales, if the question had come before the
people fairly, and been decided after general elections,
and brought forward upon the responsibility of la
Government \vhieli' .had professed opinions favourable
to such a change:, I say not a word about its policy;
but what I feel is that the occasion was precipitate.—
(Hear, hear.) Other great interests have likewise
been sacrificed. The prosperity of our colonies, and
especially of our sugar colonies, has been destroyed;
they have been ruined, and their ruin has been consum-
mated by the votes of those who have spoken against
the side on which they voted. Against the policy of our
legislation respecting corn and sugar I am not now say-
ing a word, but what I assert is, that you have not only
passed those laws but ruined the parties interested by the
' precipitate spirit of your legislation. Although this may
not be a favourable time for a discussion of this charac-
ter, yet I cannot refrain—influenced by recent circum-
stances—from reminding the House that year after year
the successful supporters of these precipitate measures had
advocated an opposite policy; suddenly, in the teeth of
their own often repeated convictions in opposition to men
of light and lead in the country, they changed—not in-
fluenced by any new or striking conviction, but
they changed because they wanted to keep a
Government in office. In saying this, I express a
feeling that prevails out of doors. lam not now
objecting to the change, but I denounce the manner
in which it has been effected. Here, in the present
Bill, another great interest is to suffer—the siege has
been longer, and the attack more vigorous. We are now
in the second year of this projected legislation against
the shipping interest, and is there anything in this pro-
ceeding which did not characterize your previous legisla-
tion in similar cases? There are many answers to the
questions that have been put with respect to this Bill.
It cannot be doubted that it will be impossible for you
to proceed in this course of legislation. Industry has
been disturbed and tortured by your experiments, and
can you now wonder that the people complain when they
find their most important affairs dealt with by statesmen
who have merely sought to catch the gale of the moment
unqualified for the task they undertake, with no mastery
of the subject, and therefore with no rational prospect of
success.—(Hear, hear.) In the courses which you pur •
sue you are not merely destroying material interests, but
laying in a stock of political discontent which will do
more than any opposite policy could effect to diminish
the revenue, to disturb the industry of the country, and
even to shake its institutions to their centre.
Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. LABOHCHERE rose
at the same time; the latter giving way, the former said,
I scarcely know whether 1 should endeavour to take
precedence of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but, after the
reference which has been made to me by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire, I presume it will be felt that
I ought not to shrink from following him in the debate.
He has made two charges against me, one is, that having
undertaken to express my reasons in favour of a modi-
fied and conditional legislation, I failed to fulfil the ex-
pectations which I had so raised ; the other was, that in
stating certain reasons I had given such as were incon-
sistent with each other. I propose briefly to reply to
each of those charges. I submit that my reasons are not
inconsistent with each other. There were only a few
Members in this House who would eupport my proposi-
tion on its own merits, and if I had chosen that alter,ta-
tive there would have been no benefit—there would have
been no progress made towards determining the issue of
this question by taking
to a division on that point.
s
On the other hand, I was supported by a number of
gentlemen whose acceptance of my proposition was not
bona fide. They merely wished to melee a toil of it.
and to employ me as a tool during the progress of the
measure in Committee, and then abandon toe and my pt.,.
positi‘m on the third reading of the Bill; and I hold my-
self now in no respect responsible for n. 4 alf.o,i,;g the
course which they wished to prescribe, My reasons then
ate not inconsistent.—(llear, hear.) It is not ,true that
SVC PlOdge4 which fiillo4 t 9 fad; 4 PPPQPI tc• 04960