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

able manner than that gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He
stated this to prevent any misconception, though he did
not suppose that the Right Hon. Member 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. BERRIES 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 East 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 subsequent 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 cent. ; 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,
3,9,00 British and 12,164 foreign.—(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Alderman Thompson) agreed that this measure
would give a great shock to the shipping interests of
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 have a duty imposed upon the im-
port of their raw material, and the foreign manufactured
article ulluwed 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 ... --117
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 zase of the north-east coast of Scotland providing
oats for the London 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 Scotsman would be compelled io 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 had 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, baying 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 lea's 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
ra
absl
set oei
snita. giveto n would necessarily lead to great ember-
a satisfactory answer, and this diversity
of legislation

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 ha►e 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 ea- 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 powers 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 determininc, 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 bo 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
Right Hon. Gentleman with respect to any arrangements
between the colonies and foreign countries was nut
tenable. These were only municipal rights. A decla-

ration of war would, by the law of nations, instantly de-
stroy all engagements, compacts, and conventions entered
into between our colonies with foreign 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 in 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 Fractical 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 !liaises 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 Biil.
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 thinking 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 oeuabieu pact feelißg 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 part 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
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 be
omitted.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the object of the
amendment was to abrogate that portion 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 fl) ing at 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.
froror Sem trade—notzr
neFem.
foreigner—the
amendmentotßAßlNGemploying
would
exceptingcontended
coasting
y that t
h r othe
trade—tow open
foreigners.t adoptionhe owfhtohlee
There then would be nothing to prevent a naturalized
jenagctinof
onuratutrraadliezataionfocreoisgtnOnvleyssleolS.w6idth.—a
foreign master and foreign sailors.
Mr. GLADSTONE 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. LABOUCHERE 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 long 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-
owners. If the amendment were carried, there would
be an 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. MITCHELL 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 disputes 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 bo
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.
Sir 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 crew 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 creato 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
or three-and-a-half men to every 100 tons, the English
ship should bo burdened with more hands than she
wanted. The clause should bo 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
lion. Gentleman withdrew his amendment.—(llear.)
Mr. WA WN hoped that the Right lion. 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 clans( ,
Mr. DISRAELI proposed, as it was understood the
Bill could not go through Committee that night, that
the Chairman should report progress.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had no objection to the motion
of the Hon. Gentleman if ho would allow that and the
next clause to go through Committee.
Clauses 17 and 18 were then agreed to.
On the question being put,
Mr. IiISUAELI-Isefure you agree that the report
should be received I wish to make one or two observa-