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

arises from the consciousness that the whole argument
in favour of Vie Bill now before the House his been
exhausted by the masterly speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Ripon.—(Hear, hear.) Ho
went so completely through the argument, and touched
on all peas of it in so convincing a manner, and he has
keen 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 em 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 Midhurat 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 American cotton
from Havre. The only crime, then, 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 Alidhurst 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. lam aware that the law has been al-
most worshipped as the charta moeilima 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 altar it. But in my judgment
that opinion is founded in error, and at no time has tbis
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 la* 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.—([fear, 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
lion. 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 suffered,' 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
navy of this country has derived its resources and its
strength. Now, I think there are many reasons 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
and,
therefore, are regulations which tend to monopoly,
proof that our navy hasderimveedreittsbastureanugathssferrotimenthtbosee
regulations; I see nothingt
therefore, they must be beneficial to the commercial,
• the truth of this assertion. In the first doubting
Lmarinasoefe twh
bi se
tc,oeuun ttrbye.
ouot(hLerhdacnrdi,esaorfe ereaar'sohnesario'r)
in-
stance, there is the character of oar people, eminently
attached to naval pursuits, readily embracing the marine
RS 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 inferior workmen.—(Elear, hear.) I
ask him, why inferior workmen ? (Hear, hear.) lam
told that a great portion of the: commercial marine of
the United States, of which many aro so jealous, con-
sists of those very British seamen whom you now call
inferior workmen.—(Hear, hear.) What is it, then,
that has made the masters and the seamen of our British
comae raja( 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
fleet of protective law::—(llear, hear)—and of telling
men " Do not trust to your ~wn energies, do not trust
to your own pa wers, 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
among a nation that was not essentially a nation loving
the marine as a profession, and eminent among the na-
tionse
,anwnehauxdsietlthsrrBioeynw2amieto,
would
anettgaor
country—(Hear,
.eyei
wecauhtrer•
u)r—u
hear)—that
kn(atti Idosht
Ishaedsoetc:
flare;
rholheemhea
remember,l edmy a
shippingerei
r.
introduced
tei
rra olßdbeuu ct
must
marine wd
uh
set
aboutt
obf is
01
measureststh2hi4es
and that it was owing to his measures. NowP
ut-
terly destroyed—Meer, hoar)—that the state of distress
measures did, to a very great degree, introduce com-
aralltebleesde,
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-
ppioGy:
ed iontish empire as it stood in 1823, in 1840, and in
1849 —I will trouble
num-
bers; our tonnage in 1823 was 2,506,760, in 1840
3,226,684, in 1849 4,032,160. That is the mode in which
theit House with only those
il
the tonnage of this empire has increased under this sys-
tem
mboefrmeofdimfieedu ce ornm
reasaosnlnrfiostrehuebefsrlaiuemmving elp6esrtibooadototwhtu
236,000. I say this is a we
can stand competition, and that we may go further in
that course.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member
for Midhurst (Mr. 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
which you have reached." Now that is not my mode of _
consider that if you have made an experiment
in one
f I,
considering questions of this kind.—(Hear, hear.) 1
direction, and it has been eminently successful, and at ua_
direction—
the same time has been a cautious
is
a reason for going further in the same
(Hear, hear)—a reason for greater progress—(Hear,
'still greater
success trust, with
hear)—to be attended, as
success than the measures that we have already
taken.—(Hear, hear.) I have mentioned two grounds
experiment, ;
for confidence that our commercial marine will not be
injured by the proposed repeal of the navigation laws.
I go to another ground, to which I do not see that there
can bo 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
Swedescsahyeaptlhyatantdheare paid
such
hd
veryNo low
wgians navigate so
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
rat
heenosun
regret—that foreign shipping will increase, as it
has increased in past years ; but I believe
rl
only
t e,
resultor probablyina gae greateruerai
ie c proportion,rease
iu tba
the
de thatem-
that British shipping will increase in a manner com-
mensurate,
who e
desopnoosk:
mtheiarceßoilfl tih.sisacocuonnterlyusiavned oafrgthuemewnotrlda.g—ai(nHstea
r.)
We
r-lu3ieilnlce,trhaains
are told that the manner in which we have proposed
nb
followewe been
we
stoee
trhttoea
ri entertain,
nations
ttpihooasntes
it.na
suc-
ceeding;l but I was happy that the Honourable Gen-
e
erlasestdrwt theh ogmrneo
measure
doubt,nudrse in
of witharlphs our
usorchei
details,etxyape-
every particular—would lead into inextricable difficul-
In :feirelftteeuhaisartiat
vnrtosiii agtaiginti
restrictions
nott ebisntieocasw:att
thought
ebtie)c,uahc
Queen
hulti
ehtaeetfilyit ointmoh Council
proposingrioor
asuaecpnttociueuispitira;tlir
ecueuxopsp.uelorlani
_ll
Powers which we have by
quite agree with the Right Hon.
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 thereare cases where
the restriction may be put on from national rivalry and
national animosity, cases in 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, I believe you might very safely give
(cooolwtf
(rißet,l:hyitap:ara,lar
orkl
se.
repa)eirdsdro, concurred
nations:
hlstr,
law,
aiei in
toh:
that
yne.
00
uto
mlnuy
soot

to Trinidad the trade with Venezuela in ships not built
in Vera zaela, and which are prohibited from trading
with Trinidad by the present navigation-laws, even
though you can have nu 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 d, rive 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, wo 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 bo
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 vou wait for some years More 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
declaration), " If you continue these restrictions, 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 f,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 aro subject to them, and
then endeavour to n.gotiate 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 hero 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."—(Bear, 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-
mand 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 what 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 wete to declare that we were about again to
imposo 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 aro enabled to purchase them at lower rates than
perhaps they have been able to procure them in the
memory of man in this country—of 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? Tho 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 effectual, 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 are 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 of this country does any
man imagine that, even although this House, by a ma-
jority of four to one 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 for fresh
and renewed agitation on the subject of the corn-laws.
Like the Right Hen. 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 Llieve that the first of tin se
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.—(Hoar, 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, had been removed, and that
by the Act of 1846 there had been removed all tho 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 mores
' by which you acquired it.—(Checre 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 xith the principle that Parliament has
already deliberately adopted. If, on the other
hand, you announce that you are about to pursue
the course of re-action, and if you induce men to
think that you 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 are 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-
gerce of the House, in the discussion of this great ques-
tion; and I now only take tho 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 wo 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 nut 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.)
Tbia 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 had 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 oecesion.—(Cheers.) You hare brought forward
your plan on theory, and it is necessary you should have
a case to support it. What did you do? . You made a
case. With a foregone conclusion you nominated Com
mittee of inquiry, a Committee which you. will permitthat
me to say, has not conducted its investigatiaocntserinefthe
manner which has generally raised the char
Committees of this House.—(Hear, hoar.) But no sooner
have you had this Committee of inquiry--no sooner had
it gone about collecting evidence to justify
a decision
that bad already been adopted, than it was found 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. Well,
twelve months elapsed, and this subject was very deeply
GA carefully considered. We lire upw ugh pm, got.

• petent to form an opinion than we were two years ago,
and how does the case Mend? Your theory has blown
up, and your ease has broken doe n.—(Laughter.)
Your first case of commercial inconvenience was said
to be in the high freights which were paid by the con-
sumers is 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 cages. 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 Right llon. 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. Wh( n the Right
lion. Gentlenose the Member for the Ueivers'ty of Ox-
ford (Mr. Gladstone), omitted to bring forward these
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
shipon ners would never consent to any change. I regret
ted to hear that observation made by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, because I know it has produced a very iejurioue 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 lazing doubted for its accuracy.
—(Hear.) I hai•pen to hold in nay 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-
nious, 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 Bight 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 lion.
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, bear.) 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 it 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 iu favour of the ss. duty.—(hear, 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. IVhat 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
any one can believe—and still least of all I should have
expected the Right Honourable Member for Ripon—
that any paltry change in your navigation- lees
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 polit'cal 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. his well they should know to-morrow that
they must be prepared for rebellion iu 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 Hun. 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 continent that hereafter the Houst of Lords
had little to du with the Government of this country.
The moment Hon. Gentlemen come to a vote—which
even in this Parliament I have proved they have some-
times repented, for already the majority has dwindled
down
~to half the amount--(Hear, hear)—a Secretary
of state instructs our diplomatic ugents, from
Vienna to Venezuela, 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 moat 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 Iluatingdon 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 paprs 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,
u 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 Sohleswig-Holstein, of the Northern States,
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 Hon. Gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade if his Government
had been last year in the same position with the Unitedd
States as it is at present, would he have brought forward
this measure, or made the expression of opinteiodnthe
foreign states a part of his case? I waestiti
other night with indulging-in inaaogfinatti::
occa-
sionally in reply by a member
and even
•and occasionally thrilling
always interesting, le Gen-
tlemanßight Honourable but when I recal to mind the sometim!as. confidential,
Government; aguh taunted
flights
solemn manner in which the
Govern-
ment with the United Stin
the most irregular
revealed the communications
a tos t
h cot
otohnev
satio n swith Mr. Bancroft, which
and which never appearedght forwizorda topoibniflicuednoeoeutmheentde;baented,
manner were brought
when I recollect that this year all we knowof the ques-
tion is,
that it is a tabula rasa, that all we have heard of
the United States and Mr. Bancroft is omitted from the
leinents of consideration, I say it is ono of the most re-
markable cases I ever recollect, and shows us the ins
portarice of not deciding partelycaiiiiiittgagteelylNo,eahis
st 14..tu egsatii
gain by
postponing,a r)— ar di
f tohnel y for a twelvemonth, the settlement.
hlaavine naotdsonertpunriesnectl
htlelaret Mi-.wh Biehanlcrowfitawnaustsoresaildentot.thie
House, as every lion. Gentleman will soon obtain it.
Its title is the " Report of the Committee of Ways and
l whenns
Generaltoo nt
Congressh°
Taylor,aubse n toshft ea
n lastdi
n standing American
aoynotf Mhfesnbture
ufpeaserto)ut rt eht shi ,se"
year, pre-
sented
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 no change or modification should be
adopted under; any cuouizmuoti,—(llear, 11940