The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-28 00:00:00

THE SUN,

move that the House should then resolve itself into the pro-
posed Committee.
The motion was then amended by the substitution7of the
word " to-morrow," instead of the word " now," as the pe-
riod for the proposed Committee.
Mr. MOFFAT seconded the motion. He could confirm
all that had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman as to the unfair
mode in which those duties were imposed in Spain. But
he complained more particularly of the operation of the
system in the case of the trade between Newfoundland and
that country. By the alteration of the Spanish tariff, in
1849, the duty on salt fish imported into Spain had been
very considerably raised, and especially on salt fish imported
in British vessels. And let it be remembered that salt fish
was one of the main articles of our commerce with Spain,
There was a distinct infraction of our treaties with that
country, by the preference which she gave to French over
British vessels. French vessels could at present carry coals
from one Spanish port to another, while that privilege was
wholly denied to our vessels. In all the commercial treaties
between Great Britain and Spain, it had been expressly pro-
vided that we should enjoy equal privileges with the subjects
of any other country. That stipulation had, however, been
wholly disregarded. He believed there would be some
difficulty in the way of the adoption of that resolution. It
might be said that we were bound to treat Spain in con-
formity with what was known as "the most favoured
nation clause." But wa had for centuries been entering
into treaties of commerce and of amity with Spain ' •
and as these treaties had constantly been violated,
it became a questi n whether it would not be wise on
our parts to throw over all our treaties with that country,
and act towards her exactly as we might think fit ,nd pro-
per at the moment. No nation in the world had shown the
same arrogant disregard of justice which Spain had shown,
and he thought they ought to fight such a nation with
weapons suitable to her own mode of warfare. If Spain
were resolved not to come to any fair understanding with
England, it might be alike the duty and the policy of
England to force her to it. He feared that we had but little
chance of obtaining justice from Spain with the present con-
dition of her Government by amicable means. But if that
Government were to find that we would not import sugar
from the Havannah, or wines from Malaga, without the
payment of a much higher duty than that at present
exacted, we should, he believed, find them clamorous for an
equitable se'Vement of the commercial policy of the two
countries.—(Hear.) _

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that both his Hon. Friends
had very accurately stated the facts of the case. The question
might be divided into two distinct portions.. Spain was at
present levying, and had for a long period levied, differential
duties of a very onerous description on goods exported from,
or imported into, her harbours in foreign or in Spanish ves-
sels. It should, however, be admitted, that in the year 1849
Spain had decreased the amount of those differential duties
on the greater portion of commodities. These duties had
amounted previously to that ye it to about 33 per cent., and
had then been reduced to about 20 per cent. The levying of
these differential duties was the first ground of complaint we
had against Spain. Our second ground of complaint was of
a totally different description. It was that Spain, in certain
respects, treated the shipowners of this country not only less
favourably than her own subjects, but less favourably than
the shipowners of other foreige nations, and more. especially
those of France. His Hon. Friend ( Mr. Anderson) had truly
said that we had entered into repeated treaties with Spain;
which laid down in express language the obligation that
she should deal towards us on the terms of the most fa-
voured nation. Now we certainly had a right to complain
of the conduct of Spain in contravening that stipulation.
Under the second head of complaint to which he had
adverted, he believed that the most important item con-
sisted in the fact that higher harbour dues were levied in
the ports of Spain on British vessels than on French vessels.
Complaints had some time ago been made to the Spanish
Government upon this subject, and that Government had
professed its willingness to set the matter right. But, in
point of fact, the only way in which that could be done con-
sistently with the law of this country would be by the Spa-
nish Government entering into a convention with us, upon
which an order in council might be issued empowering the
Lords of the Treasury to repay the duties on Spanish ves-
sels entering our harbours. The French Government pro-
fessed itself willing to adopt the proposed principle, but stated
that they did not wish to proceed by way of convention,
which might fetter their independent action. They said that
if we were to adopt the practice in question without any,
convention, they would imitate our example. Now it ap-
peared to him that was an unfriendly mode of proceeding,
and a mere quibble and pretext to evade a compliance with
a just and reasonable demand. His Noble Friend the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs had very recently renewed his re-
monstrances with the Spanish Government upon that sub-
ject, and he (Mr. Labouchere) had every reason to hope
that those remonstrances would prove effectual. But if that
hope should not be realised, it appeared to him that the best
course which her Majesty's Government could pursue would
be to come down to that House and ask for powers to effect
that arrangement for mutual concessions on the part of Spain
and of England, without the necessity of any previous con-
vention. With regard to the greater question, namely, the
manner in which Spain treated not only English vessels, but
also all other foreign vessels, he should observe that no one
could feel more strongly than he did the great injury which
it inflicted on the trade and commerce of this country. But
he felt convinced that any person who had listened to the
statement of his Honourable Friend who had introduced that
motion, must see that it was against Spain herself that that
restrictive policy operated most prejudicially. His Ho-
nourable Friend had told them that the Spanish mercantile
marine, which that policy had been meant to foster, was
reduced to a most helpless and inefficient condition--"( Hear,
hear.) Now he should say, that that was no great encou-
ragement to this country to revert to anything like a restric-
tive system—(Hear, hear)—with a view of protecting our
shipping interest. He should also remind Hon. Gentlemen
that that burden on our commerce had been of long standing,
and had not dated from the repeal of our navigation-laws;
and neither had it been greatly aggravated by that measure.
It was quite true that by the repeal of the navigation laws
we had thrown open what had been callel the general carry-
ing trade of the world to Spain as well as to other foreign
nations. But he believed that no one would contend that we
had any reason to look upon Spain as a formidable competitor
in that trade. On the contrary, it was a remarkable fact that
no nation which had adopted the protective and restrictive sys-
tem of navigation was to beleared in that great branch of com-
merce. Which were the nations that enjoyed the largest share of
the carrying trade of the world, and that possessed the
greatest mercantile navies? Why, they were the United
States, the Baltic powers, and England—the countries, in
fact, that had shown the least disposition to dread the com-
petition of foreigners. But he did not on that account say
that it would not be most desirable for this country to obtain
a repeal of the differential duties to which his Hon. Friend
had called their attention. All he would say on that occasion
was that that question had not been lost sight of by his Noble
Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and by her Majesty's
Government. They were at the present moment in active
correspondence with the Spanish Government upon the sub-
ject. The diplomatic negotiations with respect to it had not
yet been brought to a close; and he trusted that the House
would not then interfere in the matter by coming to any
vote upon a point which, in his opinion, it would be better
to leave in the hands of her Majesty's Ministers. He be-
lieved that the debate which was then taking place, and
the expression of feeling in the British House of Commons
that the trade between Great Britain and Spain ought to be
conducted on a more just and liberal system, would not be
lost on the Spanish Government. It was not, therefore, with
any doubt of the importance of that subject, and still less
with any disposition not to promote the objects which the
Hon. Gentlemen had in view, that he ventured to express a
hope that the House would not think it necessary to come
to any formal vote upon that occasion.—(Hear, hear.)
Alderman THOMPSON said, it appeared to him that
that case might be met by a clause in the existing Navi-
gation Act. That Act gave her Majesty in Council a retalia-
tory power against those foreign countries which did not re-
ciprocate our mode of dealing with the shipping interest. It
was well known that our policy had not been reciprocated by
Spain, and that English vessels trading with Spain did not
enjoy the same advantages which were enjoyed by Spanish
vessels trading with this country. It' the Act were allowed
to remain inoperative in that instance, then he said that
such an example might work very prejudicially; for what
security could they have that other countries would not
imitate the conduct of Spain? They all knew that the
Dutch Government also imposed, in certain instances, diffe-
rential duties, to the disadvantage of the British shipowner.
In the island of Java British vessels landing cargoes were
subjected to double the amount of duties imposed on Dutch
vessels. Remonstrances in such cases might be all very well ;
but when remonstrances were carried beyond a given point
they became totally worthless.
Mr. HUME said it appeared that our trade with Spain
was in a very unsatisfactory state. No country in Europe
owed so much to us as Spain, and he saw with regret that she
had shown but little gratitude for the obligation. He should
certainly like to see the correspondence which had passed
between her Majesty's Government and the, Government of
Spain upon that subject. Ha believed filet its publis
cation might have some influence in shaming Spain
Into fair dealing with this country. He was no advocate of
retaliation ; and if Spain chose to pay 25 per cent. more for
articles of which she stood in need than was necessary, let
her do so. They had had one or two instances which
showed the folly of retaliationtandhe should be very sorry
to see such things repeated. He thanked the Hon. Member
for bringing the subject forward, and
should be old to hear
from the Noble Lord, the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs
what steps had been taken in the matter, for he did not
think the statement of the Hon. President of the Boardof Trade quite satisfactory.
They were entitled to some-
thing more.
Mr. M. GIBSON urged the Hon. Member for Orkney
(Mr. Anderson) not to press his motion to a division, after
what had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade.
The Hon. Alderman opposite counselled retaliation, but he
begged to a:k him whether, even if he thought retaliation,
would be good policy, the time had come for exercising it
towards Spain ? This country had been pursuing a protective
policy for many years, and let it be remembered after what
a struggle a free-trade policy
was at length carried. How
then could they expect other Powers
at once to alter
their views and adopt our commercial arrangements ?
Our old navigation laws gave certain privileges to the goods
of foreign nations which were imported in the ships of
those nations both with respect to this country aad her colo-
lonics. That privilege, however, was actually withheld
from Spain for 20 years, and an order in Council in 1828
declared that Spanish vessels should not be allowed to carry
on a direct trade between Spain and the British possessions
abroad. What was the effect? A struggle with Spain,
which certainly was mot calculated to make her less restric-
tive in her commercial arrangements or more liberal towards
this
w country;e had
contrary,
it appeared that it was only
since side policy that she had made
adoptede - tr
any advance in the direction of free trade. It would be
most unfortunate if they were at that moment to counte-
nance on the
are
the idea that any considerable party in the country
was inclined to carry out the policy his Hon. Friend recom-
mended. He might also mention, that, having been among
the Honourable Gentleman's constituents in Shetland during
the last autumn, he got certain information which led him
to doubt whether those constituents would approve of his
proposal; for if they found it difficult to find a market for
their fish now, in consequence of the duties imposed by Spain,
what would be their condition if they were deprived of ex-
porting it in Spanish ships?
Viscount PALMERSTON quite agreed that the question
brought forward by his Hon. Friend the Member for Orkney
was one of very considerable importance to a large portion of
the community. He also admitted that we had good cause
of complaint against the Spanish Government for the course
which they had pursued— a complaint, however, which ap-
plied more to a long course of prejudice with regard to
commercial matters, rather than to any recent disposition
on the part of Spain to pursue an unfriendly course against
the commerce of this country. In fact, as his Right Hon.
Friend the President of the Board of Trade had stated,
latterly the Spanish Government had rather relaxed than
increased the restrictions in its tariff. It was well known
that both Spain and Portugal were very far behind many
other countries of the world with regard to the principles of
commercial policy.—(Hear, hear.) But Spain had begun to
move.— (Hear, hear.) They could not, however, expect her
to move much more quickly than the captain whom they
had heard described, who waited to see whether the wind
would blow steady for some days; and he only hoped they
would not delay following the example of Great Britain as
long as their captain who watched the weathercock in Rams-

LONDON,

gate harbour while the English captain went to Bilboa and
back--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) lie believed that about
20,000 of the most active, strong, and useful parts of the po-
pulation in Spain were employed as custom-house officers,
and as many more as smugglers in defeating their labours;
the whole 40,000 being thus engaged in preventing the revenue
from coming into the treasury. He could assure the House that
this was not the only impression on his own mind, but was
I xcibly felt latterly by the Government of Portugal; for
when the Spanish Government were recently about to alter
their tariff the Government of Portugal were apprehensive
that they would lose a very con-iderable portion of the re-
venue which they derived from goods which came through
Portugal paying duty, and thence were smuggled into Spain
duty free, which was thought a more profitable method of
supplying the Spanish consumer than paying high duties at
the Spanish custom-house. The Spanish Government, how-
ever, still persevered, and be trusted the result might be not
only to lower the Spanish tariff; but to induce Portugal, by
way of retaliation, to lower her tariff also. At all events, the
'panish Government was looking in the right direction, if it
had not made much proq,Tess. He assured the House that
the Government had been, and was still, engaged in urging
the Spanish Government upon those particular points to
which his [lon. Friend had directed their attention. It
would not be expected that he should comply entirely with
the request of the Hon. Member for Montrose, by detailing
all the argument used by the Government, and all the re-
plies of the Spanish Government in return. The former
might, perhaps, be useful as a lesson in political government,
hut the latter, he feared, would not be found very instructive.
Seriously speaking, he assured the House that the Govern-
. .

meat were urging this in the mani.er and to the extent
which they thought most likely to accomplish the purpose
in view, and he should very much regret to see his Hon un-
able Friend press his motion to a division, because he thought
such a resolution on the part of the House would be prejudi-
cial to the interests he had in view. There were two main
and distinct questions :nvolved—one, the 20 per cent. dis-
criminating duty levied upon this country in common
with all other nations, and in regard to which we
stood upon the footing of the most favoured —or rather
the most unfavoured nations (Hear, hear, and
laughter)—and with respect to which we must deal
with the Spanish Government on general principles; the
other, a point of less importance, though certainly a greater
grievance, namely, the preference given to French vessels
over British in Spanish ports. With regard to that, the only
question was the method of doing it, and where both parties
were agreed upon a common object, they could not long
differ as to the particular mode by which they should carry
their mutual design into execution. He, therefore, begged
his Hon. Friend to be content with the effect which, no
doubt, this discussion must have upon the Spanish Govern-
ment in convincing them, on the one hand, that the
British Parliament felt these grievances, and, on the other,
that they were disposed to meet Spain on the most liberal
and enlarged principles in regard to commercial arrange-
ments.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES said the Noble Lord had, as usual, made a
very amusing speech ; but the greater part of it had been
very wide of the very narrow question before them, which
was whether the proviso contained in the Aet for the repeal
of the navigation-laws, was not intended to meet a case like
this? Surely, if they had a right to exercise it against any
nation, they might justly put it in force against Spain, from
which, as the Noble Lord had told them, they had suffered
a long series of injuries. It would not be difficult to name
some of recent occurrence, such as the dismissal of our Am-
bassador and the repudiation of the debt—the former the
greatest disgrace which had been inflicted on this nation.
He was by no means satisfied with the assurance of the
Noble Viscount that he had the matter under consideration,
especially as he had not condescended to give them so much
as an outline of the negotiations.—(Hear, hear.) He would
certainly resist the withdrawal of the motion. He did not be-
lieve in the effect of a discussion in that House upon the
Spanish Government. He doubted whether they ever read
our newspapers. Give them an order in Council, and then,
and only then, they would understand what was meant. For
these reasons he would give his hearty support to the
motion.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL thought the House much indebted to
the Hon. Gentleman for bringing the subject before them,
and giving them an opportunity of showing that the House
of Commons was not asleep. The motion, however, if car-
ried, would take out of the hands of the Noble Lord the
negotiations in which he had told them he was now en-
gaged ; and the question, therefore, was simply this, whe-
ther they believed they were more likely to carry their
object by strengthening the hands of the Noble Lord in
using the powers with which they had entrusted him ; or
step in, and take the duty on themselves. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Dorsetshire bad referred to the conduct of Spain in
sending away our Minister and refusing to pay her debt;
but he hoped they would abstain from mixing up ancient
grudges with a question the importance of which they
all felt so anxiously. It certainly would be most unfortu-
nate if the Spanish Government should see that, on such
a question, they had not given a unanimous, but a divided
vote.—(Hear, hear.) Let it rather go forth that the Go-
vernment was determined, and the House of Commons
unanimous.

Mr. WAWN supported the motion. The question was
whether the British shipowner was to be left to suffer an in-
tolerable grievance. He taxed the Right Hon. Member for
Manchester with indifference to the interests of the ship-
owner, who could not enter any port he pleased, like the
Right Hon. Member in his yacht.
Mr. RICARDO could not imagine how any one could
have contemplated the possibility of changing the whole
commercial policy of the country by means of the clause in
question. • The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire advocated re-
taliation; but if we took that step would it atop there?
Would they not retaliate upon us? He could not under-
stand how the Honourable Member for Orkney proposed
to increase the trade of his constituents by laying a tax
upon it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HILDYARD said if the clause that had been intro-
duced into the Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws
was not sufficient for its purpose, he should be glad to know
bow it was that the Bill had passed. It could only be
upon the House having reposed faith in the promises
of the Government, that if foreign nations did not
reciprocate they would carry out the clause.
He would give them the statistics of their trade with Spain
in the years immediately preceding and following the repeal
of the navigation-laws. It appeared that in the year ending
the sth of January, 1850, the number of vessels entered in-
wards from Spain was 117, with a tonnage of 17,842 tons.
In the year succeeding the repeal the number was 150, and
the tonnage was 23,742 tons. He asked, was the clause
adopted in good faith or not? That was a question they
should insist on having answered.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MITCHELL said his constituents were very deeply
interested in this question, and they found their trade very
much injured by these Spanish ships. He entirely concurred
in the opinion of the Hon. Member for Liverpool, that the
question should be left in the hands of the Noble Lord the
Foreign Secretary.

Mr..NEWDEGATE said the motion did not call upon the
Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken to violate his consis-
tency—it merely asked him to strengthen the Government
in carrying out the provisions of a measure which he had
been instrumental in passing. Notwithstanding the asser-
tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he believed that in
the repeal of the navigation-laws the Americans had obtained
by far the best of the bargain.
Lord J. RUSSELL would not at that moment enter upon
the general question of the navigation-laws, but wished to
say a few words as to the circumstances in which they were
placed with regard to Spain. When the question of the
navigation-laws was discussed he thought it would be found
that the result was more favourable than the Hon. Gentleman
imagined for the adoption of a more liberal commercial
policy. He admi'ted that there were a few exceptions. but
they were not nations of great maritime importance. What-
ever advantages America had derived from that change, they
had derived greater advantages still. He was not sorry that
the United States bad derived these advantages, and hoped
both countries would find beneficial results in the repeal of
these laws. The Hon. Member for Whitehaven said they
must no longer listen to trifling negotiations; but if that
were to be so the proper course would he to call for all the
dispatches and treaties with Spain, and thus anticipate the
pending negotiations. They might have all the papers before
them, and form their own opinion upon a review of the whole
question ; but to come to a conclusion without knowing
what representations had been made, what answers had
been given, or what was the state of the engagements be-
tween the two countries, was a step which it would be most
imprudent to take. lt was one which could hardly be taken
with any consistency, as the House might expose itself to
this, that the Crown would be unable to comply with its re-
solution.

Mr. ANDER"ON replied, observing that he was content
to leave the question in the hands of the Noble Lord (Lord
Palmerston), and would withdraw his motion.
Mr. BANKES and other Hon. Members objected to the
withdrawal of his motion, and
The House divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Agraiust it ...

... .. 53
... 98
.. -45

- Majority against the motion
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to move for leave to bring
in a Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court
of Chancery. The subject was one of the greatest import-
ance, and if this proposal concerned merely the administra-
tion of justice, he should be disposed to ask those who were
more familiar with the proceedings in courts of justice to un-
dertake the task he now proposed to perform ; but, feeling
that the office of Lord Chancellor and all connected with his
high functions, deeply affected the whole of the Government
and the Legislature of that country, he had undertaken the
task, thinking it better that the whole views of the Govern-
ment should be stated, than that those views should be con.
fined to the present distribution of offices in the courts
of justice. In bringing the question before the House
he should first state the changes that had been made since
the year 1812, when the Bill for the appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor passed through Parliament. In 1811 it was
found that the.duties then performed by Lord Eldon were
of so laborious a nature that notwithstanding the known
industry and learning of that eminent judge, it was consi-
dered impossible that he could perform all those duties,
together with the duties belonging to him as supreme judge
in the House of Lords as a court of appeal. Lord Redesdale
moved the Committee in the House of Lords, and subse-
quently brought in the Bill for the appointment of a Vice-
Chancellor. It was found at the time that there were writs in
arrear of 276 causes, which would require twelve or thirteen
years to dispose of, not taking into account the other cases
that would be accumulating. It was, therefore, decided
that a new judge should be appointed, under the title of Vice-
Chancellor, to perform a part of the duties of the Lord Chan-
cellor. It was said at the time by no less a man than Sir
Samuel Romilly that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor
was not necessary, and that the business then before the
Court of Chancery was not greater in amount than it was in
the time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. Lord Cottenham,
however, in 1836, when making his statement in favour of
the Chancery Bill, said Sir Samuel Romilly was mistaken in
that, for the business was greater than in the time of Lord
Hardwicke. He thought, however, that there was a great
foundation for the statement made by Sir Samuel Romilly,
for he found in the report cited by Lord Cottenham, that
while in 1761 to 1765 the cases averaged 411, they had in-
creased from 1831 to 1835 to 1,283, or more than three times
the number; and he stated at the same time that from 1810
to 1812 there were not more than 540. It was clear, therefore,
that there had been an enormous increase consequent upon
the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, and that at the time
of the appointment a great number of cases were waiting to
be heard in the Court of Chancery. But he imagined the
d t delayshe
indifferenceprevailed
thetb a t
judgestim e
in
alone the
was the cause that various matters which could have come
factcou Court
to
of have beennce r 3 h, aantCh a
before the Court, if there was a prospect of an early settle-
d
ment, were withheld, and in that way injustice was done to
the suitors. He found that from 1810 to 1812 the average
number of causes was 540 ; from 1822 to 1825 the average
that
number was 840 ; from 1833 to 1835 the average number
Was 1,301. It was thus evident that the appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor had led to a great increase of business, and
causes that would probably never appear in the Court of Chan-
cery Were brought there in consequence of the additional
judge. He thought it was nearly the same thing whether
the number of causes brought into the court could not be
decided owing to the arrear, or whether the causes were not
brought in through despair of their being able to get
them heard, In either case the evil was the same, and
amounted to a denial of justice to the suitor. Lord • Cotten-