CHAPTER IX.
The debate, March 1849—Speech of Mr. Herries—Mr. J. Wilson—Question of reciprocity—Doubtful even in the case of shipping—Difficulty of the “Favoured-nation” clause—Marquess of Granby—Mr. Cardwell—Mr. Henley—Mr. Gladstone—Burdens to be removed from Shipowners—Conditional legislation recommended—Views on the subject of the coasting trade—Americans not Free-traders—Smuggling in the coasting trade—Mr. Robinson—Mr. Clay—Mr. T. A. Mitchell—Mr. Hildyard—Mr. Ricardo—Mr. H. Drummond—Mr. Labouchere’s reply—Majority of 56 for Bill—Committee on the Bill—Coasting clauses withdrawn—Mr. Bouverie’s amendment opposed by Shipowners’ Committee—Mr. Gladstone’s scheme also opposed by the Shipowners—Questions of reciprocity, conditional legislation, and retaliation—Details of American Law—Mr. Bouverie’s plan rejected—Mr. Disraeli’s speech—Third reading of Bill—Mr. Herries’ speech—Mr. Robinson—Mr. Walpole—Sir James Graham—Mr. T. Baring—Lord J. Russell—Mr. Disraeli—Majority for Bill, 61.
The Debate, March 1849.
The House of Commons, though seldom much interested in maritime and, as was conceived, in intricate questions, was, on this occasion, full to the overflowing. The subject was, indeed, one of crowning interest. The repeal of the Navigation Laws would, as the extreme Free-traders had remarked, sweep away “the last rag of Protection;” as others more pompously had expressed it, would form the “capital of that majestic column of unfettered commerce which their own hands had reared.” The Protectionists, on the other hand, looked on the measure as the final overthrow of our naval power and the destruction of our maritime commerce. The shipowners mustered in great numbers about the Commons; and the author, who had not, at that time, found a seat in the body of the House, was favoured with one in the reporters’ gallery.
Speech of Mr. Herries.
Mr. Herries was once more selected as the champion of the shipping interest; and, on the question being put that “this Bill be now read a second time,” moved an amendment that it “be read a second time that day six months.” If Mr. Herries was not gifted with great eloquence, he possessed at least great experience, and a thorough knowledge of his subject. His speech in opposition to the Bill was of the most elaborate character. He insisted, that the more the measure was examined, the more the shipowners and the public were adverse to its passing. He examined at great length the correspondence from our colonies and from Foreign Powers, contending that that from Canada was useless, if not repugnant. In point of fact, he said, taking his text from the report of the Shipowners’ Society, the opinion of the Canadians had changed, and the public sentiment there appeared decidedly adverse to repeal. A similar change of feeling seemed to have come over the West India colonists, and they had shifted their ground. Germany would do nothing until the central German government was appointed, which, in his opinion, would probably be about the Greek Kalends! The United States pointed out the existing law, but could not answer us till Congress had been consulted. The replies from other nations were gone over seriatim, and the conduct of Belgium in adhering to what was thought best for Belgian interests was applauded as a wise and liberal course. No foreign Government had given a distinct answer except Belgium, and that was not a favourable one. We had abandoned, he said, some of our restrictive laws in relation to European navigation, and wisely abandoned them, because we could not maintain them any longer. That was the ground of Mr. Huskisson’s modifications: but we ought, at present, to hold what we could, and to concede only what we must, in matters of navigation. He admitted, amidst the derisive cheers of the repeal party, that the Navigation Laws imposed restraints on commerce, and so far operated unfavourably; but the question to be considered was whether the gain to be derived from the abolition of these laws was a sufficient inducement for running the risk of the loss to which this abolition must lead. All prudence and sound judgment was opposed to repeal. The voice now rising from every quarter would soon reach those in whose hands the government was placed, and they would learn that their first duty was to uphold British interests, maintain British commerce, and promote British enterprise.
Mr. J. Wilson.
Mr. James Wilson, who replied at great length to Mr. Herries, had a few years previously started a Free-trade journal, the ‘Economist,’ and, having obtained a seat in the House of Commons, became a staunch and formidable advocate of an extreme Free-trade policy. He was a master in statistics, and, as figures were the rage at the time, he happily seized the moment which led to a political fortune, and, using his knowledge of them to the best advantage became a valuable adjunct to the ministry of the day. His speech on the present occasion showed the beneficial action of Free-trade in the removal of needless restrictions, and, further, that, though our merchants had been exposed to great competition, the aggregate commerce of the country had been proportionally augmented; he therefore asked why the shipping interest should be exempted from a rivalry which other interests had successfully encountered. He then demonstrated the little real advantage the Navigation Laws gave to British shipowners, who, by the very policy of those laws, were exposed to competition in the long-voyage trade in the very places where competition was most injurious to them; and, further, that all the tests fairly applied to the question proved the ability of British shipowners to compete with the foreigner. In some cases, too, he held that the Navigation Laws acted as a protection to foreign at the expense of British ships; and while, practically, of little benefit to the shipowner, there could be no doubt that these restrictions operated injuriously, especially in emergencies, on consumers, and, ultimately of course, on shipowners themselves. If a commercial marine was necessary to support our navy, Free-trade had increased and would increase that marine.
Question of reciprocity.
But perhaps the most important part of Mr. Wilson’s speech was that relating to the question of reciprocity. The general question was, indeed, beginning to resolve itself into three points. All parties had come to the conclusion that some change was necessary; but it remained to be decided whether reciprocity, conditional legislation and retaliation, should be the principle of the measure. Mr. Gladstone last year had strongly urged the principle of reciprocity in some cases by special treaties. Mr. Wilson very strongly combated this principle. Nothing he thought would be more prejudicial to the spread of Free-trade principles among continental nations than that this country should sanction the notion entertained by foreign Governments, that the British Government was willing to make concessions not so much for the general benefit of commerce, as for the sake of other concessions, to be thus obtained from foreign countries in favour of England. Foreign nations considered England as an old and wealthy nation, and expected to be overreached in forming commercial treaties.
He objected, therefore, to the principle of reciprocity, as it would actually throw difficulties in the way of those who were willing to meet us. On any principle of reciprocity they must adopt that of equivalents, and this was impossible. Other countries had no colonies, and had, consequently, no equivalent advantages to offer in return for those conferred by England. He admitted, however, that there was a great distinction between reciprocity in produce and reciprocity in shipping. If they imposed retaliatory duties on the produce of various countries, for the purpose of meeting duties imposed on their own goods, they did not visit the same interests with this retaliation. For example, cotton and woollen goods were sent to Prussia: we received from Prussia, corn, timber, and wool. If Prussia imposed high duties on cotton and woollen goods, we could only retaliate by putting high duties on the corn, timber, and wool of Prussia when imported into England. The Prussian Government punished the woollen manufacturer and the cotton manufacturer of England by imposing high duties on their goods; and, then, the English Legislature punished them again by imposing high duties on the raw material from which those goods were manufactured. Nothing could be more monstrous than such a course of proceeding. If we acted on the principle of reciprocity, we ought to give perfect freedom of trade to those who gave perfect freedom of trade to us. If the United States admitted our goods duty free, we could not do less than admit the corn of the United States free.
Doubtful even in the case of shipping.
Difficulty of the “Favoured-nation” clause.
Suppose, again, Russia, on the Black Sea, imposed a duty of 50 per cent. on manufactures, we must retaliate by a duty of 50 per cent. on Russian corn and timber. We must, in fact, have distinct treaties and distinct tariffs, and there would hence result a most complicated system of international commerce. Reciprocity meant that or nothing. But, after thus stating his views on reciprocity of produce, Mr. Wilson admitted that by imposing restrictions on foreign ships corresponding with those imposed on our own, we should have the advantage of dealing with the same interest, and the weapon would be more likely to be effectual, in that those, for whose sake duties were imposed abroad, would be subject to corresponding disadvantages in this country. But he was wholly opposed to reciprocity even in shipping. He had shown what variety of treaties would be required if the principle of reciprocity was adopted with regard to manufactures and produce; and he felt convinced that a corresponding or analogous difficulty would arise from adopting that principle in the case of shipping. Very intricate and complicated regulations would be required. Thus, supposing we found a country disposed to give all, we ourselves would be obliged to give all. But then it must be borne in mind that there were twenty countries with whom we had already treaties, and to whom we were bound to extend the advantages obtainable by the most favoured nations: and, therefore, if, now, we gave privileges to any one country, we must extend the same to all the other countries which stood in the same position.
Suppose, he said, that Hamburg were to give this country all that it required, and that, in return, its ships were placed on the same footing as British ships; what guarantee should we have that a third country, which had given us nothing, would not derive the same advantages as the shipowners of Hamburg, or that the sugar of Java, and the coffee of South America, would not be brought to this country in their ships? There would be no end of evasion. The United States would reciprocate; Prussia would do the same; Russia and the ports of the Hanseatic League would follow their example: what, therefore, had this country to fear? It was admitted that we should not expect the same reciprocity from France, Spain, or Belgium; but, in these cases, should we be really worse off than we are now? At this moment France and Spain had great privileges in this country. France had the right, not according to treaty, but from the general policy of our Navigation Laws, to send her produce direct to this country in her own ships. She, however, availed herself to a very small extent of this privilege. Nine-tenths of the importations of Spanish colonial sugars came likewise in British bottoms. As far as regards the reservations at the discretion of the Queen in Council, Free-trade unrestricted would most assuredly be the rule and restriction the exception.
Marquess of Granby.
The Marquess of Granby followed on the side of Protection, urging the mischief that would result from the great number of persons thrown out of employment; he pointed out how uncertain were the advantages to be derived, and the reality of its evils; but despite of disadvantages, if Englishmen were but true to themselves and their country, he felt that we should be able to weather the impending storm, and retain the command of that “glorious element” which was our natural protector, so that the flag of England might still for years to come “wave triumphant over every sea.”
Mr. Cardwell.
Mr. Cardwell, although he could not share in the gloomy apprehensions of Mr. Herries or the eloquent doubts of the Marquess of Granby, felt the importance of this question and its bearing on the mercantile interests of England and her colonies. He warned the House of the danger of not taking timely steps with regard to what was called the “long-voyage” clause, which some of the witnesses before the Lords’ Committee regarded as a fundamental principle of the Navigation Laws; and he showed that the effect of maintaining this clause would be to defeat the policy of the warehousing system, and rob us of a large share of the commerce of the world. There was nothing more important than that great interest known by the denomination of the “warehousing system,” which had been the growth of comparatively recent years and was the offspring of a judicious relaxation in the Navigation Laws: this system he held had made this country the entrepôt between regions furnishing tropical produce and the great consuming countries of Europe. Mr. Cardwell then urged the importance of the Canadian claims, and described the keen competition going on between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Henley
Mr. Henley went into a long argument against the Bill, especially animadverting upon Mr. Wilson’s having derided reciprocity, while nevertheless the Bill legislated for it, and Government had been in correspondence with foreign Governments for the purpose of securing it. “What did the Government intend to do,” he asked, “on the subject of impressment? If the masters were to be taken from a superior class, were they still liable to be impressed?”[109] The experiment of Free-trade had not in Mr. Henley’s opinion been sufficiently tried to justify the application of that principle to another great interest. If the country were polled, every man, he was sure, would cheerfully pay the hardly-appreciable advance in prices, rather than run the risk of a failure in an experiment so dangerous. No one had attempted to deny that obstruction was here, and inconvenience there; but when you came to balance the possible risk with the possible gain, no one would be disposed to run that risk, which he for one feared must take place if the measure were carried. It was a great interest to tamper with, and involved not only capital and industry, but the national defences.
Mr. Gladstone.
Burdens to be removed from Shipowners.
The debate was adjourned to the 13th of March, when it was resumed by Mr. Gladstone, with his usual ability, in an elaborate speech. He supported the second reading of the Bill, as furnishing the only opportunity of inducing the House to agree to a change in the Navigation Laws. He denied that this change would be the destruction of the shipping interests, and thought it was a fitting time for effecting numerous alterations. Mr. Gladstone, however, differed from many who supported the measure. His doctrine was still that they should not abandon the path of experience. In his opinion, it was only on principles analogous to those of Mr. Huskisson that we could safely depart from the system of navigation we had so long pursued, interwoven as this had been, for centuries, with our national policy. There were several demands the shipowner might fairly make upon the Legislature when about to be deprived of protection. He was entitled to the removal of every peculiar burden by which he was now hampered. If we exposed him to unrestricted competition with foreigners, we should give him a drawback, or a remission of the duties on the timber he required for the construction of his ships. He should also be relieved from the restraint with respect to the manning of his ships. There was another compensation to which the shipowner was entitled. By repealing the Navigation Laws, he would have to undergo competition from the Baltic, sharp as far as it went, and from the United States, all over the world. He was therefore entitled to ask that he should be admitted to those fields of employment from which he was then excluded. The policy pointed out by experience, Mr. Gladstone contended, was that of conditional relaxation. He had never entertained the notion that we should proceed by treaties of reciprocity with foreign Powers. There were difficulties in the way of doing so which a wise Legislature would avoid. The American system, so far as it went, should be our model. By adopting it, he considered that difficulties inseparable from the system of reciprocity treaties would be avoided.
Conditional legislation recommended.
The immediate effect of conditional relaxation would be to give vessels of such States as conferred privileges on our shipping corresponding advantages in our ports. Such a course would be in accordance with precedent and experience; was demanded by justice, and would be found easier of execution than the plan proposed by the Queen’s Government. There was in his mind an insuperable objection to any form of retaliation. Every word urged against the system of reciprocity told with augmented force against that of retaliation. He would join in opposing that feature of the plan, regarding it, as he did, as a material defect. But if Government would not consent to legislate on the subject, conditionally, he would advise it to do so directly, without the accompaniment of retaliation. In fact, the conditional system was that on which we now, practically, acted with regard to many of the maritime nations of the world.
Views on the subject of the coasting trade.
Americans not Free-traders.
Smuggling in the coasting trade.
There was another feature in the Government proposition Mr. Gladstone regarded as defective. He was of opinion that the mode in which it proposed to deal with the coasting trade would be found ineffectual. Before we could expect to get the advantage of the American coasting trade we must throw our own unreservedly open to that country.[110] Any chance we could have of getting from America a share of her coasting trade must depend upon our offering her our entire coasting trade, leaving her perfectly free to accept it or not, under the regulations now affecting British ships engaged in it. But we must not expect of America that she would fetter herself towards other countries by those particular regulations which it was proposed to lay down, and which do not give up the whole coasting trade, but only portions of it; to any such regulations we could not expect that America would agree. “If we proceed by unconditional legislation, and offer up our colonial trade instead of giving up our coasting trade, I believe she will get our colonial trade, and may then be ready to give up some comparatively insignificant advantages in return; but America is not a lover of Free-trade in the abstract. The Protectionist principle is very strong in America,” he continued, “although it is not so strong with reference to shipping as to manufactures.”[111] For these and other reasons Mr. Gladstone insisted on the expediency of throwing open the coasting trade to the foreigner, “if he could find his way into it.”[112] At present the uniform and invariable rule, he added, is to insist on the strictest possible separation between the outward and inward-bound goods, between foreign trade goods and goods coastwise; and, in point of fact, with a system of drawbacks and high duty goods, there would be the greatest danger to the revenue, or we must undergo the most enormous expense, if we do not insist on the separation of cargoes. But if a vessel is allowed to take in goods to carry coastwise, duty paid, she might be taking in tobacco in Liverpool, duty paid, to carry it coastwise, while at the same time she was discharging tobacco at Liverpool, not duty paid. This would be fraught with great danger. Mr. Gladstone then pointed out the conflicting interests of various colonies; and that the only way to render justice to all was by conditional legislation.
Mr. Robinson.
The substance of the speech of Mr. Robinson, Chairman of Lloyd’s, who followed Mr. Gladstone, was, in the event of the Bill passing, to claim indemnity for the shipowner. Would Government, he asked, take the duty off timber; the duty on the timber for a vessel of 200 tons being 300l.? There was also the duty on marine assurances; and, indeed, all the taxes now pressing on the British shipowner, but from which the foreigner was free. Would Government relieve the shipowner from the apprenticeship restrictions, and allow him to man his ship with foreign seamen? Government, he felt sure, could not give any such assurance, and if they did and the promise was realised, Mr. Robinson doubted if, even then, the British shipowner could compete successfully with the foreigner.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay, the extreme Liberal member for Hull, who would perhaps have lost his seat had he voted for repeal, made a Free-trade speech, but ended by voting against the Government measure. The position he took was that as long as the burdens of the shipowner remained, protection must be conceded to him. Mr. Hornby, who represented another of the outports, recommended that concessions should only be made pari passu, and that we ought not to give up the all-important maritime advantages we possess.
Mr. T. A. Mitchell.
Mr. T. A. Mitchell reproached Free-traders like Mr. Hornby for voting against repeal, and especially animadverted on Mr. Gladstone’s procedure, whose speech in its general effect was surprising, as coming from an advocate of Free-trade. A more effectual mode, in his judgment, could not have been taken to damage the whole scheme. Mr. Mitchell ardently supported repeal, not believing the average rate of freights would decline in consequence; moreover, the repeal, he thought, would enable us to escape the inordinately high freights which, in times of sudden emergency we were now called upon to pay.
Mr. Hildyard.
Mr. Hildyard urged very strongly the importance of the coasting trade of the United States, and the necessity of securing it. He admitted that the coast of England was a difficult and dangerous one, and that there was not much chance of America competing with us in that trade. On the other hand, the coasting trade of America was of great importance. An United States committee on harbours and rivers, during the preceding year, had shown that no fewer than eight States were mainly dependent upon seven great lakes for their commercial intercourse; and that the line of coast of these eight States was not less than 3000 miles; while, on the Mississippi and its tributaries, fourteen States in 1846, with a population of 6,500,000, relied for their easiest means of intercommunication. The sea-board of Maine was more valuable still; so that it was of very great importance, if concessions were to be made, that we should participate in the coasting trade of America.
Mr. Ricardo.
Mr. Ricardo, while supporting the propriety of freeing the shipowners from many of the burdens imposed on them, argued that the retaliatory clause could not possibly be maintained, and that the proposed reciprocity system was equally untenable.
Mr. H. Drummond.
Mr. H. Drummond, in one of his witty, splenetic speeches, opposed the Bill. The object, he said, of every statesman in past times had been to prevent capital from going out of the country, on the ground that, if capital went out of the country, the labour of the country would not be employed. Now every successive minister had to get up, and, on every question brought forward, to go against every principle he had previously defended, and so to take the opposite side of every view he had before maintained. There were Fates presiding from which no minister could liberate himself; while, as for the House itself, there would appear to be a spell over them, rendering them passive and helpless; while every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer picked away at their livers ad libitum. The most celebrated statesman of antiquity said: “There is in maritime States a corruption and instability of morals, for they import not only merchandise but morals, so that nothing can remain entire in the institutions of their country.” The only quarrel, Mr. Drummond added, he had with the Free-traders was with respect to Adam Smith, that they never would read beyond one page of him. And yet, it was by men actuated by similarly interested motives, that the House was now guided. The manufacturer sent out to Africa for cotton; he employed African labourers in its cultivation; he brought it home in an American ship; he spun it into yarn by his machinery, and then sent it in a French vessel to be exchanged for French cloth or silks, or other articles of French manufacture. So that the whole process might be perfected without the employment of a single English labourer. The poet exclaimed:—
“Lives there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land?”
Yes! at Manchester there were a thousand such. Not content with bringing accusations against the English sailors, not content with slighting the opinions of their officers, they now said this country had a superstitious reverence for the navy. He would not deny that they might have had such a feeling, for there was a time when they had a national faith; there was a time when they venerated, worshipped even, the statesman who guided safely the destinies of the country; when they reverenced the magistrates who presided over the administration of their laws; when they gloried in the soldiers and the sailors who maintained the greatness of the nation throughout the world; when the noblest credo that they had was “Rule Britannia!” and when the finest anthem in their ritual was “God save the Queen!”
Mr. Labouchere’s reply.
After this protracted debate, Mr. Labouchere rose to reply. He went over the chief points urged against repeal, and asked for no vote in favour of it but from those who admitted the propriety of a departure from the system of the Navigation Laws. He was ready to consider any suggestions, in reference to the details, provided they were not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. He saw no reason why the present retention of the timber duties should operate as a bar to the immediate repeal of the Navigation Laws. He opposed Mr. Gladstone’s views as narrow and erroneous, and contrary to the true policy of the country. Our commercial policy should not be made to depend upon the views and caprices of foreign States.
Majority of 56 for Bill.
| The House at length divided, when there appeared for Mr. Herries’ amendment (that the Bill be read a second time that day six months) | 210 |
| Against it | 266 |
| Majority in favour of the Bill | 56 |
It will be remembered that the opinion of the House in favour of an extensive change in the Navigation Laws was carried in a House of only 411 members by a majority of 117 members. Now, after a year’s reflection, we find that in a House of 476 members, the majority of 117 had dwindled down to 56! This great diminution of the apparent power of Free-traders resulted partly from a general depression of the shipping interests, but, principally, from the great exertions the Shipowners were making to agitate the country in their favour. The announcement of the diminished majority was hailed by the opponents of the measure with loud and prolonged cheering. Every vote was scanned with the most hostile criticism, and Mr. Cardwell, the newly-elected member for Liverpool, was especially censured for voting against the interests of that great maritime port. The Shipowners now took fresh courage, and issued fresh denunciations against the measure, and against the whole of the Free-trade journals—ministerial, Peel, and Cobdenite—which had joined in full cry for the repeal of the Navigation Laws. The agitation against repeal was renewed with fresh vigour on the part of the Shipowners’ Society. It was now fondly hoped that, by agitation, the majority in the House of Commons would diminish in future stages of the Bill, in which case there could be no doubt that the House of Lords would throw it out, and perhaps compel the resignation of Ministers.[113]
Committee on the Bill.
Coasting clauses withdrawn.
On the 23rd March, the motion for going into Committee on the Bill gave Mr. Labouchere an opportunity of withdrawing the “Coasting clauses” he had previously paraded as an important feature of it. The tone and manner of the right honourable gentleman betrayed the humiliation he was doomed to undergo. He discreetly, however, held his tongue respecting the flat refusal he had received from the United States with respect to their expected reciprocation of the coasting trade, expatiating, instead, at great length, on certain conferences he had had with Sir T. Fremantle, the head of the Board of Customs, the upshot being, that whereas Sir T. Fremantle had previously said that the new proposed regulations regarding the Coasting trade would not endanger the revenue he had now changed his opinion, and, with the officials under him, had come to the conclusion that, if not absolutely impossible, it would be extremely difficult to frame any regulations which should not leave the revenue of the country exposed to great danger if the distinction were done away with between the coasting and general trade of the country—that is, if a foreign or a British ship were allowed to combine a coasting with a foreign voyage.
Mr. Hume saw at once that if the trade were entirely laid open this difficulty would be removed; but, although this was admitted, Mr. Labouchere plausibly answered that to say to an American, “You may come here and carry coals in our coasting trade, but you must not combine that with a foreign voyage,” would be quite illusory. To open the coasting trade in this manner, it was urged, would excite a great deal of unnecessary alarm among the shipping classes; and, so, the coasting clauses were hastily withdrawn. Of course, the refusal of the American Government to reciprocate in the coasting trade did not escape the sagacity of Mr. Herries, who, delighted at the withdrawal of the obnoxious clauses, declared the excuse made about the revenue to be wholly unsatisfactory; moreover, that it was made known, unfortunately, just after the communication from the American Government, so long delayed, had been laid on the table, by which it appeared that Government was not, otherwise, prepared to make the proposed concessions on the subject of this trade.
Mr. Bouverie’s amendment opposed by Shipowners’ Committee.
However, in the meantime, Mr. Bouverie, member for Kilmarnock, a Free-trader, had given notice of a long amendment[114] to the first clause of the Bill, which was, substantially, to the effect that the several restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Acts recited in the 1st Clause (i.e. the old Navigation Laws), with certain exceptions, should continue in full force, till it should be shown that British ships were not subjected in foreign countries to the like restrictions and prohibitions. It might have been supposed that the Shipowners would have consented to such a compromise: but they showed no disposition to accept this proposal. Indeed, their hostility to any alteration mainly led to their ultimate discomfiture. At a meeting of the Central Committee for upholding the principle of the Navigation Laws, it was unanimously resolved, “That the fatal consequences of the repealing Clause, No. 1, in the Navigation Law Amendment Bill, would not be removed by the amendment of which Mr. Bouverie had given notice; and, as they were convinced that this clause would still prove destructive to British navigation, they trusted it would not in any form receive the sanction of friends to the shipping interest in Parliament.”
Mr. Gladstone’s scheme
This was, perhaps, the last chance offered to the Shipowners: they, however, relied upon throwing out the Bill, and rejected every offer at modification, or conditional relaxation of the existing law, their aim being to uphold those laws in their integrity. Mr. Gladstone’s views, on the other hand, favoured the adoption of conditional legislation, but not exactly in the way proposed by Mr. Bouverie. He proposed to divide the whole trade of the empire into two divisions only: the first of them relating to domestic or British trade; including under that head the trade coastwise and the colonial trade. He proposed to enact a law, not dependent on the discretion of the ministers of the Crown, otherwise than that it would be their business to ascertain when any country was disposed to give Great Britain perfect freedom in its foreign trade, and to provide in such a case that it should receive in return her foreign trade. Whenever any nation would propose perfect freedom in all maritime trade, both foreign and domestic, it would be placed on equal terms with British vessels in all ports, foreign, colonial, and coasting. Mr. Gladstone, however, contemplated a provision for the foreign trade of the colonies by dealing with that trade irrespectively of the conduct of other countries. He suggested the repeal of every direct restraint on the importation of tropical produce—or non-European produce—from Europe, that being a restraint which, according to the actual law, affected British ships as well as those of foreign countries. He was also for the repeal of all fiscal restraints, and of every restraint of the nature of a tax on the British Shipowner. He would have set him free, alike with respect to the command and the manning of his ship; he would also have allowed a drawback on the timber used in the construction of ships.
also opposed by the Shipowners.
Such were Mr. Gladstone’s views, which he was sanguine enough to imagine would have been acceptable to the shipping interests, had he proposed a scheme embodying his opinions, and invited the Legislature to make the necessary fiscal alterations. But when Mr. Gladstone saw that both the Government and Shipowners rejected Mr. Bouverie’s proposal, a form as it unquestionably was of conditional legislation, he relinquished his intention of bringing his plan before the House, as it had in fact no chance of being accepted by either party.
Such was the temper of all parties when the Bill went into committee on the 23rd March, 1849; Mr. Herries, before the Speaker left the chair, having intimated his intention of opposing the Bill during all its stages, believing that it could not be rendered a good Bill, whatever alterations might be made in it.
Upon going into committee, Mr. Bouverie brought forward his amendment. He disclaimed any desire to defeat the measure, which he had supported by his vote, still less did he hanker after Protection, for it was strictly in the sense of Free-trade that he proposed it. He only differed with Ministers as to the mode by which the changes proposed should be effected. They had entered into reciprocal relations with almost every other maritime nation. The United States had a complete system of reciprocity: it was the foundation of their navigation system, and it was an example it would be well to follow. The clause he proposed would supersede the necessity of tedious and vexatious negotiations. Out of a score of reciprocity treaties to which England was a party, there were only four which contained the “favoured-nation” clause; and it was idle to expect that, through the instrumentality of any such compacts, genuine or extensively reciprocal advantages could be established as between England and the other nations of the world. It might be difficult, if not wholly impracticable, to realise the principle of reciprocity in the case of tariffs, but it was not so difficult to apply the principle to shipping. Nothing was so easy as to say, we will relax our Navigation Laws, and make certain arrangements with respect to our shipping interests, on the express condition that other countries will adopt similar arrangements and similar relaxations in our regard.
Questions of reciprocity, conditional legislation, and retaliation.
If these views were unsatisfactory to the Shipowners, it is certain they were still more so to the extreme Free-trade party. The question had now resolved itself into the expediency of reciprocity, conditional legislation, and retaliation. The extreme Free-traders demanded liberty of navigation without any legislative restriction whatever, and the plan of Government conferring a power of retaliation, though one little likely to be resorted to, was of course the plan least objectionable to the Free-traders. They contended that the Bill as it stood enabled the country to receive concessions from foreign countries by making concessions to them; but, if Mr. Bouverie’s motion was carried, they asserted that, retaining in our hands the power of retaliation, we should be compelled to resort to such measures whenever equality was disturbed.
Details of American law.
Both parties in truth exaggerated the difficulties of their opponent’s scheme, being attached to their own. The real question at issue was, which country should take the initiative in a Free-trade policy. Mr. Wilson, as an extreme Free-trader, insisted that the law of America sanctioned reciprocity on their part, without having recourse to Congress, which the members of the Shipowners’ Society controverted. There can be no doubt that the American Law of 1828 did so authorize the President to reciprocate any relaxation of the Navigation Laws we might on our part resolve on. But when Mr. Buchanan had so recently reserved the American coasting trade, repudiating the unauthorized pledge previously given by the American envoy, and had further frankly stated to Mr. Crampton,[115] that “it was probable some difference of opinion would manifest itself in Congress upon this question, from the unwillingness felt in some quarters to throw open the ship-building business in the United States to the competition of British shipbuilders, and more particularly to that of the shipbuilders of the British North American colonies;” we might have been quite sure that Congress would, if necessary, interfere, and, by some special law, annul the liberal principle of the American Law of 1828.
Mr. Wilson and the Free-traders, affecting to be better informed on the state of American law than the Shipowners, went into the opposite extreme, and expressed their entire confidence in the complete reciprocity of the Americans; asserting further, that without going to Congress, the Executive could extend to every country similar concessions as were extended to them. Such was the impression on both the contending parties. As to Mr. Bouverie’s amendment, though it, in some degree, resembled Mr. Gladstone’s views, that gentleman complained “that his scheme had been withered by an unkind shadow cast over it by the member for Kilmarnock,” at the same time, refusing to discuss a plan not dissimilar to his own, and adhering to his opinion, that, as foreign countries were in the habit of adopting measures to meet their own wants, England ought to be allowed to do the same, but only on the principle of reciprocity.
Mr. Bouverie’s plan rejected.
It is unnecessary to pursue this point any further. A long debate ensued on it, in which Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Bright delivered, with their usual force, their extreme, but then unpalatable, Free-trade opinions, while Mr. Roundell Palmer opposed any change hostile to the principles of the Navigation Laws. It appeared from the general feeling of the committee, that Mr. Bouverie’s amendment had not the slightest chance of being adopted, and he was desirous of withdrawing it. Mr. Wawn, however, insisted upon a division; and when a division was taken, only fifteen members voted in favour of Mr. Bouverie’s scheme of conditional legislation, while 132 voted against it.
Mr. Disraeli’s speech.
Various other divisions took place on the consideration of the Bill in committee, and numerous important alterations were then made, so that only eighteen clauses were carried up to the sitting of the 23rd March. On the motion to report progress, Mr. Disraeli protested against the whole Bill, which, by the withdrawal of ten clauses and the modification of four more, had received that night a serious check. He compared the proceedings to those during the French Revolution, on the day when the nobles and prelates vied with each other in throwing mitres and coronets to the dust as useless appendages. That day was still called “the day of dupes;” and, remarked Mr. Disraeli, “the same appellation might be applied when referring to the events of that evening. We have had,” he continued, “two years of protracted legislation against the Shipowners of England.” The course Ministers had pursued during those two years formed no exception to the rash policy which had characterised their proceedings with regard to the agricultural and colonial interests. “Have your deliberations been graver or more thoughtful? This” (holding up the Bill), “this,” exclaimed Mr. Disraeli, “is my answer. Ministers acting in this manner,” he continued, “did more than injure and destroy the material interests of the nation; they laid the foundation of a stock of political discontent, which would not merely diminish the revenues of the kingdom and the fortunes of its subjects, but would shake the institutions of the country to its centre.” After Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Labouchere had spoken in reply, the committee reported progress.
When the committee resumed its sittings on the 26th March, the Retaliatory Clause (19) became a subject of discussion. The several leaders again delivered their opinions on this much-controverted point, the Free-traders wishing to omit the clause altogether; while Mr. G. Sanders intimated an intention of making the Bill operate for a limited term, so as to ascertain whether Foreign Powers would reciprocate or not. The clause, however, was finally carried without a division; but Clause 22, enabling the Queen to reduce the differential duties in certain cases, opened the wide question of dock dues and light dues, in which public and private rights were so confusedly intermingled that it was ultimately withdrawn. The remaining clauses passed with some opposition, the preamble, however, being agreed to. Thus this celebrated Bill now assumed a formal shape; but its opponents, conscious of their power in the House of Lords, gave notice of a last trial of strength upon the third reading.
On the 19th April, Captain Harris made an ineffectual attempt to carry a clause, on the consideration of the Report, enforcing the apprenticeship laws, and Mr. Gladstone obtained a modification of the Bill with regard to the mode of finally adjusting the intercolonial trade by the colonial legislatures.
Third reading of Bill.
Mr. Herries’ speech.
During the Easter recess, meetings of the shipping interests had been held in various outports, and the whole power of the Shipowners had been put forth to defeat the Bill. On the 23rd April the Bill stood for the third reading, and the venerable Mr. Herries once more headed the party of Anti-Repealers to make a last effort in the House of Commons to reject the Bill. His speech was well prepared, and suitable to the occasion. He very briefly alluded to the points already decided, but dwelt with great force on the Bancroft letter, asserting that nothing had passed relative to the United States, which ought for a moment to weigh with Parliament, in changing its determination to maintain the Navigation Laws. “Let English commerce now speak!” he exclaimed. “Look at the petitions against the Bill, comprising the greatest names in the City.[116] In Liverpool 47,000 persons had signed petitions against the Bill; and among these were 1000 mercantile firms of great note and respectability. This was without precedent in the history of petitions; whilst a counter-petition contained but 1400 names, among which were not found 100 trading firms.” Mr. Herries denied that the subject had any necessary connection with Free-trade. The experiment might be continued, and yet, with perfect consistency, while abstaining from any interference with the main structure and fundamental principles of the Navigation Laws. These laws had always, he alleged, been considered an exception to the general laws affecting trade. After an elaborate speech, Mr. Herries concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Alderman Thompson seconded the amendment.
Mr. Robinson.
A very animated discussion ensued. Mr. Robinson went over the old topics, and said that the new republican Government of France had advertised for the importation of 38,000 tons of coals into France, one of the conditions being that they should be imported exclusively in French vessels. So much for the Navigation Laws of France. The National Assembly had also introduced another measure by which the importation of salt in French vessels subjected to a duty only of 75c., while that imported in British vessels was required to pay a duty of 2f. 75c. So much for Free-trade with France. He trusted the majority in favour of the ministry would be so small as to induce the Government to pause in their career.
Mr. Macgregor, in a very long speech, supported the Bill, though he wished it had been a more complete measure.
Mr. Walpole.
He was followed by Mr. Walpole against the Bill, who quoted the Venetian proverb,[117] and said—“Let us first be Englishmen, and then economists.” He considered the Navigation Law the wisest of our regulations. It had given us safety and independence at home; it had afforded security to our colonies abroad; it had protected our trade in every part of the world, and it would protect it, if the laws were not repealed, against all chances of war; and, while it had done this effectually and completely, it had also preserved for them the supremacy on the ocean, by which more than once they had been able to bid defiance to the whole world, when our honour and interests were assailed. Mr. Walpole concluded by borrowing the splendid peroration of Mr. Disraeli in that gentleman’s speech at the second reading.
Sir James Graham.
Sir James Graham next rose, and, differing much on some points from the supporters of the Bill, intimated, in an exhaustive speech, his intention of voting for the third reading. Pointing to Sir Francis T. Baring, who sat on the Treasury Bench as First Lord of the Admiralty, the head of the house of Baring, he expressed his disbelief that he would be an assenting party to a measure which, in his conscience, he felt would be injurious to the character and welfare of that commercial navy, to which he and his family for generations had been so much indebted, or that he would give the weight of his influence to a measure which, in his judgment, risked the power and greatness of the Royal Navy, more especially confided by her Majesty to his care. Liverpool had been mentioned. Why, the two members for Liverpool have voted for the Bill.[118] So also did the two members for Newcastle and Glasgow.
Sir James Graham added, that, however valuable reciprocity might have been, when Mr. Huskisson considered the question in the abstract, he, Sir James, was not much attached to it now. It might have been wise and politic at the time; but he could not help thinking that it made the interest of others the measure of our interest, he had almost said it made the folly of others the limit of our wisdom. With respect to reciprocity and to retaliation, which is reciprocity in another shape, as a general rule he would rather leave the Navigation Laws as they were than adopt that principle. What is retaliation? he asked. It is this: because some foreign nation does that which is more injurious to herself than it is to ourselves, we, in the spirit of blind, vindictive passion, proceed to do that which is more injurious to ourselves than to our rivals. To reciprocity and to retaliation, as a rule, Sir James was opposed; but he supported the Bill, on the whole, because without having recourse to either the one or the other, and considering the character of the people of this country, their capital, their undaunted courage, and the advantages they possessed in the race they had already run, he was satisfied that any measure throwing open the trade of the world would greatly increase commerce, and that the lion’s share of the addition would fall to our lot. Every reason, he argued, existing, in the days of Mr. Huskisson, for the relaxation of the system existed in a yet stronger degree at the present moment; and, quoting the expression employed by Lord Stanley, Vestigia nulla retrorsum,[119] as applicable to the recent Free-trade policy, he concluded a highly elaborate speech by remarking that Protection or no Protection was the question at issue; and, as the present measure would crown the work they had already accomplished, he was opposed to reaction, and favourable to progress tempered by prudence and discretion. Upon these grounds he supported the third reading.
Mr. T. Baring.
Mr. Thomas Baring avowed his opinion that, as a general principle, restriction must be an injury to trade. If the whole community were to be regarded as a community of merchants, certainly it was desirable to allow the importers to get their wants supplied, and ship their goods where and whence they pleased. If we were, like the inhabitants of the Hanseatic Towns, mere receivers and distributors, then we might say, let every other consideration be disregarded. But the real grievances of the merchants might fairly be taken from their representations, and, if they had sustained such grievances as had been represented, surely they would not have been either indifferent or adverse to the removal of those laws. If he understood the Bill rightly, it was framed on the principle of removing all restrictions on foreigners, and of maintaining restrictions on Englishmen. Let the House mark, he said, that Government which, after great research and trouble in obtaining information, had told us that there was an inferiority on the part of our captains and sailors, now told the Shipowners that they were to compete with those, who had the power of employing better workmen. The only facility given by the Bill to Shipowners was the privilege of building ships abroad; on this he would make one remark, that every person knew the difficulty of recovering a manufacture once lost.
With respect to conditional legislation, suggested by Mr. Gladstone, public opinion was divided on it in the United States. Sweden, in such a case, had nothing to give. Holland could only give one-third, as the Dutch Commercial Company carried on the other two-thirds of the Dutch trade by contract in Dutch vessels. As regards the United States, he was satisfied Mr. Bancroft did not intend to practise a deception. The navigation of the United States offered advantages which might be of account; yet there the favoured-nation clause came in to create difficulties, and it might be that we would feel compelled to abandon the Navigation Laws with respect to those States, or relinquish the advantages which were offered prospectively. We ought to adhere to the main principles of the Navigation Laws in all instances, and make such concessions to each country as our interests might dictate as expedient. The principles of Free-trade ought to be applied to each measure under discussion, according as our particular interests were affected thereby. Sir James Graham had put the question as one decisive between retreat and progress. Reaction was as much to be feared as a rash progress, for reaction might be fraught with suffering to the people, as dangerous to the interests of the country as the proposed change was ominous of evil.
Lord J. Russell.
Lord John Russell as Chief Minister of the Crown wound up the debate on his side. He was aware that the law had been almost worshipped as the charta maritima of this country, and that, much of our prosperity and commerce having been attributed to this law, it had been thought profanation to alter it. He thought this was an opinion founded in error, and that, at no time, had this law been essentially advantageous to this country. He then went over the history of the Navigation Laws, quoting authors of various times who wrote of the fluctuations in trade and public policy, and having reviewed the several points of the question, came to the conclusion that with respect to the greater part of the nations of Europe and of the world, we would obtain fair and equal terms of navigation, provided we were ready to give the same terms to them. He went farther; he boldly said that nobody could doubt that in the case of the United States of America, or in those of Prussia, Russia, or Austria, the fullest reciprocity would be conceded. The nations which would not give equal terms were, at the most, only three or four—France, Spain, and Belgium, and perhaps one other.
Mr. Disraeli.
Majority for Bill, 61.
Mr. Disraeli assumed the privilege of the last word, and, in reply, quoted the last report of the Shipowners’ Society, which has been already given, intimating their readiness to discuss the policy of amending the Navigation Laws on all points not involving fundamental principles. He next took a rapid review of the effects of repeal on the Australian and other colonies, arguing that, if Canada had not a Protective duty on corn restored to it, as demanded by the Legislative Assembly, Canada would be lost to the British Crown. “Woe to those statesmen and to the policy which plucked this jewel from the Crown of England! No shuffling change in the Navigation Law could compensate the people of Canada for what they had lost, and which they felt so acutely.” Mr. Disraeli then referred to the papers from foreign Powers, arguing that they were valueless, and, especially, that everything respecting the United States was a tabula rasa, all that we had heard last year having been obliterated as an element of consideration. The last division on this famous Bill now took place upon the third reading, when the Ayes were 275; Noes, 214; Majority, 61.