CHAPTER VIII.
Motion of Mr. Herries, 1848—Protectionist principles stated—Extent of shipping trade—National defences endangered—Mr. Labouchere’s reply—Alderman Thompson—Mr. Gladstone’s views—Mr. Hudson—Lord George Bentinck—Mr. Hume—Mr. Cobden—Mr. Disraeli—Sir Robert Peel—The resolution carried by 117, but abandoned for a time—Temper of the Shipowners—Efforts of Ministers to obtain reciprocity by a circular from the Foreign Office—Reply thereto of America—Mr. Buchanan’s letter—Reply of other Powers—Progress of Free-trade views—Parliament of 1849—Death of Lord George Bentinck, September 21, 1848—Mr. Labouchere’s new resolution, February 14, 1849—Proposed change in coasting trade—Mr. Bancroft recalcitrates—Hence, withdrawal of the coasting clauses—The debate—Alderman Thompson, &c.—Mr. Ricardo—Meeting of Shipowners’ Society—Their report—The manning-clause grievance—Policy proposed—Agitation in the country.
Although the shipowners appear to have placed much confidence in the House of Lords, they saw that unless they could convince the Commons that the repeal of the Navigation Laws would be prejudicial to the interests of England, they would have no hope of maintaining the status quo: and, further, that no modification would satisfy the demands of the Free-traders, who, strong in their principles, consequently repudiated all compromise with Protectionists.
Motion of Mr. Herries, 1848.
One of the most earnest leaders of the latter class had just re-entered the House of Commons after a long absence from it. Mr. Herries had been Chancellor of the Exchequer so long before as 1828. He was an able and honest Conservative; sound in his principles and earnest in everything he undertook. To him, therefore, the Protectionist shipowners in their hour of trial appealed for aid; nor did they appeal in vain. Mr. Herries was heart and soul with them. He saw nothing but ruin and desolation in the abolition of these ancient laws. They had, in his judgment, been tampered with and weakened by Huskisson, and now they were about to be destroyed by such men as Cobden, Bright, Ricardo, and Milner Gibson, backed, alas! “by his old friend and colleague, Sir Robert Peel.” No wonder, therefore, that he buckled on his armour with vigour for the fight; and, soon after the debate on the resolution of the Government, he submitted, though on a separate occasion, the following counter-resolution:—“That it is essential to the national interests of the country to maintain the fundamental principles of the existing Navigation Laws, subject to such modifications as may be best calculated to obviate any proved inconvenience to the commerce of the United Kingdom and its dependencies without danger to our national strength.”
This resolution had been framed with great care. It had been the subject of unusual consideration by the Shipowners’ Society of London, then the oracle of all the other Protectionist societies in England, whose object was the maintenance of the Navigation Laws; and, in their opinion, the maritime greatness of England depended upon its success. If defeated, “Rule Britannia” would for ever be expunged from our national songs; the glories of Duncan and Nelson would “wither like the aspen-leaf, and fade like the Tyrian dye;” and, as none but “Yankees, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegian sailors would be found in our ports, who, they demanded, would there be to fight our battles and defend our sea-girt shores?” These were, then, no mere words of course; they were the honest expressions of the thoughts of earnest men, who, however mistaken in their views, or perhaps in some instances blinded by what they conceived to be self-interest, firmly believed that the power and greatness of their native land depended on the preservation of the Navigation Laws.
The counter-declaration of Mr. Herries was therefore introduced with the sole object of getting rid of the Ministerial measure, failing that, of modifying it in such a manner as not to abrogate the principle of these laws. Hence he embodied in his speech all the leading arguments of the advocates of a restrictive policy. Thus, after alluding to the proceedings of the committee of the previous year, Mr. Herries found fault with Government for having, without further inquiry, announced in the Speech from the Throne their evident intentions, however vaguely worded, of making an entire change in the maritime policy of Great Britain. Six months had elapsed and Ministers had proposed no measure; while the House of Lords, acting more wisely, had instituted the further inquiry then going on, a portion of the evidence taken having been already laid before the House of Commons. If, argued Mr. Herries, the Lords should, from the evidence taken before them, resolve on the maintenance of those laws and on the rejection of the Government measure, such a course might occasion embarrassment. He complained that while the British shipowner would be exposed to foreign competition by the removal of all protection, the heavy burden of being required to man his ship agreeably with the rules of the Navigation Laws was still retained. Criticising in succession the various pleas in behalf of Prussia, America, and our West Indian Colonies, for the repeal or modification of the present code, he remarked that Prussia had nothing to give us in return for the concessions she sought, and that her warnings and threats of withdrawing such advantages as she had already conceded were of trivial moment. America, in the most friendly way, no doubt, requested to participate in our foreign and colonial trade, in return for reciprocal concessions to be made to us: but America had no colonies; and it was wholly out of her power to give us any equivalent for the advantages she would be sure to acquire by the abolition of our Navigation Laws. “Why did not ‘free’ America,” he exclaimed, “show us an example, and abolish her laws, which were quite as stringent as ours?”
Protectionist principles stated.
As to the West Indies, Mr. Herries gave many details in proof of his assertion that the petition against the Navigation Laws from the Jamaica House of Assembly but imperfectly represented the real sentiments of either that body or of the island at large. Had its promoters been aware that, by the abrogation of these laws, freights from the foreign islands (whence sugar was brought to England, as well as from the British Islands) would be materially lowered, they never would have assented to it. To facilitate importations from Cuba by an alteration of the Navigation Laws would only aggravate the disadvantages from which they were at present suffering. Relying on the authority of Mr. Huskisson, he quoted him for a definition of that Protective principle he was willing to stand by; a principle which would reserve our colonial, coasting, and fishing trade wholly to ourselves, while protecting our foreign trade, so far as was consistent with our relations and engagements with foreign countries. If the House were agreed on the general principle of protecting our marine, Mr. Herries argued that it might, in committee, remove those anomalies which in some quarters were so much the object of censure and ridicule.
Extent of the shipping trade.
He reminded the House that the tonnage of the vessels belonging to this kingdom and her colonies then amounted to 3,900,000 tons; the number of sailors employed in our mercantile marine, to 230,000; and the capital embarked in shipping, to little less than 40,000,000l.; while the trades immediately connected therewith, or subservient to the shipping interest, employed a capital of from 16,000,000l. to 17,000,000l. In this way there was between 50,000,000l. and 60,000,000l. of property which would be immediately affected by the proposed change. In this branch of national industry about 50,000 artisans, whose wages amounted to 5,000,000l. a-year, were employed; while the cost of victualling the ships he estimated at 9,000,000l., and the freights the mercantile marine earned per annum at nearly 30,000,000l.[95]
National defences endangered.
These were enormous interests, he exclaimed, and ought not to be dealt with lightly; but when, in addition to all this, it was considered that the existence of these interests lay at the foundation of our national defences, and, that without these defences, we could not maintain our present position as a nation, surely there were ample reasons, if not for resisting all change, at least for adopting such changes as appeared necessary, not in the reckless way now proposed, by a sweeping resolution for the entire abolition of the Navigation Laws, but by improving, altering, and modifying them in such a manner as would be consistent with the great interest they were framed to protect. He therefore prayed the House not to assent to experimental changes, which might impair the strength of the right arm this nation had hitherto put forth to awe and control the world, and convert it into a palsied limb, with which the meanest of our rivals might successfully grapple.
Mr. Labouchere’s reply.
Mr. Labouchere followed in an elaborate speech, in general support of the Ministerial measure, but at the same time admitting that the real point for the decision of the House was fairly raised by Mr. Herries’ resolution. “Would they, however,” he asked, “be content with patchwork legislation? Was it in fact right to maintain the principle of the Navigation Laws? or were they prepared to consider the propriety of departing from those principles, so as to conciliate the wants of commerce and the exigencies of the case before them, with a view of adapting them to the spirit of the times, and of meeting the just demands of other countries, the wishes of our own colonies, and the interests of our expanding trade?” Of course, if Mr. Herries carried his resolution, it would be fatal to the measure of the Government.
Alderman Thompson.
Alderman Thompson, an opulent merchant extensively engaged in the iron trade, supported the Protectionist view of the question. He ridiculed the plan submitted by Sir James Stirling for manning the navy as “Utopian,” proposing as this plan did to train up a race of seamen exclusively for the navy, and, therefore irrespectively of the commercial marine. “Would Mr. Hume,” he asked, directing his remarks towards that gentleman, “sanction a vote for 120,000 men during peace?” He warned the House against the effect on our colonial shipping trade should it be thus thrown open to the Americans, whose ships, he said, already supplied our West Indian settlements with the whole of the lumber required by them, though under the disadvantage of returning from their ports in ballast. Various speakers on both sides followed during several adjourned debates: Dr. Bowring, Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Milner Gibson, on the side of repeal; Mr. H. J. Baillie, Mr. Scott, Mr. Robinson, the Marquess of Granby, and Mr. Henley on that of Protection.
Mr. Gladstone’s views.
On the 2nd June, Mr. Gladstone, then sitting with Sir Robert Peel on the cross-benches, resumed the debate in a most exhaustive speech. His views were not in exact accordance with either party in the debate, but he took the affirmative side on the broad question of repeal as a matter of reasonable expediency, although, on the specific scheme of Government he gave only a qualified opinion, as he would have preferred a more gradual measure. He wished Government had adhered to the uniform course of precedents, making large concessions conditional upon reciprocal action by other Powers. He objected to the discretionary power of the Queen in Council, with a view of extorting reciprocity, a discretion at once too large and too delicate: if it were really intended that this power should be a living and practical one, to be put in force in case of need, he thought it would be wiser and safer to undo, bit by bit, the system we have got, than to sweep it away in order to reconstruct it piecemeal; and then, perhaps shortly afterwards, to pull it down again. With that keen foresight for which he has ever been distinguished, he particularly censured that part of the plan which reserved the coasting trade. He contended that the American coasting trade was of the highest value, and equivalent to a colonial trade. “Let us give her our coasting trade, and we are entitled, not merely in policy but in justice, to ask her for her coasting trade. But let us give her the colonial trade without the coasting trade, and we give her the valuable boon, while we withhold the worthless; but we cannot say to her, ‘Give us all, for we have given you all.’” Mr. Gladstone relied on the sincerity of the American diplomatist, and therefore, urged this point as one of the highest importance, Mr. Bancroft’s offer appearing to him a forcible argument for including the coasting trade in any future arrangement. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that when England and America had concurred in setting an example to the world of free navigation, other nations would be induced to imitate it by a moral force it would be difficult to resist; and that we should live to see the ocean, that great highway of nations, as free as the ships that traverse its bosom, or the winds that blow over it.
Though Mr. Gladstone would have preferred securing such reciprocal privileges as other nations had power to confer before throwing open our ports to their ships, his speech was in effect a splendid declamation in favour of Free-trade principles, as applied to navigation; and his argument pointed to the conclusion that, even if other nations were not prepared for reciprocity, it would still be for the interests of Great Britain to repeal her restrictive laws.
Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Hudson, as the representative of Sunderland, apart from his own Conservative principles, made an earnest appeal to the House against Free-trade in navigation, and hoped it would not be led away by any fanciful notions. Captain Berkeley, on the other hand, expressed an opinion rather favourable to the Government measure, though, should it become law, he feared, with most of his brother naval officers, that there would be a difficulty in manning the Royal Navy. But Mr. J. Clay, though an extreme Free-trader, refused to support the Government till all restrictions on shipowners, who had great influence at Hull, which he so long represented, were removed. Mr. Newdegate opposed the Government scheme in an elaborate speech; and the then member for South Shields, though sitting opposite, followed in the same line with a brief but argumentative address. Lord Ingestrie and Mr. R. Hildyard likewise denounced the measure; while Lord John Hay predicted eventual success by its adoption. A division was then taken, after three nights’ debate (May 29th, June 1st and 2nd), on the question that the debate be now adjourned, which was carried by a majority of 163—the numbers being 236 to 73.
On the 8th of June the debate was resumed by Sir J. Walsh, who had carried the adjournment, when Mr. Miles and Sir Charles Burrell spoke on the same side against repeal. The most prominent speakers on the Free-trade side were Mr. Cardwell, Sir George Clerk, and Sir Charles Wood; Mr. Cardwell thinking the time had arrived for a judicious relaxation of the Navigation Laws, and Sir Charles Wood noticing the very general concurrence in favour of some change. The debate, however, did not close, though the subject seemed exhausted, but was adjourned for the fourth time, and the last night called forth some of the most powerful speeches which had yet been delivered on the question.
Lord George Bentinck.
Lord George Bentinck resumed the debate on the 9th of June, and defended the shipmasters against the aspersions cast upon them by Mr. James Wilson, who had described them as unable to obtain freights from Rio Janeiro, on account of the bad character they bore for carelessness in the carriage or delivery of goods entrusted to their charge, and concluded one of the best speeches he ever delivered by pointing out the danger of repeal, as the seamen could not in future be pressed into our service when the day of difficulty and danger might arise. “Let us cherish our brave seamen,” exclaimed the noble Lord; “show them that, alike in peace and in war, we will provide for them; that we scorn to weigh in the balance with the comforts, the prosperity, and happiness of our gallant defenders, the miserable saving of 2s. 6d. per ton upon the freight of our shipping, and the eighteenth part of a farthing per pound on our sugar and coffee, and then we may again, as heretofore, boldly challenge and safely defy all the nations of the earth.”
Mr. Hume.
Mr. Cobden.
Mr. Hume supported the Ministerial measure, and pressed upon the Government the necessity of removing every burden on British ships to which foreigners were not liable. Admiral Bowles spoke on the opposite side; and Mr. Cobden, following, asked, why should not the sailor in his ship, as well as the workman in his factory, or the labourer on his farm, be able to compete with foreigners? He then appealed to the evidence, showing, as this did, that we could build better ships than foreign nations, and at as cheap a rate, quality considered; sail them as well; take greater care of their cargoes; and secure greater punctuality and despatch; adding, that our sailors had the greatest natural aptitude for the sea of any in the world. The only drawbacks, he continued, were of a moral kind, insubordination and drunkenness; but these would yield to better culture. We heard a great outcry about the burdens of the landowner, such as county-rates, highway-rates, poor-rates, and church-rates; but the shipowner paid none of these, being exempted from any such burdens. Therefore, on the score of taxation, the shipowner and the sailor were infinitely better able to compete with the foreigner than any other class of the community. Mr. Cobden then reviewed the position of the shipbuilder, the shipowner, and the sailor, and contended that they had no need to fear competition with the foreigner. He regretted that the power of retaliation should be given to the Queen in Council, not that he believed it would ever be acted upon, and, after repudiating the boastful language so frequently held respecting England’s naval supremacy, he asked, “was this a time to be always singing ‘Rule Britannia’?” concluding his remarks by stating, with great wisdom, that constant assertion of maritime supremacy was calculated to provoke kindred passions in other nations; whereas, if Great Britain enunciated the doctrines of peace, she would invoke similar sentiments from the rest of the world.
Mr. Disraeli.
Mr. Disraeli, at that time exhibiting no mean promise of future distinction, delivered an eloquent speech, illustrated with that brilliant rhetoric, sarcastic humour and point, for which he has been ever famous in debate. There was nothing, he said, more fatal to national interests than the recklessness of ignorance. He would not, indeed, sing “Rule Britannia,” for fear of distressing Mr. Cobden, but he did not think the House would encore “Yankee Doodle.” Mr. Labouchere had described this as the age of “commerce, peace, and internal improvement;” on the contrary, it was, in his opinion, the age of no trade, of intended war, and of communists tearing up railways. Naples is in a state of siege, he exclaimed; Paris in insurrection; Vienna in revolt; Berlin barricaded; four pitched battles have been fought in Europe in eight weeks, and the Baltic and the Adriatic are alike blockaded, so that Mr. Cobden himself could scarcely be so devout a believer as he pretended in the quiet of nations without arms. “At least,” concluded Mr. Disraeli, “I will not incur the responsibility by my vote of endangering that empire gained by so much valour, and guarded by so much vigilance—that empire broader than both the Americas, and richer than the farthest Ind, which was foreshadowed in its infancy by the genius of a Blake, and consecrated in its culminating glory by the blood of a Nelson—the empire of the seas.”
Sir Robert Peel.
At this stage of the debate Sir Robert Peel, who had been silently waiting to express his opinions, rose to address the House. On rising he had to encounter an unusual demonstration of hostility from the Protectionist benches; and for the first few sentences these unseemly interruptions continued; but he soon imposed silence upon his opponents by turning round disdainfully and saying, “this is not a matter to be disposed of by clamour, but by deliberate reason. It is possible the opinions I avow may be erroneous, but, depend on it, you show no confidence in the strength of your own if you have no better answer to give me than boisterous clamour.” This appeal to be answered by arguments alone secured the ex-minister a hearing. His speech, however, was not one of his happiest efforts. He went over the same ground as preceding speakers, referring to many parts of the evidence, produced mainly to show that England need not fear competition even with the Americans; he warned the House that the claims of Canada could not be long resisted, remarking that it will benefit Parliament to examine into the state of the Navigation Laws, with a view to an extensive alteration of them. He, however, avoided giving a direct opinion on many essential points; and, with respect to the policy of opening the coasting trade or continuing the restriction, he reserved his views for the present. Nor did he offer any opinion as to the policy of requiring for every “British ship” that three-fourths of the crew should be British seamen. He also reserved his judgment as to the mode by which Government proposed to make the alterations: his first impression being to proceed by reciprocity treaties, and to make concessions to such Powers as were willing to make equivalent concessions to us. On the other hand, it did not escape him that these reciprocity treaties were themselves sources of constant trouble. The “favoured-nation clause,” he added, seems simple enough, but when you come to act on it, practically, these treaties involve us in great difficulties. There was, he said, an admitted difference between the case of differential duties on navigation and on the imports of goods under a tariff. And he felt that it was most difficult to determine whether the concessions any given country is willing to make, or has the power to make, are equivalent to those made by some other, the commercial demands and commercial produce of which may be of a totally different nature. Again, with regard to reciprocity treaties, great difficulty he thought might ensue in the event of war; and the power Government proposed to retain of re-imposing restrictive duties would be found very difficult to exercise. It would in his judgment invert the relations between the Crown and the Parliament. The House of Commons would be favourable, and relax, the Crown would restrain. The House of Commons would give universal privileges, and in the course of four or five years the invidious duty would be thrown upon the Crown of withdrawing privileges the House of Commons had granted. Sir Robert, to avoid this ungracious duty, threw out the hint that the Act should be made limited in duration, so as to come again before Parliament. Suppose, he suggested, the trade were to be opened for five years; at the end of that period the privileges given would necessarily expire, and every country would have notice that they had the means of averting the re-establishment of restrictions by entering into some further arrangement with this country. He preferred to see the object effected in that way rather than by new reciprocity treaties; in short, that America, as well as other nations, should do what she had proposed by legislation rather than by treaty.
There was some renewal of hostile interruption at the conclusion of Sir Robert’s speech; but it seemed clear that he felt by no means disposed to run at once a race with the Whigs in a Free-trade policy as regarded navigation; at least, it was evident from his speech that his mind was not then made up on many essential points, and, further, that he had doubts as to the wisdom or expediency of immediate and unconditional repeal.
The resolution carried by 117,
This important and remarkable debate was closed by a short speech from Lord John Russell, who apparently did not then take that interest in the question which might have been expected from his position as Prime Minister, and considering the views he had long entertained on all the great questions of progress. The House then went to a division on Mr. Herries’ amendment, or rather on the previous question, when there appeared, Ayes 294, Noes 177, being a majority of 117 in favour of going into committee upon the Navigation Laws.
but abandoned for a time.
By this decision the ground was cleared for the Ministerial measure; but as the above result was not arrived at until the 9th June, it was manifestly hopeless to expect that any Bill could be carried through both Houses of Parliament during that session; the more so as the Committee of the House of Lords was still sitting. Hence many who were anxious for a settlement, seeing the great majority by which the resolution was carried, censured Government for having delayed the measure until so late a period of the session. During the ensuing month, however, the subject was avoided on both sides; the Lords’ Committee adjourned sine die, with no other result than the printing of the evidence; and on the 10th August, when Mr. Labouchere laid his resolution in form upon the table, he announced the intention of Ministers to abandon the measure for the present session, hoping to re-introduce the subject at an early period the following year. In fact, a tacit understanding had been come to by all parties that the struggle should be deferred, and, in this spirit, Mr. Labouchere carefully avoided any remark that might lead to discussion. He, however, announced his intention of bringing in a Bill pro formâ, as preferable to making any further official statement. The original resolution was then laid on the table unopposed, although Mr. Gladstone criticised its form, and Mr. Robinson denied that the House had affirmed the principle of the Government measure; they had, he said, only negatived the counter-resolution proposed by Mr. Herries. So jealous, indeed, were the Protectionists, that they would not allow the resolution to be laid upon the table till the Minister had given his assurance that no evasion should be practised, and that the Bill should be exactly in conformity with Mr. Labouchere’s resolution. The original Bill bears date 16th August, 1848, and was prepared and brought in by Mr. Bernal, Mr. Labouchere, and Lord John Russell. It was entitled “A Bill to amend the laws in force for the Encouragement of British Shipping and Navigation.”[96] Its provisions were strictly in accordance with Mr. Labouchere’s statement and resolution, and reserved the coasting and colonial coasting trade, with power of retaliation against foreigners who might decline to reciprocate.
Temper of Shipowners.
Thus ended the first great Parliamentary struggle of 1848. The shipowners had so far succeeded that they had staved off, for a while, the impending danger; but the great majority in the Commons declaring it expedient to revise the existing laws, left no doubt on any reasonable mind that a sweeping change would be effected in the ensuing session.
It will have been noticed that the main question in any proposed alteration of the Navigation Laws was, whether foreign countries, and especially the United States, would respond to our liberal policy, and, in a spirit of fairness, make such alterations in their navigation laws, tonnage dues, and tariff, as would promote increased commercial intercourse on the footing of an honourable competition. Of course the Protectionists did not assent to all this; but the temper of the House of Commons plainly indicated that a great relaxation of restriction was inevitable, the only real doubt being as to the best mode of securing reciprocity. The Ministers of the Crown saw clearly that the shipowners were alarmed at the vast change threatened, while the periodical press, during the autumn of 1848, teemed with the most alarming statements of impending ruin to all classes connected with ships and navigation. The Shipowners’ Society gave extensive circulation to a variety of fugitive publications, all advocating the defence of the national interests and condemning indiscriminate repeal. On the other hand, there were many whose authors were strongly in favour of reciprocity;[97] the number in favour of total and unconditional repeal being comparatively few. But as “Repeal,” or “No Repeal,” was the popular cry, it became more and more manifest that unless some pledge were given that foreign nations would reciprocate our concessions, it would be difficult, with all the influence of the Free-trade party, to carry the Bill through Parliament, and especially through the Upper House.
Efforts of ministers to obtain reciprocity by a circular from the Foreign Office.
It became, therefore, of the utmost importance to extract from Foreign Powers some intimation of their intentions. Hence Lord Palmerston, in his own name, addressed a circular from the Foreign Office, dated 22nd December, 1848, to her Majesty’s diplomatic agents in various countries, requesting information on those points.
In this circular, Lord Palmerston informed his agents that the measure for modifying the Navigation Laws would be again submitted to Parliament on its re-assembling; and, as the principle of some modification had been practically accepted, there was no doubt that many extensive measures would receive the sanction of Parliament. These diplomatic agents were furnished with a statement of the existing Navigation Laws, and of the Registry Acts, together with a notice of the changes proposed; these being the sweeping away all existing restrictions, with the exception of those directly relating to the coasting trade of Great Britain and of the British possessions abroad, all other trades being thus opened to vessels of all nations. The Bill had, in fact, left to all foreign British possessions power either to open their own coasting trade, if they should think fit, or to regulate that trade with the consent of the Queen in Council. It also gave them power to deal in like manner with the trade between one colony and another.
It was likewise explained that ample powers were reserved by the Crown for the imposition of differential duties, prohibitions, and restrictions, on ships of such countries as should still subject British ships to various duties, restrictions, or prohibitions. It was further intended that the Bill should not come into operation for some months after the day on which it was passed, in order that Government might have time to ascertain the dispositions of Foreign Powers, and be able to frame proper orders for such differential duties as might be required whenever the intended relaxations should take effect towards ships of such nations as were willing to adopt the principle of reciprocity.
Finally, it was pointed out that, on the one hand, the definition of a “British ship” was no longer to signify one of British build; but only that she should be owned by a British subject, and be navigated by a crew whereof three-fourths were British subjects; the definition foreign ship being purposely omitted, in order that any ship acknowledged by the law of a particular country to be a ship of such country should be also recognised as a ship of that country by British law.
With this view, Lord Palmerston desired the diplomatic agents to inform him what restrictions were actually in force against British vessels at such countries where they were resident, what voyages they might engage in (with the goods they might carry), and what differential duties or charges, direct or indirect, they were liable to, from which the national vessels were exempt, and, above all, whether any further restrictions or differential duties were then contemplated.
In this circular Lord Palmerston disclosed the intended policy of the British Government, in that, while not attempting to make the alteration in its law strictly dependent on the legislation of other countries, it was yet prepared to consider the general policy of each State. His agents were, therefore, instructed to ascertain whether the Governments to which they were accredited would accept advances on the part of Great Britain, with the object of placing their ships on a footing of equality; the only reservation being the coasting trade; or whether they would require any particular privileges or exemptions for their national vessels, thereby rendering “it impossible for this country to concede to their shipping the whole of the advantages which would, under the contemplated measure, attach to the shipping of such States as may place British and national vessels on a footing of more perfect equality.”
Practically, Lord Palmerston offered, on the part of the British Government, to remove nearly all the restrictions of the British Navigation Law, whenever such a proposal was met in a spirit of corresponding liberality, at the same time, however, reserving the right to take such course as Government might deem necessary where no such reciprocal feeling was shown.
Reply thereto of America.
Mr. Buchanan’s letter.
It is unnecessary to enter at great length into the explanations given in reply by foreign Governments. Some of these are, however, too important to be omitted in a work of this kind. Pre-eminently the disposition of the United States, or rather the opinion of Congress, as well as of the Executive, was essentially necessary to be known on this side of the Atlantic. Consequently Mr. John F. Crampton, our Envoy at Washington, lost no time in bringing the question before the then American Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan.[98] That gentleman in reply said, that the most satisfactory answer he could give was to furnish a copy of the first section of the Act of Congress, approved on the 24th May, 1828, intituled “An Act, in addition to an Act intituled, ‘an Act concerning discriminating Duties of Tonnage and Import, and to equalise the duties on Prussian Vessels and their Cargoes.’” The substance of this law will be found in another part of this work,[99] and it will be remembered that it conferred a power on the American President to reciprocate by proclamation any abolition of discriminating duties of tonnage or imports made by foreign nations. Mr. Buchanan pointed out with just pride that Congress twenty years previously had offered reciprocity of trade to all the world, and that England might, by complying with the fair and equitable conditions of that Act, have at any moment placed her vessels and their cargoes, both in our direct and indirect foreign trade, on the same footing with those of America. Mr. Buchanan added that, previously to 1828, reciprocity in commerce and navigation had been practically adopted by his Government in specific treaties with Denmark, Sweden, the Hanseatic Republics, and Prussia, and had since been carried out in other treaties concluded with Austria, Russia, &c., all of these being still in force.
But the following remarkable observation made by Mr. Buchanan at the close of his letter, gives conclusive testimony that when Mr. Bancroft offered “to give us all,” i.e. the coasting trade, this offer was wholly unauthorized by the American Government.[100] The words of Mr. Buchanan were: “I might add that the President, in accordance with the spirit of this Act (of 1828) has already made a specific proposal to Great Britain through Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, dated 3rd November, 1847, to conclude a treaty providing that “British ships may trade from any port in the world to any port in the United States, and be received, protected, and, in respect to charges and duties, treated like American ships, if, reciprocally, American ships may in like manner trade from any port of the world to any port under the dominion of her Britannic Majesty”: but of course, this proposal was not intended to embrace the coasting trade of either country.”[101] Mr. Buchanan did not confine himself merely to this honest, frank disclaimer. While his own opinions, as well as those of the highly liberal and intelligent Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. R. J. Walker, whose admirable report was published at the same time, were decidedly in favour of meeting the change proposed by reciprocal legislation, he did not conceal from Mr. Crampton 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 formidable competition of British shipbuilders, and more particularly to that of the shipbuilders of the British North American colonies.
Many persons in England shared the apprehensions expressed by Mr. Buchanan, especially those who, having watched throughout the progress of the agitation for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, were aware of the strong Protectionist feelings then and still prevalent on the seaboard of the States, though not shared to the same extent by the non-navigating classes: they did not, therefore, believe that Congress would allow the President to put even the Act for 1828 in force without a serious struggle. However, though no opposition was offered, the expressions of Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Crampton warranted a reasonable doubt lest, when it came to the point, whether reciprocity would be granted to the ships of Great Britain. That no difficulty was started on the other side was mainly due to the meritorious reports of Mr. Walker, whose zeal in the cause of freedom of commerce and navigation deserves the highest encomium.
Reply of other Powers.
The application made to France with a view of ascertaining the disposition of the Republic to enter into a course of mutual Free-trade had no result. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in a letter dated 31st January, 1849, (misdated 1848, see p. 209), complained of our partial non-execution of the clauses of the Convention of 1826; but, as regarded future legislation, he said in substance that, as in England the question was being subjected to the gravest consideration, so in France, now that her mission was to march in the way of liberality, the greatest circumspection was necessary. The subject was referred to the competent authorities, and a few vague words about a desire on the part of the Republic to follow the principles of reciprocity closed the despatch, for whatever the opinions of the President may have been, the people of France were not then prepared to recognise the principles of Free-trade.
Sardinia expressed a very honourable desire to meet us on the basis of reciprocity. With Russia a practical reciprocity already existed. In Austria no differential duties existed between national and English vessels. The answer, however, given by Count Bülow on the part of Prussia was by no means satisfactory, inasmuch as he could give no pledge as to future legislation, the policy of Prussia being bound up with the Zollverein States. The answer from Belgium presented difficulties. That from Portugal intimated general, but very equivocating and undecided, Free-trade principles, to the effect that, as the peculiarities of the commerce of the different nations of Europe were so various, the Minister of Portugal “could not believe in the complete acquiescence of those same nations with the plan which England proposed to follow.” A glance was directed to the benefits of Free-trade, and Viscount de Castro added: “But if this is not the time for restrictions, neither can it be for Portugal that of reducing the few that exist, as that would be the means of entirely destroying the mercantile navy.” Lord Palmerston was, however, consoled for the unfavourable answer by the assurance of the Portuguese Government that whatever were the facilities the nations of Europe might adopt in correspondence with the Bill then under discussion in the British Parliament, England would not obtain from any of those nations the almost entire monopoly she then enjoyed in her maritime intercourse with Portugal. The Viscount de Castro hoped, therefore, that “in Council” no exception would be made to injure the trade of Portugal.
In spite of the want of success (and they received but scanty support) Ministers met in their applications to foreign countries for reciprocity, they resolutely persevered in their policy, resting for their chief support almost wholly on the Free-trade party in the House of Commons. The principles of Free-trade had become the established and predominant policy of the nation, and navigation alone was the exceptional branch which, until then, had successfully resisted innovation.
Progress of Free-trade views.
It was very remarkable, that in the celebrated Petition of the London merchants to the House of Commons, so far back as 1820,[102] from which the Free-trade movement may be dated, no mention is made of the Navigation Laws. Mr. Tooke, who drew the petition, directed chiefly attention to the then unacknowledged fact that freedom from restraint was calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country. That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, the rule of every merchant in his individual dealings, was as strictly applicable to the trade of the nation; but had Mr. Tooke at that time hinted anything about navigation, or the abrogation of the existing Navigation Laws, he would have exposed himself almost to personal danger. The success, however, of the Free-trade measures which had been adopted since 1842 had totally changed the current of public opinion, and it was now only the shipowners, and the still powerful Protectionist party in Parliament, which resisted this last crowning measure of Free-trade. The opposition of the shipowners arose from a deep-seated conviction that utter and inevitable ruin to their class would result from the abrogation of the Navigation Laws.
Parliament of 1849.
Parliament assembled on the 2nd of February, 1849. The commercial and manufacturing interests were rallying, but had not as yet effectually revived from the prostration occasioned by the commercial crisis of 1847, and the general want of confidence resulting from the shock of the foreign revolutions in 1848. The shipping trade was in a state of transition, as it was not until some time later that the gold discoveries in Australia gave a fresh impulse to the “long voyage” trade, and that towards a region of the globe which promised but a slow, however certain, future development of wealth and navigation. The shipowners were, in fact, still suffering a periodical depression of trade after two or three very prosperous years.
In the Speech from the Throne delivered by her Majesty in person, she said: “I again commend to your attention the restrictions imposed on commerce by the Navigation Laws. If you shall find that these laws are, in whole or in part, unnecessary for the maintenance of our maritime power while they fetter trade and industry, you will no doubt deem it right to repeal or modify their provisions.”
Death of Lord George Bentinck, 21st September, 1848.
When the House of Commons assembled, a great void was felt in the absence of Lord George Bentinck, who, during the recess, had been snatched away by death in the very pride of manhood. His devotion to the cause of the shipowners and Protectionist principles rendered his loss deeply felt by many classes. On the day of his interment, which was dark, cold, and drizzling, this feeling of respect was paid in a manner almost reverential. From nine till eleven o’clock that day all the British shipping in the docks and in the river, from London Bridge to Gravesend, hoisted flags half-mast high, and minute guns were fired from appointed stations along the Thames. The same mournful ceremony was observed in all the ports of the United Kingdom; and not only in these, for the flag was half-mast high on every British ship at Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Havre.[103] Whatever may have been the political errors of Lord George Bentinck, he was eminently the friend and champion of the shipowners. Shortly before his death he had renounced the leadership of his party in the House of Commons, and Mr. Disraeli had succeeded him. In the House of Lords the re-appointment of the committee of the preceding year was slightly mentioned; but upon an intimation from the Marquess of Lansdowne that the measure to be introduced by Government would not be delayed for the report of this committee, the shipowners abandoned whatever designs some of them may have had to prolong the inquiry.
Mr. Labouchere’s new resolution, February 14, 1849.
On the 14th February Mr. Labouchere, still President of the Board of Trade, moved a fresh resolution almost in the identical terms employed in the preceding year. He recapitulated at great length the arguments in favour of repeal which he had employed in the previous session. It will be unnecessary to dwell upon these here; but his new light with regard to the coasting trade deserves a place in tracing the progress of our mercantile marine: on this branch of the subject he seemed to tremble before the superior abilities of Mr. Gladstone; and the remarks of that gentleman intimating a strong desire to surrender the coasting trade, with a view to obtain in return that of the United States, evidently made considerable impression upon his mind, so that he scarcely knew what to grant or refuse. Mr. Gladstone asked, not merely that we should give colonial trade for colonial trade, but our coasting trade for theirs. It was asserted that the American trade, say from New York to California, was a foreign, or colonial, rather than a coasting traffic. But to argue that a voyage from London to Malta was to be held part of a colonial trade, while a voyage from California to New York was to be considered part of a coasting trade, was preposterous, and Mr. Labouchere affected to believe that the United States would not persist in a policy so contrary to the dictates of justice and common sense.[104]
Proposed change in the coasting trade.
The fresh consideration which Mr. Labouchere had given to his measure enabled him now to propose a plan which, while it did not imply a total abolition of all restrictions, would effect a considerable modification of them, and at the same time enable us, as he conceived, to get, without cavil or hesitation, such a measure from America as the important interests of this country demanded, without exposing our revenue to danger, or exciting alarm among those engaged in the coasting trade of this country.[105] Such were the sanguine but vain expectations of Mr. Labouchere. He tried to make it appear that there were two branches of the coasting trade, which, although they went by the same name, were yet essentially distinct from each other. There was the trade, conducted principally either by steamboats or small vessels, consisting in the carrying of goods and passengers to and fro, and depending on local connection with the places between which the trade was conducted. With that trade foreigners could not compete; and, consequently, he illogically argued that it was not intended to disturb that trade or throw it open to foreign competition; so that he proposed to keep the coasting trade, which consisted of passing from one port to another of the United Kingdom, on its present footing. Government had, however, he said, resolved to abolish restrictions which prevented the combination of a coasting with a foreign voyage. It was not proposed that either a foreign vessel or an English vessel foreign bound should be allowed to proceed from port to port in England and then return; but that sailing from a British port, and being bound for a foreign port, they should be permitted to carry from one British port to another, and then clear out and proceed on their voyage. The Customs’ authorities reported that this could be done consistently with safety to the revenue, provided there was a restriction that the cargoes should not be carried in vessels under 100 tons burden, so as to prevent smuggling, although, as a matter of fact, the light dues and other charges must effectually prevent such a trade. Such was the bungling scheme respecting the coasting trade proposed by Mr. Labouchere, whereby he attempted to satisfy all parties, and bring the Americans to terms.
Mr. Bancroft recalcitrates.
Hence withdrawal of the coasting clauses.
When Alderman Thompson asked whether any intimation had been received from the American Government as to any convention with respect to the coasting trade, Mr. Labouchere answered, that in a recent interview he had had with Mr. Bancroft, that gentleman said, “he should be willing the next day to sign any convention which should include the coasting trade”, and Mr. Labouchere believed him to be sincere;[106] though, by Mr. Buchanan’s letter of the 9th February (which had not yet reached England), the American Secretary of State had expressly said, “the coasting trade is of course reserved.” As a matter of course, when Mr. Buchanan’s letter reached England all Mr. Labouchere’s visions of reciprocity in the coasting trade vanished. At a subsequent period Mr. Labouchere, curiously enough, entered into a defence of Mr. Bancroft, “who was a most honourable and straightforward man.” Be that, however, as it may, he certainly deceived Mr. Labouchere; and, indeed, Lord Palmerston also, who up to the 5th March, expressed himself in the strongest manner that the reply of the American Government would fully bear out Mr. Bancroft’s pledges. Such was the ignominious rejection of these clauses relating to the coasting trade, which had been inserted in the Bill of 1849 to meet “the conciliatory disposition” of Mr. Bancroft, but which his superiors at Washington sternly and unequivocally repudiated.
The debate.
Alderman Thompson, &c.
Mr. Ricardo.
The debate on Mr. Labouchere’s resolution brought out again all Mr. Herries’ arguments and adverse predictions about repeal. Alderman Thompson complained that the United States minister was recalled with every change of Presidency, and that Mr. Bancroft was notoriously more liberal than President Taylor, who had been elected upon the principle of Protection to native industry. Mr. Banks, Mr. Hildyard, Sir John Tyrrell, and the Marquess of Granby followed Mr. Herries and Alderman Thompson in the same line of objection; whilst Mr. Hume, Colonel Thompson, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. John Williams, maintained the Free-trade line of argument. Mr. J. L. Ricardo vehemently supported the extreme views of Free-trade, and said emphatically to the shipowners: “Depend upon yourselves—depend upon your energies as Englishmen—depend upon the resources of this country and the wealth which commands the resources of the world, and do not trust to Acts of Parliament. It would be better to send forth our ships free as the winds which filled their sails, with liberty to go where they would, and come from where it suited them, than to start them from our ports encumbered with the 8 & 9 Vict. cap. 88, and ballasted with twelve volumes of Hertslet’s ‘Commercial Treaties.’” The resolution was agreed to without a trial of strength, and the Bill was brought in.[107] It contained twenty-three clauses.
Meeting of the Shipowners’ Society.
Upon the 2nd March, the second reading of the Bill having been fixed for the 9th March, the General Shipowners’ Society held their annual meeting at the London Tavern. Their accustomed comments upon lights, harbours, and pilotage; discriminating duties in foreign ports; the East Indian salt monopoly; the Merchant Seamen’s Act; the Passengers’ Act; the Merchant Seamen’s Fund, and a variety of other points, which, at ordinary times, usually occupied a large share of their attention and space in their report—were on this occasion all subordinate to the one question of all-absorbing consequence, the threatened impending repeal of the Navigation Laws. To discuss special regulations affecting maritime commerce, while the whole question of general policy trembled in the balance, was both inconvenient and embarrassing.
Their report.
The committee narrated at great length the various steps taken by Government since 1846 with regard to the Navigation Laws. In reviewing the evidence taken before both Houses, the shipowners made it appear that they were completely triumphant in establishing all the various points on which they took their ground; viz., that no evil susceptible of any remedy had been or could be proved, arising from the practical operation of the Navigation Laws: that the maintenance of the Protective principle on which those laws were founded was indispensable to the maintenance of an extensive mercantile marine: that the preservation of such a mercantile marine was equally necessary for the existence of a powerful navy: and that, hence, the repeal of the Navigation Laws would involve danger to the basis of our national defence.
Having proclaimed their own triumph, they next turned their attention to the Bill then before the public, and, pointing out the unsparing criticism it had provoked, demanded the strenuous and uncompromising resistance, not only of every shipowner, but of every friend to his country. They accordingly denounced it “as fraught with consequences destructive to the shipping interest, and dangerous to the welfare and safety of the country;” in short, as one of the most unjust measures ever submitted to Parliament.
The Committee next proceeded to analyse the Bill, justifying their censure of its provisions. It was said to be a concession to the demands of the West Indies and Canada. The demand having been made under an official stimulant, the West Indian interest, perceiving their error, they alleged, has now disclaimed it, and publicly declared that they have no desire for the repeal. Canada, with selfish and precipitate incaution, had put forward a similar demand; but the demand for free navigation was coupled in the same document with an inconsistent claim for the re-enactment of a Protective duty in favour of her agricultural produce. The expectation of benefit entertained by the Canadians from the repeal of the Navigation Laws had, in the opinion of the shipowners, as little real foundation as those the West Indians had first entertained, but subsequently abandoned. Their Committee expressed doubt of any beneficial reciprocity from the United States, especially as any commercial treaty must be controlled by two-thirds of the Senate.[108] They treated the power of re-imposing restrictions as in principle opposed to every prudent rule of State policy. The coasting-trade clauses, of course, met with condemnation. If, they asserted, the censure cast upon shipmasters was deserved, the injustice to the owner was flagrant. If unmerited, the measure was sustained by cruel calumny.
The manning-clause grievance.
But the most notorious as well as the most important and disqualifying inconsistency was the compulsion on a British shipowner to man his ship with British seamen. This was magnified into a stupendous grievance. It was said to force the shipowner to conduct his affairs contrary to his conviction of his own interest, and according to the arbitrary dictates of an inconsistent and tyrannical Act of Parliament. The Committee, kindling with indignation at the mere recital of their grievances, averred that if the Navigation Laws were repealed, a British registry must be regarded as a badge of slavery, and an instrument of oppressive interference; nor did they doubt that to escape its bonds, unaccompanied as it then would be by any benefit whatsoever, British capital would to a great extent be invested in foreign shipping, to be engaged in the British carrying trade.
Policy proposed.
With these views, they enjoined union among themselves. They trusted that shipowners would abstain from promulgating separate opinions, or allow themselves to be drawn into controversy and disunion, as, by these means, successful resistance would be impossible. They called on the shipowners at the several outports to send deputies to the “central committee in London for upholding the principles of the Navigation Laws.”
By these means, they argued that there would be an opportunity for a careful consideration of the future steps to be taken during the progress of the Bill through the House of Commons. They further suggested, that every possible endeavour should be made to enlist the sympathy and engage the support of other powerful interests. The principle they proposed was the disclaiming all desire for monopoly, and the advocacy of such moderate and just protection to all interests as would admit of foreign competition, so far as might be sufficient to stimulate to the utmost domestic energies, but, at the same time, would limit this competition within such bounds as to prevent domestic energies from being crushed in the struggle. They concluded by reminding the shipowners that “Union is Strength,” and by expressing a fervent hope that this contest, which their enemies had insultingly designated as a struggle “for the last rag of Protection,” would, in its results, roll back the tide on their opponents, thus leading to the universal application of the principles of just and moderate protection to domestic interests, and superseding for ever the rash and delusive theories which, in recent legislation, had successively involved every interest of the State in difficulty, distress, and ruin.
Agitation in the country.
The agitation thus invoked by the central body of shipowners in London was responded to by their fellow-shipowners throughout the country. Meetings were held at Belfast, Bristol, Dartmouth, Devonport, Dunfermline, Dundee, Exeter, Exmouth, Fleetwood, Glasgow, Gateshead, Hull, Hartlepool, London, Liverpool, Leith, Lynn, Montrose, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Portsmouth, Penzance, Perth, Sunderland, Shields, St. Andrews, Swansea, Saltash, Tynemouth, Weymouth, and Yarmouth. The petition from London was signed by 27,000 persons of the most respectable classes; while that from Liverpool comprised 24,700 names, not shipowners exclusively. This petition, eloquently drawn up, expressed alarm at the progress of a measure which proposed to take away from this country advantages it had so long and so successfully enjoyed, and to invite, unwisely, foreign nations to share those advantages with us; nations, too, utterly unable, even if willing, to confer on us any adequate equivalent in return. It pointed at the evident result of the substitution, to a great extent, of foreign for British and colonial shipping, the employment of foreign labour and capital in lieu of our own, and the creation of new relations between foreign nations and our own colonies; thereby weakening the ties which bind the latter to the mother-country, and diminishing British power and influence throughout the world. They did not fail to show, above all, the consequences the measure would have on the supply of seamen to the Royal Navy.
The second reading of the Bill was fixed for the 9th March, when each party mustered all its forces. The shipowners throughout the kingdom were in a state of great excitement. It was true that among them were many who were ready to accept the measure as proposed by Government, if other nations would only reciprocate; and there were even a few who were so extreme in their views of Free-trade as to desire that the Bill should be carried as it stood, but the majority were vehemently opposed to repeal; and, though some fears were entertained that the second reading of the Bill would be carried in the House of Commons, it was confidently anticipated that a considerable majority in the Lords would, under the brilliant leadership of Lord Stanley (Lord Derby), who had warmly espoused their cause, defeat its progress and throw out the Whig administration.