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.