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.