POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY.
In the House of Commons, last night, the adjourned debate on the alavigation-laws was continued to a division' with speeches of greater 'nark than any which has been delivered on the previous evenings; and the amendment was negatived, by 294 to 177. The speakers were—for the amentment, Lord GEORGE BENTIRCK, Admiral BOWLES, and, Mr. Inssastr; against it, Mr. Hums, Mr. COBDEN, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Lord JOBE RUSSELL.
Lord GEORGE BENTIECE addressed himself to a copious display of statistics, for the purpose of showing, first, that Mr. James Wilson had been guilty of serious errors; and next, that British merchants and seamen, however energetic and enterprising, would not be able to cope with the rivalry of the United States and other foreign countries, if they were admitted to a participation of the carrying trade. For example, Lord George read a letter to Mr. J. Cooke, a broker in the City, in which it was stated that there were American vessels in the River with 16,927 boxes of Cuba sugar, and that it was 2s. per hundredweight cheaper in consequence of being brought in foreign vessels; but in consequence of the Navi- gation-laws it was not admissible into this country. Let those colonists who were foolish enough to petition for the repeal of the Navigation-laws be aware, then, that they would have 16,900 more boxes of Cuba sugar in the market, and 2s. lower in price than they would afford to sell it at. Lord George attacked the free trade o(1846, for producing the dire consequences which we have since felt, in a ruined trade and starving people; and he warned Ministers against a further attempt to lay the iron hand of competition on our shipping. On the whole, however, Lord George's speech was less distinguished than usual by vivacity and personality. Mr. COBDEN endeavoured less to invent and parade new arguments or oratori- cal illustrations than to place the main reasons upon which the advocates of re- peal had necessarily relied in a close and consecutive form. He showed from evidence, that we can build ships better than foreign countries, as cheaply; sail them as well; take greater care of the cargoes, and secure greater punctuality and despatch; our sailors having the greatest natural aptitude for the sea of any in the world. The only drawbacks are of a moral kind—insubordination and drunkenness; but they will yield to better culture. Alluding to one part of Mr. Gladstone's speech, Mr. Cobden reminded him that reciprocity has already been promised on the part of America and Prussia.
Mr. Cobden repudiated the boastful language which he so often heard with regret respecting England's naval supremacy.. He must say that those boasts were generally uttered after dinner' and therefore they might be the result of a little extra excitement. (" Ole t" and groans.) The abolition of the Naviga- tion-laws would not affect the naval condition of Great Britain. But was this a time to be always singing " Rule Britannia "? (" Hear, hear! " and laughter.) If honourable Members opposite had served with him upon the Committee on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates, they would have a just sense of the cost of that song. The constant assertion of warlike 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. Freedom of trade and intercourse blends the interests of na- tions together, and places one of the most potential obstacles in the way of war. Mr. DISRAELI made a somewhat desultory speech, copious in statistics and commentary. • He had described the Manchester-Free Trade school as arguing in a vicious circle, to make out their promise of perpetual advantages: that promise had been disproved by the events; and Mr. Cobden now became the advocate of a new vicious circle, endeavouring to prove that this country ought to take its share in universal disaster. Mr. Disraeli avowed that he was there to advocate the present system, which has worked with great advantage to the State; and he undertook to show that the arguments against it are unsubstantial and fallacious. For in- stance, it is said that the country successfully competes with the foreigner in the export trade: he denied it. Every one knows that if a large order is given from America for iron, they make it a condition that it shall be exported in American ships. Within a day or two, a large order had been given from the French Go- vernment for coal; audit was a condition of the contract that it should be exported in French ships. Mr. Disraeli plunged into a mass of statistics to establish this posi- tion, and to show that Mr. James Wilson had tampered with conclusions. He in- sisted that the Colonies cannot be proved to have suffered from the Navigation- laws; read evidence given before the Lords' Committee, to show that Prussia cannot retaliate and the United States cannot reciprocate; and advised Ministers, whose new Vice-President of the Board of Trade stands amazed between the bland smiles of Mr. Bancroft and the bowl and dagger of the Chevalier Bunsen, to make themselves better acquainted with the facts and mature their position a little more, as there is nothing more fatal to national interests than the recklessness of ignorance. He would not sing "Rule Britannia," for fear of distressing Mr. Cob- den; but he did not think that the House would encore "Yankee Doddle." Mr. Labouchere_described this as "the age of commerce, peace, and internal improve- ment": on the contrary, it is the age of no trade, of intended war, and of Com- munist bands tearing up railways. Looking at the state of the dontinent, Mr. Cobden probably was not now so devoted a believer in the guess gentium sine amnia. Mr. Disraeli, at all events, could not share the responsibility of endanger- ing that empire which extends beyond the Americas and the "farthest Ind, was foreshadowed by the genius of a Blake, and consecrated by the blood of a Nelson —the empire of the seas. (Cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL made the speech of the debate. When he rose, he was met by a stormof hostile noises from the Protectionists, answered by cheers from the benches on the Ministerial side of the House. The Protectionists made a distinct and bold attempt to shout him down, with ironical cheering, cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide, divide!" repeated occasionally for some time. This substitution of clamour for argument was rebuked by Sir Robert, as confessing the want of confidence among those who resorted to it in their own arguments; and the inde- cent tumult was silenced.
Sir Robert then proceeded, in a very closely argued and substantial speech, to prove that, in spite of casual disaster, the advantages of free trade were manifest in the extension of commerce. It was not of course intended to say that the ad- mission of raw material under the tariffs of 1842 and 1846 had injuriously affected the trade of the country. The ground of objection must be, that it was wrong to- admit foreign manufactures in competition with our own. (Cheers from the Protectionists.) Every article of foreign manufacture it is said, throws out of employment thousands of native workmen. (" Hear, gear!") But what a doctrine is that for a great manufacturing nation, which exports 58,000,000/. in declared value of its own manufactures! Admit that doctrine, and foreign countries must regard us not as the benefactors but as the enemies of human happiness. Look at the progressive increase of exports under free trade—from 37,000,0001. a year, in the five years ending with 1832, to 55,000,000L in the last five years, and 58,971,0001- in the last year, 1847, a year of severe depression. I et it is said that free trade has failed—that we do nothing but import, and that we purchase our imports with gold ! The period has now arrived when it is de-irable to revise the Navigation-laws. "
If! look to the position of our Colonies, after the application of the principles of free trade to many articles of their produce—if I look to the fact of many Eu- ropean countries having found out that they have a fair claim to insist on those Pzivdegea in navigation which you insist on for yourselves-ail hook to oar re- ciprocity treaties, and to the various complicated claims arising under them—if I look to the mutilated and shattered state of the Navigation-laws, as they now exist—I find a number of concurrent reasons for deliberately thinking that we should consider whether those laws should stand on their present foundation, or whether we should consider them with a view to extensive change." The speech of the honourable Member for Buckinghamshire scarcely teeehed the question. If he could have shown that the relaxation of the Navigation.. lawswould diminish our means of national defence, and endanger the national security, Sir Robert, differing in this respect from the honourable Member for the West Riding, thought that a powerful, perhaps a fatal objection, might be urged against sacrificing the national security to any interest. But did the Navigation- laws conduce to that end? The amendment called upon them to maintain the "fundamental principles" of the Navigation-laws: now what were those princi- ples? The Navigation-laws were established to destroy the maritime power of the Dutch; but what was their effect P—To give the Dutch a direct advantage over us in the intercourse with the United States; those formidable competitors. As laid down by Adam Smith. the principles of the Navigation-laws apply to the coasting trade, the carrying trade, the fisheries, and the colonial intercourse. The fisheries and coasting trade are to be preserved by Government. In the other respects the Navigation-laws have been completely mutilated by the reciprocity treaties. Mr. Berries avowed that he had laboured night and day with Mr. Huskisson, and was prepared to carry Mr. Huskisson's reciprocity principles still further: yet there was no greater breach of the fundamental principles of the Navigation- laws than the reciprocity system. And in the face of this, Mr. Berries came down and exhibited his "fundamental principles"! When Adam Smith wrote, he did not foresee the separation of the United States; but from that period scare/ a year had passed without an infringement of their "fundamental prin- ciples. And he must here observe, that on the occasion of every such infringe- ment there was precisely the same sort of outcry of "ruin to the shipowner." In 1782, when they wished to admit Ireland to participation in the Colonial trade, the shipowners loudly complained; and those of Liverpool, in a petition which they addressed to that House declared that "if any. such thing were permitted,Liverpool must inevitably be ;educed to its original insignificance." ("Hear!
and laughter.) As to the national defence, it is in the commercial marine and the number of our seamen that we must place our reliance in time of war. Now the tonnage of this country has increased from 2,792,000 in 1836 to 3,952,000 in 1847: our seamen, from 117,000 in 1814 to 232,000 in 1847. Impressment applies equally whether the Navigation-laws be maintained or not: but the time has arrived when it is incumbent on Parliament to consider whether it will ever be possible again to put that system into operation; and its value has been much reduced by the introduction of steam navigation. On the other hand, compare our favourable position with that of other countries. The Baltic ports are closed by ice four months in every year. France has a strict navigation-law: has it im- proved her commercial marine? Does it not, on the contrary, suggest a doubt whether naval superiority does not depend on the habits, pursuits, inclinations, and associations of a people, rather than on any code of laws whatever? (Much cheering.) In most items of expense, it was shown-by Captain Briggs—" hailing from Baltimore," the master of a liner between the United States and this coun- try, a most intelligent witness—that the balance is in favour of the British shipowner.
Touching upon the particular measure before the House, Sir Robert Pester- pressed an apprehension that the power proposed to be given to the Crown, ofae- establishing restrictions after a trade had once been opened, would be most diffi- cult in operation: it looked very like inverting the usual order of the constitution. The House of Commons would relax, while the Crown would restrain; and he feared that that was a position which the Crown would find difficult and un- pleasant. (" Hear, hear!") He thought it would be much better to • give a temporary force to the act; sending it back to the Commons, say at the end of five years.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL briefly wound up the debate; the necessity of a detailed reply, he said, being obviated by Sir Robert Peel's excellent speech.
The House divided—for Mr. Herries's amendment, 177; against it, 294; majority, 117. The House went into Committee; the resolutions were agreed to, and reported; and bills founded on them were introduced, a little before three o'clock this morning.
Early in the evening, in reply to Mr. Hums, Lord JOHN Russau, said, that on Friday the 16th, he would be prepared to make a statement; ex- plaining the views of the Government on the present condition of the West Indies; and that the mail of the 17th would be detained one day, in order to take out the earliest intelligence to the Colonies. The first order of the day on Thursday next would be the Public Health Bill.
In the House of Lords, the Royal Assent was given, by Commission, to the Tobago Relief and Immigration &e. Bill, the Removal of Aliens Bill, and many other bills, mostly of a private nature.
There was a discussion on the second reading of the Registration of Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill and the Marriages (Scotland) Bill, moved by Lord Camriistr- Several Peers objected, not so much to the main objects of the bills, which assimilate the Scotch to the English law, as to the'oon- templated machinery ; they deeming it needless cumbersome, and costly. The bills, however, were read a second time, and referred to a Select Com- mittee.
Both Houses stand adjourned till Thursday the 15th instant.
Previous page
