Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

thinking that the inter-colonial trade and the direct trade between the Colonies and foreign States should not be removed from beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament. The Government Bill contemplated such removal, which he regarded as another flaw in its construction. Imperfect, however, as the measure was, he could not refuse his assent to the proposition for its second reading, as in Committee opportunities might be of fered of correcting what he conceived to be material defects in it.

Mr. Robinson regarded the speech of the right honourable Gentleman as a powerful argument against the whole proposal before the House. If the measure were to be forced upon the country, the least that the interests affected might look for was, that our legislation on the subject should be conditional. The condition of our labouring population, the state of our finances, and the exigencies of our royal marine, all appealed against the passing of the measure before the House. The only shipping interest that would benefit by it would be that of our most active and most formidable rival.

Mr. Mitchell, in supporting the Bill, exposed some fallacies used by its opponents, and agreed with much that had fallen from Mr. Gladstone, although the speech of the right honourable Gentleman was, in its general turn, such as he was surprised to hear from so distinguished an advocate of free trade. The right honourable Gentleman could not have taken a more effectual mode to damage the whole scheme. He (Mr. Mitchell) did not believe that the general rate of freights would decline in consequence of the repeal of the Navigation Laws; but their repeal would enable us to escape the

inordinately high freights which, in times of sudden emergency, we were called upon to pay. The result of the measure before the House would be the equalization, and not the general reduction, of freights.

Mr. Warne, Mr. C. Bruce, and Mr. Hildyard condemned the Bill as injurious to British interests, and beneficial only to the foreigner.

Mr. Ricardo, after commenting upon the plan proposed by Mr. Gladstone, observed that, although he had closely watched the debate since its commencement, he had heard no argument urged in opposition to the measure which had not been refuted over and over again. The honourable Gentleman then went briefly into the general question, enforcing, but by new illustrations, the arguments of those who had preceded him, in support of the measure.

Admiral Bowles was only strengthened in his opposition to the Bill by what he had heard. during the course of the debate. Our mercantile and our national marine were inseparably connected, and must stand or fall together. The proposal before the House, by endangering the one, menaced the destruction of the other.

Mr. Drummond treated Mr. Gladstone as speaking on one side and voting on the other; as being, in fact, two persons in one. The Bill would not drive capital out of the country to employ foreigners abroad; its results would be to keep capital in the country to employ foreigners here. If there was a Satanic school of politics, this was certainly it. The best argument against this measure, proposed by Lord Grey's Cabinet, was to be found in a speech delivered some years ago by Lord Howick.

Mr. Labouchere argued the question upon the ground of British interests, not omitting the shipping interest itself, the advantage of which he regarded as deeply involved in the success of the measure before the House. The question then before the House was the principle of the Bill; and he did not look for the vote of any honourable Member in favour of it who did not admit the propriety of a departure from the system of the Navigation Laws. He avowed his readiness to consider any suggestions in reference to the details of the measure, provided they were not inconsistent with the principle on which the Bill was introduced. The right honourable Gentleman then briefly recapitulated the arguments which he had formerly offered in connection with the colonial, long voyage, and coasting branches of the subject. He saw no reason why the present retention of the Timber Duties should operate as a bar to the immediate repeal of the Navigation Laws. As to Mr. Gladstone's suggestion, he thought that the House would take a narrow and erroneous view of the true policy of the country were they to adopt it. Mr. Gladstone had claimed Mr. Huskisson as an authority in favour of his suggestion, but he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that the high authority of Mr. Huskisson was opposed to the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion, and in favour of the policy proposed by the Government. He did not think that our commercial policy should be made to depend upon the views and caprices of foreign States. He hoped that the House would well consider the subject before it adopted Mr. Gladstone's suggestion. In committee ample opportunity would

be offered of considering that suggestion in all its bearings. He concluded by urging upon the House the absolute necessity which existed for settling this important question without delay.

Mr. Muntz inferred from Mr. Labouchere's speech that he had great doubts as to the result of his own measure. The repeal of the Navigation Laws would diminish the returns and profits of British shipping. If not, why repeal them? But there was one advantage which would be derived from their repeal. Their existence was the only excuse now remaining for the failure of free trade. He would help the Government to get rid of this remaining excuse, when free trade might be fairly tested by its fruits. Having stripped every other class of protection, he did not think it fair to protect a particular class. When the Navigation Laws were repealed, it would be difficult to say who would be the gainers.

Mr. Scholefield observed that, in his opinion, the people of Birmingham would be gainers by the repeal of the Navigation Laws.

Mr. Muntz did not mean to say that his constituents would not gain by their repeal. All that he meant was that one class would gain at the expense of another, but there would be no national gain.

The House then divided, and the numbers were—

For Mr. Herries' amendment (that the Bill be read a second time that day six months) 210 Against it

Majority

[ocr errors]

266

56

On the motion for going into Committee on the Navigation Bill on the 23rd of March, an announcement was made by Mr. Labouchere, of a material alteration

which the Government intended to adopt in the measure. He had, in introducing the Bill, proposed, under certain modifications, to admit foreign nations to a share of the coasting trade. At that time he believed that such a proposal would not involve a loss to the revenue. He was bound to say that he was no longer of that opinion. He had received a communication, some time ago, from the Head Commissioner of Customs, stating that he had come to the conclusion that it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to frame any regulations which would not leave the revenue exposed to the greatest danger, if they allowed vessels, either British or foreign, to combine the coasting with the foreign voyage. Under these circumstances, he was bound to state that he would not feel justified in pressing the House to adopt that part of the Bill which, in a modified degree, threw open the coasting trade of the country. He took the whole blame to himself for having hastily submitted to the House the proposal which he now withdrew. The Bill, as thus altered, would stand pretty much the same as when proposed during the previous Session of Parlia

ment.

Mr. Gladstone, having taken objection, on the second reading, to the clause proposed to be omitted, would not take exception to the course now proposed by the right honourable Gentleman. He then briefly drew the attention of the House to the subject of conditional relaxation, to which he had, on a former occasion, adverted at some length. It was not his intention to trouble the House with an amendment. Had he done so, he should have proposed a clause for

conditional legislation, and several clauses embodying legislative provisions of a direct character. His plan would have been to divide the whole maritime trade of the country into two classifications-first, that which related to our trade with foreign countries; and, secondly, that which related to our domestic trade, including that coastwise and colonial. He would then have proposed, that when any country was disposed to give a perfect freedom to British ships in regard to its foreign trade, it should receive in return a perfect freedom in regard to our foreign trade; and that when it was disposed to give us a perfect freedom in regard to all its maritime trade, it should enjoy the same, so far as our maritime trade was concerned, foreign and domestic, including in the latter the colonial and coasting trade. He would then have asked the House to deal with the colonial trade, irrespective of what foreign nations might be inclined to do in the matter. He would also have proposed a clause respecting the importation of tropical produce, after which he would have submitted a provision absolutely repealing every restraint, in the nature of a tax, on the British shipowner. Such was the outline of the plan which it had been at one time his intention to propose; after adverting to which he proceeded to explain to the House why it was that he had since abandoned that intention. It was his wish to see the Navigation Laws repealed, but repealed in a manner which would have prevented any serious shock to the great interests involved. But it was evidently the disposition of the shipowners to stand at all hazards by the present law, or to permit but few and inconsiderable

alterations in it. He could not, therefore, look for any support from them, if he submitted his proposition to the House. Nor had he until that moment entirely abandoned the hope that the Government might have introduced some modifications into their measure, which would to some extent have met the views which he had ventured to submit on the second reading of the Bill. But this, it was now evident, they were not disposed to do. Both the Government and the party representing the views of the shipowners seemed to prefer a decisive course upon the whole question; and, as his intention had never been to propose any plan for the mere purpose of obstruction, he thought that it would not now conduce to the public advantage, if, by submitting his plan, he wasted the time of the House in fruitless discussions. As the issue then to which the matter had been brought was between the continuance of the present law and its unconditional repeal, he would not be responsible for any course which might result in retarding the repeal of the law, preferring, as he did, the plan of the Government, with all its defects, to the continuance of the present system.

Mr. Herries made some animadversions upon the singular conduct of the Government in regard to the alterations in the Bill just announced, and observed that, in his opinion, in the position in which the proposers and abettors of the measure now stood, the best course would be to withdraw the Bill altogether for the Session. He would not obstruct it in its progress through Committee, but should offer the most determined opposition to the third reading.

The clauses affecting the coast-
VOL. XCI.

ing trade were then struck out, but some further amendments, proposed by various Members, were negatived. The only feature in the discussion worthy of notice was a speech of Mr. Disraeli, containing some caustic remarks upon Mr. Gladstone's conduct, which he declared his inability to comprehend. Mr. Gladstone, in a temperate but spirited manner, vindicated his own consistency.

He knew that he should have been supported at first, but not with a bona fide acceptance of his proposition; it was merely wished to make a tool of him against a plan of which in its general objects he approved, and then to abandon him on the third reading of the Bill.

He then adverted to some observations made by Mr. Disraeli as to the evil effects of free trade, maintaining that it was to free trade, under the mercy of God, it was mainly owing that the distress which the country had lately suffered had not been much greater.

Upon the third reading of the Bill being moved, on the 23rd of April, the opponents of free trade again exerted their efforts to prevent its passing into a law. The Opposition was headed by Mr. Herries, who moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The longer the measure continued under discussion, the more cogent appeared to him to be the reasons assignable against it. He would not then dwell upon the arguments

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

highly civilized, and over-burdened country, it was impossible to compete, in the business of shipbuilding, with poorer and less burdened States; but he would proceed to state the circumstances which had arisen since the introduction of the Bill, and which had, in his opinion, rendered utterly valueless the whole foundation on which it was made to rest. The delusion which for some weeks had been palmed off upon the House, to the effect that the public mind at home was favourable to the measure, had vanished. The current of public opinion had set strongly in against the Bill, which had been framed, from the very first, in so exceptionable a manner that no modifications could render it acceptable to the Opposition. It was now at tempted to be shown that, after all, there was nothing to surrender. This he flatly denied, and it was obviously the opinion of the Government itself that it was not an unimportant matter that the shipping interest was called upon to give up. This part, therefore, of the foundation of the Bill had failed. The opinions and wishes of the colonies were also relied upon for its support. But what the colonies wanted was not a repeal of the Navigation Laws as an equivalent for the loss of protection, but a return to protection, amongst other reasons, as an equivalent for the Navigation Laws. Here, again, the foundation of the Bill had given way. The third ground on which it had been made to rest was the assumed willingness of Foreign Powers to meet us in this matter. But neither from the continent of Europe nor from America had any tidings been received to justify such an assumption. The golden promises which had been made to

us with respect to the liberality and generosity of America were now at an end; and here again the foundation of the Bill had proved itself to be one of sand. He thought that the consideration of all these circumstances should induce the Government, if not entirely to abandon the Bill, to postpone it at least for another year. He then went on to show that commerce had emphatically spoken out in opposition to the Bill, and that, in a fiscal point of view, it would be disastrous. He also urged that its adoption would alienate masses of the population from the Government, and thus strengthen the hands of the "Manchester demagogues," and concluded by imploring the House not to enter, without either reason or necessity, on so dangerous an experiment.

Mr. Robinson, in a short speech, seconded the amendment.

Mr. M'Gregor supported the Bill at considerable length. He took an elaborate view of the Navigation Laws, and argued that this country had no reason to dread foreign competition in ship. ping. At the same time, if free trade were established, he thought the shipowner and shipbuilder had a strong claim to be relieved from all burthens which restricted the building of vessels.

Mr. Walpole opposed the measure in an able and argumentative speech, in which he considered the subject historically, economically, and nationally. He laid great stress on the connection between a flourishing mercantile marine and the naval supremacy of the country, and came to the conclusion that, whatever gain might be reaped by individuals, the repeal of the Navigation Laws

« ZurückWeiter »