Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Lord Brougham rose immediately after Lord Lansdowne, and made an unexpected speech in support of his vote against the second reading of the Bill. He commenced with a personal exordium. Not many hours ago he had been taunted in quarters from which, accustomed as his political experience had made him to the extraordinary evolutions of statesmen-(Laughter)--such taunts had come upon him with all the charm of novelty and surprise-that he of all people, who had so lately signalized himself by joining in a great victory over the exploded policy of the olden times in that House, did not now join in placing the last crown upon the column of free trade. Of all the incredible events in his political and party experience, this was the most incredible, that from that quarter he should be taunted with "inconsistency." He gloried in the subject-matter of that taunt. If any passage in his life was dear to his remembrance-any one drop of the cup more peculiarly sweet to his palate-it was the recollection of those distinguished individuals, those eminent statesmen, whose support he obtained after a long life of political hostility to them, and who when they gave up their prejudices against free trade, joined him in helping to carry the Cornlaw repeal.

After this introduction, Lord Brougham gave his express and most positive denial to the statement that the present question was one of free trade, or had anything at all to do with free trade; citing Adam Smith, Presidents Washing ton and Madison, and Mr. Huskisson, all free traders, in favour of the doctrine that opulence is less important than defence, and in

support of the policy of encouraging our own shipping and discouraging foreign shipping in order to secure our maritime supremacy. He repeated those criticisms already made familiar in Parliament upon the Board of Trade statistics, which professed to show that our marine had increased to such and such an amount, and that of America to such and such another amount, but which gave the whole of the British shipping and only part of the American, and which swelled the estimates of British tonnage by reckoning one vessel as 145 vessels because it made 145 voyages in the year. On the colonial bearing of the question, he observed that as long ago as 1815 he had differed from his great master Adam Smith, and had shown that the Navigation Laws did not create a monopoly in favour of our colonies. He commented on the inconsistency of the principle that free trade in navigation was expedient with the protection which, by the first clause of the Bill, was still strictly preserved to the whole coasting trade. What had Newcastle done that she should be treated worse than foreigners?

Begging their Lordships to pause before they jeopardized so great an interest as 4,000,000 tous of shipping navigated by 230,000 seamen, those seamen the nursery and hotbed of a navy that rides triumphant on every sea on the globe, he glanced at the possible consequences of our meddling, despicable, and false foreign policy, and asked the Government if they were prepared for war under their present system. That man was bold who felt no apprehensions for the peace of Europe, or who could look across the Channel and see the character of the Republic there

established without fears. Looking at Italy, at Germany, from the Adriatic to the Baltic, at the march of the Russians to save Hungary from its Magyars, and Polish agitators, who could predict that in three months to come Europe would be in profound peace? Was such a year the one for making great and portentous alterations in a navy by which victories had been nobly won and immortal triumphs gained? Was this the time for reducing our thousand ships to a hundred, or for striking off ten millions sterling from our Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates? With an allusion to the slave trade, which would be increased by letting in Swedes, Danes, and Americans to bring Brazil and Cuba sugar to Europe, Lord Brougham declared that this was no question on which he could falter, compromise, or negotiate. As an honest man, an Englishman, and a Peer of Parliament, he opposed the further progress of this Bill.

Earl Granville applied himself with considerable force to the refutation of Lord Brougham's oratory and facts. He vindicated the accuracy and faithfulness of Mr. Porter's returns and tabular statements, and paid a high compliment to that gentleman's worth and superior ability. He admitted that no great changes in commercial legislation could be made without temporary inconvenience to individuals; but, whatever might be the ultimate result of the changes proposed by this Bill, no other country possessed capital, ships, or sailors to enter at once on a serious competition with us; the struggle would therefore be gradual; and of the final result he

entertained no doubt.

Lord Colchester moved that the

Bill be read a second time that day six months, prefacing his motion by a speech of which, unfortunately, but a small portion was audible.

The Duke of Argyll ably supported the Bill, on the abstract grounds of free trade, and declared his conviction that our shipping could well compete with that of foreign countries.

The Earl of Ellenborough said he had voted for the relaxation of our commercial code; but he should vote against this Bill, because, though it might indirectly augment the wealth of the country, it would go near to undermine its most important interest.

The debate, having been now adjourned, was resumed on the second evening by the Earl of Carlisle, who, in supporting the Bill, admitted that he ran counter to former views and prejudices. But his present course was based upon a conviction, not only of the desirableness but also of the necessity for the measure. Were the Bill one which even risked our commercial fortunes or our naval strength, no infamy would be too great, no defeat too signal, for a Government which introduced it. But neither the interests of commerce nor the efficiency of our navy was put in jeopardy by it. On the contrary, although he agreed with Lord Ellenborough that wealth was not the sole pursuit in which a country should engage, he was convinced that the measure before the House would add to our material resources in a way which would, amongst other things, augment the efficiency of our navy. Having disposed of the objection to the Bill, founded upon its assumed incompatibility with our naval supremacy, the noble Lord proceeded to inquire

how it would affect the interests of the British shipowner and seaman. One of the main points made against it by its opponents was, that the Bill, if successful, would throw the British subject and sailor open to a competition against which they could not hold out, and before which they must retire. Were this point established, it would constitute a fatal objection to the measure. But not only had this point not been established, but the very contrary had been shown by those who had preceded him in support of the Bill. To render it, if possible, still more clear that neither the British sailor, shipbuilder, nor shipowner had anything to fear from full and unrestrained competition, the noble Lord went into a lengthened argument, partly based upon our experience under the reciprocity treaties, and partly upon the testimony which was before the House and country of the cost at which ships could be built, purchased, and manned abroad. If further economy in the building of ships was necessary, nothing but full and thorough competition would effect it. He called upon the House, then, if it regarded the interests of trade, of manufactures, and of every branch of our national industry, not to reject a measure which, by giving increased vigour and activity to our commercial marine, would greatly tend to the strengthening of the main arm of our national defence.

Lord Bruce, Earl Waldegrave, and Lord Wharncliffe supported the Bill, though the last-named Peer objected to the retaliation clause. Earl Nelson, the Earl of Harrowby, Earl Talbot, and the Marquis of Londonderry spoke in favour of the amendment.

Earl Grey addressed the House in support of the Bill in a long and elaborate speech. After clearing the ground from some extraneous topics which had been introduced into the debate, the noble Earl came to the real question before the House, which was, whether or not the measure before it was calculated to promote the general interests of the country, and more particularly the interests of our commercial marine? It was the common object of all parties to keep our commercial navy in as flourishing a condition as possible, and it was because he regarded the Bill as essential to that object, that he gave it his cordial support, both as a Member of the House and a Member of the Government. It was strange that noble Lords, who looked upon Englishmen as competent to compete in every other branch of industry with the foreigner, should regard them as incapable of competing with him on the seas, which had always been viewed as the peculiar home of the Englishman. The Navigation Laws were sought to be retained for the benefit of the shipowner, but of what advantage were they even to him? To show that they were of none, but rather a drawback to our shipping interests, the noble Lord entered into a minute and lengthened examination of their practical working. He argued that in their principles and main provisions, they were detrimental to the British shipowner, instead of affording him protection. The shipowner was interested in getting rid of them with the least possible delay. They were all aware of the inestimable value to this country of the warehousing system. Were they prepared to jeopardize its existence by

the retention of restrictions which were unfavourable to its development? The ruin of our warehousing system would be the consequence of the wreck of our indirect trade, which again would be the result of a pertinacious adherence to an exploded system. In further proof that the remnants of the Navigation Laws still left were positively disadvantageous to the British shipowner, the noble Earl proceeded to show that they were the chief obstacles in the way of his successfully competing with the United States. Neither in the home or the indirect trade were the Navigation Laws of any advantage to him. But the most important bearing of the whole question was upon the colonial trade. To show the injurious working of the Navigation Laws upon that trade, Lord Grey dwelt at some length on the case of Canada, as illustrating that of all our colonies. With respect to Canada, they were bound to take one of two courseseither to retrace their steps and go back to protection, or to relieve the trade of the St. Lawrence from the incubus of the Navigation Laws. To go back to protection was impossible, and this was practically acknowledged by the Protectionists themselves, who, whilst they professed to wish for protection, did not move a finger to obtain it. If, then, to return to protection was impossible, they had no alternative but to give the Canadians free trade in ships. The claim of Canada, which was strong, was not a claim upon their purse, but a claim upon their justice. And whilst in justice the House should give effect to that claim, so also ought it to do so from motives of policy and pru

dence. They could only perpetuate the connection between the mother country and the North American colonies by engaging the confidence and participating in the affections of their people. Who could say how soon both the one and the other would be withdrawn if they continued to restrict the development of the material interests of these colonies? Let the House, then, weigh well the consequences to the empire of such a step, before it decided to reject this Bill. The Navigation Laws were amongst the proximate causes of the revolutionary struggle which had ended in the independence of the United States. The fact was pregnant with warning, and he trusted that their Lordships would read aright the lesson which it conveyed. He hoped that the decision of that night would show that they had not mistaken its import. Should that decision be adverse to the Bill, he would be a bold man indeed who would take upon himself the responsibility of administering the affairs of our Colonial Empire. In drawing to a conclusion, he warned their Lordships not to let their decision be influenced by the number of petitions presented against the Bill. What the petitioners prayed for was not simply the maintenance of the Navigation Laws, but the rejection of the Bill, as the first step to be taken in a retrograde career. The Corn Laws were settled for ever, and he warned the House against taking any step which would indicate a deliberate intention of resuscitating them. He concluded with an impressive appeal to the House not to peril the general interests of the country by rejecting the Bill.

Lord Stanley rose at a very late hour to answer the speech of the noble Secretary for Colonial Affairs. He began by undertaking to confine himself to the simple question before the House, which was, not whether free trade had or had not fulfilled its promises, or whether the farmers were reconciled to the withdrawal of protection or not, but whether or not they were prepared utterly to abolish a system which, for two centuries at least, had formed the basis of our national greatness, and the foundation of our naval strength. The Navigation Laws had, from time to time, been judiciously modified. He had no objections to what had thus been done, nor might he object to some modifications now. But it was not upon the modifications of these laws that the House was now called upon to decide, but upon the momentous question of their entire abolition. Were their Lordships prepared for such a step, especially when they had the authority of the Government for the fact, that such a step, if once taken, would be irrevocable? In proof of the value of the Navigation Laws, which had been rather contemptuously spoken of by the noble Earl, he quoted the opinions both of Adam Smith and Mr. Huskisson, and between the views of such authorities and of Earl Grey he left the House to decide. In following the arguments of the supporters of the measure, the noble Lord first addressed himself to the bearing of the measure upon the shipping interest of the country. It appeared that they were all agreed as to the intimate connection between an efficient navy and a flourishing commercial marine. This being so,

the question, so far as it turned upon the navy, was admitted on all hands to depend upon the effect which the proposed measure would have upon our commercial marine. What would that effect be? Earl Grey had treated the Navigation Laws as in the last degree disadvantageous to the mercantile interests of the country. The mercantile interest was very quick in discovering that which was disadvantageous to it. Had it made any such discovery in this case? It had made none, but Her Majesty's Government had made it for them. The whole case, as based upon its assumed benefits to the commercial marine, fell to the ground, and the objection to the Bill, founded upon its injurious tendency, so far as the navy was concerned, remained unchallenged and unrefuted. Passing, then, to the colonial branch of the subject, Lord Stanley admitted that as an exceptional case that of Canada was a strong one, considering the position in which our commercial legislation had recently placed that province. In Canada, as in all the other colonies, the withdrawal of protection was regarded as the great grievance, the repeal of the Navigation Laws being demanded by them only as the consequence of that event. But our North American colonies were not confined to Canada. The ship-building colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were opposed to the repeal of the Navigation Laws. Besides, the exceptional case of Canada might be adequately met without entirely abrogating these laws. Having disposed of the colonial, he passed to the foreign branch of the question, severely criticizing, in so doing, Lord Pal

« ZurückWeiter »