NAVIGATION BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

§ The EARL of CARLISLE

said, that in presenting himself to their Lordships, he could not but regret that on the first occasion on which he had had to address himself to a question of serious importance in their Lordships' House—to say nothing of 2 the great disadvantage under which he was labouring in having to follow the eloquent speech of a noble Earl last night—the animation of which had lost nothing of its effect in the interval—he should feel himself under the necessity of opposing many long-cherished feelings, and of running counter to many deep-seated prepossessions which had long prevailed in that assembly, and which that speech was so well calculated to reawaken. He must, however, endeavour to find a compensation in the conviction that the policy which he was prepared to support was calculated to produce far more general good, and to promote more wide-spread interests, than could be comprehended in any one class of the community, however enlightened or however powerful. He was glad that on this question those of their Lordships who opposed most strenuously the views of Her Majesty's Government must be entirely acquitted of any selfish or personal motive in so doing. However severely and however unjustly their Lordships might have been attacked on former occasions, he could not but feel that on the question of the navigation laws no personal or class 3 interests, no selfish or sordid motives, could be attributed to them as likely to warp their judgment or to influence their legislation. On the other hand, he claimed for himself credit for a sincere desire to promote the general good, and to preserve untarnished the immemorial glory of the country. The noble Earl who closed the debate of last night so eloquently had declared that the measure which the Government had introduced would be detrimental to our maritime interests, and would be destructive, as he said with much solemnity of emphasis, to the naval superiority of England. Now, he (the Earl of Carlisle) could only say, that if the measure of the Government was of such a character as the noble Earl had described it to be, or if it even ran the risk of producing such results as those which the noble Earl predicted. Ministers ought to encounter, not only defeat but ignominy also, for introducing it. His belief was, that the assertion of the noble Earl was an erroneous exaggeration, or, if he might be permitted to say so, an utterly baseless notion. His conviction was, that the tendency of the measure they had introduced—as he well knew it to be its object—was to give increased activity to the commerce of the country. His conviction also was, that commerce was the best nurse and support of our mercantile marine, and that our mercantile marine was the best pledge and guarantee of our naval and national greatness. The noble Earl had further, with a somewhat vehement indignation, denounced the Bill for seeking to give, at all risks, greater wealth to the country, and had said that wealth alone was not the sole good of a State, any more than it was of an individual. He concurred with the noble Earl in denouncing that wealth which was too dear for a country's freedom; but the question in the present case was, whether the wealth which Government was anxious to promote by the present measure, was not the due, the proper, and the unforced reward of honest industry, and whether it would not tend to continue and prolong the peaceful intercourse of nations? He felt himself, on the present occasion, happily absolved from the necessity of entering into a history of the navigation law, or into a detailed account of its provisions and enactments, for that duty of the Government had been fulfilled most satisfactorily last night by his noble Friend the President of the Council; and he likewise felt that it would be equally presump- 4 tuous in him to encroach on the duty of his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary by venturing to touch upon the close and intimate bearing of those laws upon our colonial connexions, not because he did not consider that point of the greatest importance, but because it fell under the especial care of his noble Friend, and because he would be able to do it more adequate justice. He must take leave to say, in the outset of his remarks, that he could not bring himself to look at our code of navigation laws with that implicit deference and with that reverential awe which were professed for it by many. Even at its outset it had been attended with disastrous results. It had been enforced by the Commonwealth, the Protectorate, and at the Restoration. Its first enactment appeared to have been dictated by jealousy of the Dutch, in consequence of their success in procuring for themselves the carrying trade of the world; and its first results had been two sanguinary wars with that nation. As a course of restriction and exception, when once entered on, could scarcely ever be stopped or abandoned without the occurrence of some great check, their Lordships would not be surprised to hear that the original provisions of the navigation laws were soon enforced by the Act which first introduced into the Statute-book the long list of "enumerated articles;" by the restrictions laid on English merchants not to carry European produce to the colonies, or to bring foreign produce home, except in English-built ships; by the prohibition of importations from Holland, the Netherlands, and Germany, except in the same description of vessels; and, lastly, by the extension of those restrictions to Ireland, which at last became intolerable from their intensity, and goaded that gallant nation first into discontent and afterwards into rebellion. They were further reinforced by restrictions on the colonies, which had been declared by one of the highest authorities in the united States, their present Minister in England, Mr. Bancroft, in his History of America, to have been the main cause of the resistance offered to Great Britain in that country, and which had also been declared by the unsuspected testimony of a British statesman (Mr. Huskisson) to have been the chief co-operating cause of that unhappy conflict which terminated in the independence of the United States, and which had led to the introduction and extended the growth of American manufac- 5 tures. These were some of the consequences and some of the rivalries and heart-burnings with which our navigation laws were justly chargeable, and which ought fairly to be set down as offsets to their account, whenever any fulsome panegyrics were passed upon their merits. He was, however, in the concerns of nations as in those of individuals, inclined to let "bygones be bygones;" and in the circumstances of bygone times, when the Dutch monopolised the traffic of the ocean, and when our naval resources were scanty, ill-provided, and ill-organised, he was not inclined to deny that the policy of these restrictions might have been justifiable. But he would now ask their Lordships to consider whether, in the circumstances of the present times—in the middle of the 19th century, in the present state of our international relations, in the maturity of our wealth and power—it was expedient still to maintain the restrictions which had been thought necessary to foster our commerce in its infant exertions? And, in considering that point, their Lordships ought to ask themselves, first, whether, upon the supposition that the navigation code was the wisest and the most perfect code which the wit of man could have devised at the time of its enactment, it was now in our power, even with a view to our profit, to maintain it on its present footing? It was all very well for the noble Earl to assert that he was well satisfied with the existing law; but he put it to the noble Earl whether he could expect to maintain it, even in its present efficiency, or, he should rather say, inefficiency? Independently of all commercial restrictions and all political prohibitions, the circumstances which occurred at the commencement of the present century made us nearly exclusively the carriers of the world. The battle of Trafalgar, to which the noble Earl alluded last night with such thrilling effect, had cleared the ocean for our ships more effectually than any Parliamentary prohibition or any maritime code could have aspired to do. On the re-establishment of peace, from continued disuse to the sea, it was long before the Continental nations made any exertions to create a marine or to convey their own goods in their own vessels. But it was not long before reaction against monopoly arose, and encouraged a growing spirit of resistance against those who wished to continue in their own possession all the advantages of trade. That tendency had been acknowledged and yielded to by 6 the sagacity of the Administration which introduced and concluded the reciprocity treaties. Some intimations of the same spirit were now observed again. We knew that some of our treaties with foreign Powers which were most favourable to our commerce had either expired, or were on the point of expiring. It should be remembered that Russia, Denmark, Holland, and Austria could, by giving us twelve months' notice, put an immediate termination to their treaties with this country. The noble Earl had spoken of those intimations as so many threats addressed to the Government of Great Britain, and had insisted that, if the affairs of the country had been properly administered, no such improper threats would ever have been addressed to us. Whether the affairs of the country had been properly administered or not, he would not stop to inquire; but the noble Earl might perhaps expect, by his vote of that night, to find others who would administer them better. Still, with all deference to the noble Earl, he must say that this was a very puerile mode of treating this part of a great question. Did the noble Earl really mean to say that an intimation to us on the part of Austria, to whom we declined to give any portion of our carrying trade, although she gave all her carrying trade to us—did the noble Earl mean to say that an intimation from Austria that she would no longer carry on commerce with us upon such unequal conditions amounted to a threat, or anything like a threat? Her Majesty's Government had been charged by noble Lords on the opposite benches with not having shown of late sufficient deference to that ancient ally of Great Britain, Austria; but Her Majesty's Government would be treating Austria with greater indifference, nay, with greater disregard, than any which they had ever yet been accused of exhibiting, if they were to turn a deaf ear and pay no attention to her remonstrances on this head. So, too, with regard to Russia, where our ships were received into all the ports on the footing of Russian ships, and where we participated freely in the direct and indirect trade of the country. Did the noble Earl mean to assert that if the Emperor of Russia should inform us that when our treaty with him expired, as it would do in 1853, he should decline to renew it—did the noble Earl mean to assert that such an intimation, coming from the master of the half of two quarters of the globe, would be an improper threat? It had been said in the course 7 of the debate that such a threat on the part of Russia would be no great threat, because Russia did not possess any mercantile navy. Was that so? Their Lordships should determine. He held in his hand an account of the tonnage of vessels belonging to Russia, France, and other maritime countries which entered at the ports in the united kingdom in each year, from 1846 to 1848, stated exclusive of vessels in ballast; and in those three years, with the exception of France for one year, the largest amount of tonnage was set down to Russia. Here the noble Earl read the following; table:—

Flag.	1846.	1847.	1848.
	Tons.	Tons.	Tons.
Russia	68,995	80,420	76,108
Sweden	44,648	68,355	51,956
France	38,039	49,623	108,362
Holland	53,538	58,445	76,000
Belgium	38,391	34,246	38,322
Spain	21,311	28,202	14,672
Portugal	13,353	8,466	7,858
Italian States	57,498	89,604	29,749

Under such circumstances he thought that their Lordships ought to be prepared to expect that foreign countries would refuse to renew their commercial treaties with us on the same terms as before. The noble Earl had announced that he should prefer having the terms of our trade with foreign countries settled by preliminary treaties; but that he could not bring himself to believe that Her Majesty's Government were the parties who could enter into the discussion of these treaties with advantage. The noble Earl might fancy that some of his friends might make them better: and if they came into office, as some of them expected, they had better try. He wished, however, to call the attention of their Lordships to the effects which would follow in case foreign countries should seek to renew their treaties with us on terms more favourable to themselves, and we by refusing such terms should lose the favourable advantages which we now possessed. In alluding to this subject last night, his noble Friend the President of the Council had stated, that if foreign Powers should refuse to renew their commercial treaties with us, they would throw 200,000 tons of British shipping out of employment. It appeared from the evidence given before one of our Committees, that the amount of British shipping which entered and cleared at some of the principal European ports, distinguishing the direct and carrying trade, was as 8 follows:—"Entered from foreign ports, 233,521 tons. Cleared for foreign ports, 220,268 tons." From this it was evident that, should the countries to which these ports belonged turn our system against ourselves, they could throw, on a very low statement, more than 200,000 tons of British shipping out of employment. Alluding to this assertion, his noble and learned Friend opposite, who followed the noble Marquess in the debate (Lord Brougham), had made a strange and uncalled-for attack upon him. The statement of his noble and learned Friend was, that "the assertion that there was a sum total of 215,000 tons of direct trade, all liable to be cut off by treaties, was a fiction of the grossest, he might say the most scandalous, character that he had ever heard." His noble and learned Friend further added, "that he had never seen so gross a case; for out of 7,101 there had been manufactured 215,000 tons, in consequence of the vessels having gone thirty-two voyages in the course of the year." Now, he thought that his noble and learned Friend must in some unaccountable confusion have mixed up two cases and two returns, which were and ought to be kept quite distinct from each other. His noble Friend the President of the Council had mentioned that we had 200,000 and odd tons engaged in the carrying or indirect trade; and, the figures being nearly the same as the figures contained in a return presented to the House of Commons, showing that 7,101 tons of steam tonnage in the trade with France, Holland, and Belgium were made to represent 228,127 tons, owing to repeated voyages, his noble and learned Friend had come to the conclusion that these 7,101 tons of steam tonnage engaged in the direct trade with certain countries, formed the real amount of our total tonnage engaged in the indirect trade with the whole world. Though there had not yet been time since the delivery of his noble and learned Friend's speech to make out a return of the name of every British ship engaged in the indirect trade of the world, yet, from an account which he held in his hand, he found that the tonnage of British vessels (and he had the name of every ship) that arrived at the port of Hamburgh in 1847, and were employed in the indirect trade, that is, in sailing from one foreign port to another foreign port, amounted to 12,590 tons. He also found that those 12,590 tons belonged to sixty-two ships; and, of that 9 number, twenty-one sailed again for foreign ports. Besides, there were sixty-three ships, which, having arrived from British ports, sailed for other foreign ports. He had no doubt that, if he had similar returns from the ports of Trieste, Brest, Marseilles, &c., he could point out the name, cargo, and destination of every ship there engaged on every voyage. But the fact was, that the steamers passing to and from this country to the Continental States rarely if ever engaged in the indirect trade; and he must say that his noble and learned Friend, who he was sure had made his statement inadvertently, ought, before he impugned that of the Marquess of Lans-downe, and used the big words in which he ventured to indulge, to have ascertained by examination how the case really stood. He had hitherto been endeavouring to show to their Lordships that there would be considerable risk in their attempting to maintain things on their present footing; for every foreign country would undoubtedly watch its time, and after the example of the United States would refuse to deal with us except upon the same measure which we dealt out to them; and then, when we had forfeited the indirect trade of foreign countries, he had the fullest expectation that the complaints of our merchants and manufacturers, of our shipowners and shipbrokers, of our wharfingers and sailors, of our dealers in iron and our forgers of copper, would be pitched to a deeper note of distress than any which had yet been used by those who thought they might be prejudicially affected by this Bill. What he wished next to put to their Lordships was, whether, even in the present state of things, there were not evils generated which it would be as well to get rid of? The inconveniences arising from the present condition of the navigation laws had been ably detailed to their Lordships by his two noble Friends the President of the Council, and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. They had also been illustrated in the most powerful manner by the daily recurring experience of those who had the most concern in these matters. He had gleaned from their experience a few of the evil effects which had been produced by the operation of the navigation laws; and, in order that he might state them with accuracy, he had made out a written list of the various ways in which the importation of various important articles of traffic were impeded by them. They were indications of what was 10 happening or might happen every day; they were instances of the manner in which the navigation laws interfered with the commerce which it checked, and with the prosperity which it marred. When he had gone through his list, he thought that he should convince all who heard it that the navigation laws were not without that connexion with free trade which had been so unadvisedly disclaimed in that House. He would begin with the article of cotton. His statement was:— That cotton which was brought to Havre on English account in a foreign ship, which could not be disposed of in France at any price, and which could have been sold at Liverpool to advantage, might not be conveyed from Havre to Liverpool in a British ship, but might be reconveyed to the United States in a foreign ship, and thence brought to Liverpool in an American ship, thus depriving the British ship of employment, and depriving the English market of cotton when there was a distressing deficiency in the supply. That sugar could only be sent from Guiana and other colonies to England, at a freight of 3l. 10s. or 4l. a ton; while slave-grown sugar—which we are accused of unduly encouraging—could be sent from St. Croix, in Danish ships at 2l. 10s. a ton, thus discouraging the supply of colonial and free-labour sugar; that no British ships could be procured to export free-labour sugar from Batavia. That copper is now produced in great and growing abundance in Australia, and cannot find a sufficient number of British ships to convey it to this country, and the high freights, which are the necessary consequence, diminish the profits of what is sent, which has led to the project of establishing smelting works in Australia, instead of employing, first, the shipping, and, next, the manufacturers of England for that purpose; that, again, as German ships which now carry out emigrants to Australia may not carry back copper ore, or meat, or any of the produce of Australia, as return cargoes to this country, or to their own country with a view to exportation to this country if the market at home should not be remunerative, therefore, at Hamburgh they have also established smelting works in their own defence, again creating a gratuitous competition with the manufacturers of this country. That wrought hides may be imported into this country in any quantity from France or other countries; but if there was any superfluity of raw hides, they might not, under the navigation laws, be brought to this country for the artificers of this country to manufacture, unless they were sent all the way back to America. That cochineal, another article of most rapid increase from the Canaries, has its chief depôt at Cadiz, whence it is taken in French ships to Marseilles, but it cannot be taken, under the navigation laws, even in English ships to England, because the Canaries are suffered to be geographically in Africa, and therefore the produce must be imported in English ships from the Canaries themselves, where there is not independent inducement for English ships to go; while at Cadiz there is always a multitude of British ships for the pur- 11 pose of bringing wine, but which are not suffered to bring this valuable and much-wanted dye. That Madeira wines may not be brought from Lisbon even in English ships, where they would always be in great abundance. Nor the gums of Senegal from their chief depôt at Marseilles. Nor the dyewoods of West Africa from a large depôt of them at Marseilles. There may be a surplus supply of all these articles in these ports; there may be a deficient supply at home; the ships loading with sherry and claret may be full of convenient chasms absolutely yawning for these light assortments, but the prohibition is complete and inexorable. That nitrate of soda, more highly thought of as a manure, has sold for from 2l. 6s. 6d. less at Hamburgh than here, but for the same sum could not be brought even here. That a parcel of Alpaca thread was actually the subject of this veritable transaction. It arrived in Hamburgh—a great depôt for merchandise from South America—from Peru, was purchased, sent to Hull, refused admittance, shipped thence to New York, re-exported to Liverpool, and sent into the manufacturing districts, where it arrived too late for the demands of the market. That Java indigo, which was much wanted for some of the more delicate manufactures of this country, was purchased in Holland, but, in order to secure its entry into this country, it was shipped in a Dutch vessel to the United States, and thence exported to this country. That palm-oil, Manilla hemp, logwood, have all been waiting for shipment in the United States, and because no British vessels were to be had they all failed of being sent. That it is stated by a Hamburgh resident that the operation of the navigation laws with respect to the supply of Peruvian wools to this country, such as are brought to the continent of Europe first, is unquestionably unfavourable to British manufacturers, because the German manufacturer is purchasing that article now at a less price than the manufacturers can purchase it in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the consequence must be that the German manufacturer can afford to sell his cloth at a less price than the English. That at Bombay and Calcutta, though there is constant uncertainty whether there will be ships to carry produce to England, and the freight has been as high as eight guineas a ton, and though the same ports are filled with ships not only seaworthy, but efficiently commanded, and which would bring home that produce, if they were suffered to do so, yet because of that preposterous disability which attaches to ships manned by Lascar sailors, they are not suffered to do so. His Lordship then proceeded: I cannot for my life discover why, if the Lascars are good seamen, as unquestionably they are, and if they are also British subjects, which cannot be denied, they are not to be engaged as sailors on board of British ships. That eminent shipowner, the late Mr. Somes, when examined before the Committee of 1844, gave this evidence as to their character. He said— That going in the East India trade he would rather have Lascars. In a warm climate 12 you do not require a greater number of them than of British seamen. Their great merit is their orderly conduct; they are as quiet as lambs on board ships. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the remainder of his statement, which was to this effect:— That with respect to the noblest, because the most useful article of interchange, I mean the bread we live upon, it is stated by the Board of Trade at Toronto, September, 1846, that large quantities of produce were forwarded to Montreal from the interior, where it had been produced during the preceding winter, at prices severely enhanced by the exaggerated reports which reached Canada of the scarcity of breadstuffs throughout Europe. On arrival it was found impossible to obtain shipment for it at loss than 6s. a barrel, and the holders were threatened with insolvency alike from its shipment or retention, and perceiving most distinctly that the chief cause of their difficulties was to be found in the present navigation laws of Your Majesty's kingdom, a feeling of deep dissatisfaction therewith has arisen in the minds of Your Majesty's Canadian subjects. Now, he would ask their Lordships to consider what this long enumeration of cases proved? Did it not prove beyond all contradiction this—that we could not pursue our old career any longer, and that we must enter upon a new track? Yes, these laws impeded, obstructed, and, if he might use a common phrase, bothered every branch of our trade in every quarter of the world. These laws seemed to him to be nothing better than an ingenious attempt to double the freight of every commodity imported into England, and to multiply the distances which divided the different countries of the world from one another. In our anxiety to secure the long voyage, we forgot that we deprived ourselves of a number of short ones; and, in our desire to grasp the profits of the short voyage, we had recourse to measures calculated to drive our colonies to resistance, if not to pave the way to more active and open hostility, ending in their ultimate secession and independence. Instead of appropriating to ourselves the resources of all other countries—the riches of the globe in the easiest manner—though it was no easy matter under any circumstances—we surrounded them with difficulties of our own creation, and rendered the ocean more dissociable even than pagan poets had described it. He would now say a word or two on another point, which his noble and learned Friend had much laboured, namely, the degree in which the mercantile marine was a nursery for the Royal Navy, He reminded their Lordships that the modern system of the Royal Navy, and more 13 particularly the steam department of that Navy, required a larger number of hands specially trained for its service; whilst at the same time, the introduction of steam navigation dispensed with a number of hands which were formerly required to man the sailing ships. You had thus on the one hand a special number required for the naval service, and yet a smaller number wanted in the aggregate of the two services. If in the future, as would probably be the case, we should have to derive assistance from the mercantile marine to man the Royal Navy, he could not but entertain a confident hope that we might rely on an adequate supply of sailors for the national Navy, when he saw that in the interval between 1823 and 1847 the number of our sailors had increased from 165,000 to 252,000, and the amount of our tonnage from 2,506,760 to 3,952,000, being an increase of 50 per cent. Another point on which some stress had been laid by the noble Earl who spoke last night was the levity with which his noble Friend the President of the Council had spoken of the apprenticeship system in the mercantile Navy. Undoubtedly that system was represented as a burden on the shipowners, for it was an inconvenience to ships upon a short voyage to be compelled to carry a certain number of apprentices; but still the shipowners had declared their willingness to bear it in return for the other privileges which they had got. Indeed, so far from there being any indisposition to take a number of apprentices—who were useful upon long voyages—there were now in the merchant service 10,000 more apprentices than our merchant vessels were compelled to take by law. The next point to which he would refer was the capacity of unprotected British shipowners to compete with the foreign shipowners. It appeared to him that there were many considerations connected with that part of the subject which ought to go far to dissipate any apprehensions that might be entertained with respect to the consequences of the proposed alteration of the existing system. If we considered the strength and durability of British shipping, as compared with the strength and durability of the shipping of the United States, or with the less strong and less enduring shipping of the north of Europe, we should find that we were not likely to suffer any material disadvantage—he should rather say, we suffer no disadvantage at all from the measure 14 now proposed. He would read to their Lordships the evidence of a gentleman who had been examined on this point before their Committee—a gentleman who was highly honoured in his own country, and who, he could speak from personal knowledge, deserved to be equally honoured in this—Mr. Minturn. He was asked— In what respect should you consider that a ship can be built cheaper in America than in England: where would be the saying?—The only item in shipbuilding which to my knowledge is cheaper in America than in England is wood; and this, for ships built in New York, has to bear heavy transportation—much of the timber being brought by sea from Virginia and Florida, and the plank from Lake Erie, a distance of 500 miles. The iron is imported from England, and pays a duty of 30s., besides the expense of importation. Copper is also much higher than in England, and wages are nearly double. Mr. Graham, the secretary to Lloyd's, also said—"The first-class British ships are the best ships in the world, and are superior to American ships." And Captain Briggs stated that such ships as he had spoken of, costing 20l. per ton, "would not stand A 1 for 12 years. The Americans have no ship that would stand A 1 for 12 years in this country." Another witness stated— A Hamburgh vessel, from 200 to 500 tons, iron-fastened and coppered, costs ready for sea, about 11l. a ton. She stands seven years A 1, and no more. The English ship costs 20l. a ton, stands twelve years A 1, and four years more, making sixteen years. The Hamburgh ship, therefore, stands nine years less on the first letter than the English ship. We deduct, as before, 1l. a ton for each year, and we find the English and the Hamburgh ship are the same cost. We have yet to consider the expense of navigation. It is, therefore, fair to assume that the English vessel, as far as regarded its durability, is worth, as compared with the colonial vessel, in the proportion of twenty-two to seven. Mr. Wilson, of Sunderland, used this language to the same Committee:— If any other proof be wanted that foreigners have no advantage over England in the build and navigation of ships, we have it in the fact that when the shipping trade is depressed and freights non-remunerative, the British shipowner is not 'the first' to let his ships lie rotting in harbour and the sailors fill the workhouse. The contrary is notoriously the fact. In those years of depression the foreigner is the first to lay up his vessel. The Parliamentary returns prove, beyond all manner of doubt, that on every recurrence of distress in shipping, there is a great comparative decrease of foreign and a corresponding increase of British vessels employed in the foreign trade. And did not language like that stand to 15 reason, when we considered the countries from which the materials came required for the construction of foreign vessels? We furnish them with iron, with copper sheathing, with chain cables, with sails and canvas, and with cordage—all articles on which they have to pay a duty, and we have not. The only article on which we have to pay a higher duty than they have, is timber; and the duty on timber is only 3s. 6d. in the 18l. or 20l. per ton which the ship originally cost. He would not enumerate the other sources of our superiority, but only to observe that in our colonies we had the cheapest supply of timber in the world. While the Americans had their oak—and splendid oak it was—we had also splendid timber—so much so that our native oak was estimated at 4l. 10s. more than that of foreign countries. Their Lordships' attention had been called to the great increase of steam navigation; and he might remind them that with regard to providing steam vessels and furnishing their machinery and materials, no nation could enter into rivalry with the united kingdom. He found that our machine-makers could lay down steam engines in the Baltic ports 30 per cent lower than the makers in those ports could do themselves. He thought it might, therefore, be confidently asserted that, with respect to steam-ships and iron-built vessels, no country could stand a comparison with this. They had reason to hope, then, that they would not sustain a disadvantageous competition with foreign countries, when they swept away the last imperfect and illusive remains of the protection which they still retained under the navigation laws. He thought his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had been somewhat unjustly reproached for not having spoken with sufficient respect of the still existing remains of the navigation laws when he described them as "shreds and tatters." Why, what were the terms in which the most obstinate adherents to the present navigation laws had spoken of their prospects since the adoption of the reciprocity treaties? Mr. Young had stated before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1847, that protection was inadequate in those trades with regard to which they had virtually abrogated the navigation laws; and that, in fact, they had no protection. He thought this was in effect a very similar description to that which had been given by the noble President of the Council, when he characterised the navigation 16 laws as a remnant of protection—as a thing of shreds and tatters. He (the Earl of Carlisle) was not without hope that the final and complete removal of this monopoly would have the same effect which had invariably attended similar measures with respect to other branches of industry—that it would tend to stimulate exertion, and to lead the way to improved and economical modes of management. He would not enter upon the invidious task of inquiring what were the shortcomings and defects of their present mercantile marine. He thought, however, that it would be unwise to pride themselves too much upon its efficiency; for he feared there were many things, especially connected with the condition of the seamen, the sanitary regulations of the ships, and in some degree also with the qualifications of masters, in which amendment was greatly required. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had last night called attention to a most interesting and valuable work, published in America, called Two Years before the Mast. He (the Earl of Carlisle) had made the acquaintance of the author of that work; he had asked his opinion on this subject, and he was satisfied that opinion had been given sincerely and honestly. His friend, Mr. Dana, who had had great experience and opportunities of observing the crews of vessels from all parts of the world, had told him, that he thought the British sailor was a more thorough sea creature than the American sailor—that he was, in fact, the best seaman that could be found in the world; but that he considered, with respect to the masters of merchant vessels, that the American masters were better educated, more generally accomplished, and better instructed in those branches of scientific knowledge which might be of service to them, than the same class in this country. He (the Earl of Carlisle) would not enter into detail upon another point which had been touched upon by the noble President of the Council—namely, that in many lines of navigation and trade, where British ships were now subjected to direct competition with the ships of all other countries, they were able to carry on a successful competition. His noble Friend had gone through a variety of instances to show how British vessels competed with the ships of the United States and of Hamburgh. The ships of the United States competed successfully with the cheapest-built ships in the world—those of Sweden, Bremen, and 17 Antwerp; but British ships were able to beat the American shipping even in the ports of the United States. He (the Earl of Carlisle) thought there could not be a stronger proof than that of the power of this country to compete successfully with foreign ships all over the world. Indeed, it almost stood to reason that that nation which upon the greatest number of points on the surface of the globe could present the largest number of ships, and could offer the lowest rate of freight, must, in the end, secure the greatest proportion of the carrying trade of the world. This was what formerly gave their envied ascendancy to the Dutch, and what, he firmly believed, with the means and appliances which we possessed, would ensure a similar ascendancy to this country. Low rates of freight would do for traffic on the seas what low rates of travelling had done for traffic by railway on shore—they would create traffic where none had existed before, and would suggest wants which had not been felt before, and which, besides suggesting, they would satisfy. Even conceding, then, that the repeal of the navigation laws would confer advantages upon foreigners, yet, believing in the impulse that was always given to trade when the cords of restraint were loosened, and believing in the unbounded elasticity of British trade, and its capacity to surmount all obstacles, he entertained the confident hope that they would eventually secure by far the largest proportion of the multiplied traffic of the world. He could, indeed, well believe that a system of exclusion and monopoly, such as had been the pervading motive of their navigation code, but which was found impracticable in the present condition of the world, might have appeared plausible when our powers were confined within narrower limits, and when our commerce had not swelled to its present gigantic proportions; but now, when there was no region of the world in which we have not peopled the shores or occupied the seas, from Aden to Oregon, or from Newfoundland to New Zealand, every obstacle and impediment was multiplied tenfold. We had by our enterprise and activity so dotted the globe with our stations, that to interrupt or complicate the traffic between them and the rest of the world, was to make our legislation an universal nuisance. He (the Earl of Carlisle) had endeavoured, in discussing this subject, to lay the chief stress upon that activity and development which he believed the relaxa- 18 tion or abolition of the navigation laws would confer upon the commerce of this country; but he was not blind to the consideration that the colonial part of the question was that which most immediately pressed upon the attention of the Legislature. He was not ashamed of those associations connected with the commerce and the woollen trade of the West Riding, which still clung to him even in that assembly. He might, however, be met by the statement that a very large portion of the mercantile body not only did not apply for this measure, that they did not wish for it, but that they repudiated it, and had even petitioned against it. He admitted that this seemed to him to be the strongest point raised against the measure; but he accounted for the indisposition of a large portion of the mercantile body to the Bill, by the circumstance that when any set of men had for a long time occupied themselves in any particular branch of trade or industry, and had done so with success, there was a tendency on their parts to wish to leave things just as they were, and not to clear away from the course of their successors difficulties which they had themselves successfully surmounted. He believed that if a royal road to geometry could be invented, the persons who would most object to it would be geometricians. This rule applied to every class of persons. When they had obtained a certain degree of eminence in a particular pursuit, they thought it could only be obtained by others in the same manner, and every altered mode of exertion seemed to them impossible. He would only further remark, that while he anticipated the greatest benefit to commerce from the abolition of the navigation laws—while he thought it would give facilities for their intercourse with all the rest of the world, and would enrich this country with that most harmless wealth which a noble Earl opposite had last night seen fit to denounce, but which no one could deprecate when following in the wake of honest and peaceful industry—he still could not listen unmoved to the predictions of evil with which some noble Lords accompanied the adoption of this measure—predictions of risk to our shipping, of injury to our commerce, and of danger to our national defences. If he believed this measure could have such a tendency—if he did not think it was likely to have the very opposite effect—he certainly would be the last person to appear as its supporter. He trusted, however, that he set 19 a just estimate upon the naval character of this country, upon the enterprise of its mercantile marine, and upon the deathless glory of its national fleets; and that it was not in the year in which Rule Britannia had been first heard in the streets of Paris that they would have that strain unlearnt at home. The reason why he did not anticipate any risk to their commerce, any damage to their shipping, or any danger to their national defences, but the contrary, from the present measure, was this—because he believed that the sure, though perhaps gradual, effect of the measure would be to give increase of employment, enlarged activity, and renewed vigour to the general trade and commerce of the country; and because he believed it was the commerce of the country stimulating their agriculture, rewarding their manufactures, and developing every branch of industry, which was the main cause that gave employment to their fleets, that guaranteed permanence and security to their national defences, that had hitherto made this country the mistress of the sea, and that, with the blessing of the Almighty, would always keep her so.

§ EARL NELSON

said, that he had listened with deep attention to the noble Earl who had just sat down, but confessed that he had not heard any sufficiently strong grounds stated to justify this Bill being brought forward against the expression of the strong opinion of the country against it. The noble Earl had referred to a long list of grievances connected with those laws; but he would like to know what measure there was which could not also have its long list of cases cited against it? They were cases that he had heard of before in the report of the Committee of their Lordships, and he had heard answers sufficient to convince him that the evil resulting from these cases did not counterbalance the benefits derived from this measure. He would not attempt to follow the noble Earl who had just sat down through all the details of his speech—that he would leave to abler speakers. He was surprised that the noble Marquess who moved the second reading of this Bill should have thrown anything like disdain upon the expression of feeling on the part of this country, or that he should have endeavoured to underrate the value of the petitions which had been laid upon the table of their Lordships' House against this measure. The state of public opinion had been shown in the great decrease of the majority in 20 favour of the measure, as compared with that of last year, in the House of Commons. It had been alleged, that most of the petitions which had been presented against the Bill had emanated from agricultural bodies; but it appeared by a return made to their Lordships, that up to the 4th of May the number of petitions presented had been 182 against the measure, and only six in its favour. Of the 182 against the Bill, fifty-seven were from owners and occupiers of land, and the remainder from shipowners, or from persons directly interested in the shipping trade. He confessed that he could not reconcile the arguments used by the advocates of this measure—first, that these laws were so much injury to commerce; secondly, that they were mere waste paper. With regard to the case of the colonies, he found upon reference to their petitions that all which they sought, either with respect to the warehousing system or the direct trade, might be granted under the present Bill; but these privileges had been refused, for what reason he would leave their Lordships to judge. The effect of that refusal had been the cause of several petitions in favour of the Bill; but not one of the petitions presented from the colonies considered the measure as a remedy for their distress. With respect to the question of retaliation, it must not be forgotten that retaliation would be just as possible after the passing of this measure as it was at present. This reminded him of the promises which had been made to them at the passing of the free-trade measures, that foreigners would follow their example. But had it turned out to be so? But all other points of consideration fell into insignificance when compared with the naval interests of the country. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House seemed to labour under a great mistake with respect to that branch of the subject. He remembered a noble Lord connected with the Board of Trade did not attribute our mercantile superiority to the operation of the navigation laws, but to our isolated position—our great commerce—and extensive colonial trade and possessions. The noble Lord here referred to and read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Dunbar, to show (as was understood, for the noble Lord was occasionally very imperfectly heard) that in the port of Rio Janeiro, which was what was called a free port, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and American shipping, competed successfully with British. What 21 would the trade then he when thrown open to all other nations? Reference had been made to the cheapness of British ships; and it had been said, that the difference between the cost of American-built ships and of English-built ships would not prevent this country from competing successfully with the United States; but it had been stated by a witness whose authority he had never heard questioned, that the Americans could not only build ships more cheaply, but that they could also man and equip them more cheaply, than the shipowners of this country. He believed the adoption of this measure would not only have the effect of damaging the commercial marine of England, but that it would eventually tend to injure the Navy. He could not understand what was meant by inserting the manning clauses in this Bill; they were either put in because the promoters of this Bill feared that the effects of the Bill would be to drive the shipowners of this country to take foreign seamen, or else they were put in for the purpose of blindfolding the opponents of the measure to its real effects. The coasting clauses of the Bill appeared to have been introduced for the same reasons. The noble Earl who had last night addressed the House had referred to the battle of Trafalgar, as the cause of the subsequent success of their mercantile marine. He would not enter into the question whether the consequences of the battle of Trafalgar were favourable or not to the increase of the mercantile marine of this country. They must look a little farther, and ascertain what was the cause of the battle of Trafalgar. The opinion of a man whose title he had the honour to bear, and whose name was still revered all through this great country, might, upon a question of this importance, be brought forward—though dead, he was not forgotten. Though, doubtless, the navigation laws had been, in some measure, altered since his death, yet the principle remained the same as when he lived. He could not forget the conduct of his noble uncle, when in the West Indies, contrary to the orders of his commander, he braved the chance of a court-martial for the purpose of carrying out more strictly the laws of his country; because he considered those laws fundamentally necessary to the maintenance of the Navy of this country. He proved afterwards how necessary they were in the next important period of his life—the battle, or rather the fall of Copenhagen. He was most anxious at that 22 time to act with expedition. He was unable to effect his purpose so speedily as he would have wished, and in a letter written by him he stated that he might have saved the blood spilled at Copenhagen, and obtained a friendly instead of a hostile victory, if he could have fitted out his ships, and got them sooner out of the Yarmouth Roads. In questions of national defence, it was necessary to pay a little more attention to practice than to mere theory. In the year 1801, when his great uncle was appointed, by the unanimous voice of this country, to undertake the duties of fortifying the country against foreign invasion, what could he have done had not the navigation laws been upheld? Where would have been those ships which the merchants were enabled to fit up for him, to enable him to cover the coast? Where would have been those sailors whom he induced to enlist, when they believed their country to be in danger? Where would have been those sailors, those ships—or where would have been the means of building more ships in the country, if by the abolition of those laws the British merchant had been compelled to employ foreign vessels, and British sailors had been employed in a foreign service? The present manning-clauses must be upheld, or they would soon see their shipowners sending their goods in foreign-built ships—in foreign-manned ships, and in ships under foreign flags. If that were the case, in what position would the country be placed in a time of war. It was very well, no doubt, for persons to call loudly for general peace, and for the establishment of a system of settling all disputes by treaties between one nation and another; such persons could however, have no security that master spirits would not arise, as had heretofore been the case, and who, throwing aside all treaties, would force nations to war. They might depend upon it that the only effective security for the continuance of peace was the maintenance of a sufficient force. Feeling strongly as he did that this measure would be detrimental to the best interests of this country, he could not content himself by giving a silent vote on this subject; and he earnestly trusted that their Lordships would resist this Bill. He called upon their Lordships to reject the Bill on the ground that it would not foster or encourage the trade of the country; he called upon the freetraders among their Lordships to resist 23 the Bill, because it was an imperfect measure, and one which, sooner or later, would require to he amended; he called upon all who felt any interest in the prosperity of their country to reject a measure which so injuriously affected the best interests not only of the nation but of its colonies, and which would repeal those existing laws which were necessary, in some degree, for the peace of the world.

§ EARL BRUCE

stated that, as an independent Member of their Lordships' House, he felt anxious to assure them that, after having listened with great attention to the various speeches delivered on this subject, he had come to the conclusion, that never before had it been his good fortune to support a measure introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers with a more perfect conviction that he was right in doing so, than with respect to this measure. A great variety of opinions seemed to be entertained as to the effect of the repeal of the navigation laws. It was thought by some noble Lords that if they were repealed, it would cause the inevitable destruction of the Royal Navy of this country. They argued that whatever might be the inconveniences resulting from the operation of these laws, still that the defence of this mighty empire being involved in their continuance, all other considerations ought to yield to that paramount one. If he for a single moment could imagine that the passing of the present Bill would, in the most trifling degree, expose the country to a foreign enemy, he should, without a moment's hesitation, set aside the most cherished opinions, and at once vote against the Bill, for he felt that the defences of the country must be maintained upon any terms. He was far from subscribing to any such doctrine, but, on the contrary, he fully believed that the country might be most efficiently defended—as efficiently, if not more so, than it had ever been, even though those remaining fragments of the navigation laws should be instantly abrogated. Others, again, acting upon what they considered a conservative principle, though a very unsound one in this case, said, "Let us leave things as they are. We know the worst which these laws can produce." He ventured to caution noble Lords from looking at this question in this manner. Things will not remain as they are. The question is as urgent in point of time as important in character. The various colonies of this country felt themselves aggrieved by the course pursued by the mother 24 country with respect to the adoption of free-trade measures, and they claimed as some compensation for the injury they had sustained, the removal of the burdens imposed upon them by the existing navigation laws. Those changes of policy which had been recently adopted by the country, would, he felt confident, ultimately lead to the benefit of the empire generally, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which had been formed by many persons on the subject. It was very well for the ardent admirers of protection to say that the movement which had taken place against free trade was one in the right direction; but whatever might be their opinion as to the success of that movement, he believed it would be utterly impossible for them ever to obtain protection again. Then there were treaties with foreign countries on the point of expiring, and powers in their hands for effectually changing the present state of the laws by retaliation. Nor can our Foreign Minister, whoever he may he, have a word to say against such retaliation, or in favour of a renewal of such treaties. Treaties will not be renewed without concessions from this country. The example of this country in favour of an exclusive system may not unnaturally be followed by other countries in imitation of this the greatest commercial country, and a system of restriction may be more advantageous in fact to them than to this country. A combination of other countries, might be formed against this one; and, being at last forced to throw open the colonial trade, this country would meanwhile have lost its foreign trade. Then as to the comparative superiority and expense of English and foreign ships and crows. An Englishman is slow to believe that from drunkenness and want of discipline the British merchant crews are generally inferior to foreign; but it must be admitted, that in the inferior classes of our merchant ships, this, in some cases, is but too true; but it cannot arise from the unfitness and inaptitude of Englishmen for the service, either as commanders of ships or seamen, for they are eminently and peculiarly qualified for it. This inferiority is chiefly owing to the want of care in educating and selecting masters; and, above all, to the baneful effects of these remains of monopoly. There can be no reason why an English master should not be as well educated as a foreign one, and by better accommodation on board, and a judicious system of payment by per centage, no 25 reason why he should not take as great a care of, and interest in, the goods committed to him as his foreign rival. As regards comparative expense, the price of timber is somewhat higher in this country; but in iron, sails, cordage, copper, the English shipbuilder has advantages over almost every other country, and especially as regards the United States, which is likely to be the most formidable rival of this country in the carrying trade. But if there are some to whom it is impossible to demonstrate satisfactorily these details, there is this irresistible argument, that we do compete with foreigners in the foreign trade, and in that comparatively unprotected trade our shipping and commerce are increasing faster than in the protected trade. If the foreign unprotected trade were not profitable, all our ships would be naturally driven into the protected trade. But it is said, foreign shipping has increased still more than British: if so, where is the use of the navigation laws for the purpose of protection. But the increased population, and demands of other countries, sufficiently account for this. But if our unprotected trade with foreign countries separately has increased, à fortiori, is there reason to hope it will do so to an enormous extent when intercommunication between all parts of the globe are open to it? The greater the amount of the carrying trade, the lower will the freights be; and ships will rarely make a voyage in ballast, or have to wait in port for cargoes; and from the immense connexion (as it would be termed in trade) between this country and every part of the world, our ships would have great advantages if that system prevailed. But shipowners and shipbuilders must not forget that every step which has of late years been taken in the question of free trade, has been a boon to the shipping interest; every relaxation of duties has increased importations, and the demand for ships. He (Lord Bruce) considered it clear, that as regards the colonial trade, the navigation laws could not continue long—that as regards foreign trade they afford no protection, while to our ships and crews the repeal of them would be a benefit and not an injury—and, above all, that it is not solely to carry out a free-trade theory, though he considered it essentially part of the free-trade system, notwithstanding what other noble Lords said. But things could not be left as they were: answers must be given to the prayers of the colonies and foreign 26 States; replies must be made as to the renewal of treaties. He beseeched their Lordships, therefore, at once to pass this measure, which, if delayed, would come shortly again before them under, perhaps, much more disadvantageous circumstances. They need not fear, by a repeal of these laws, to injure the British commercial navy in time of peace, or the prospects of the Royal Navy in time of war. The armour of protection might have been suitable in times past, but was only an impediment now; the British sailor required nothing but a fair field and no favour to contend, whether in peace or war, with the sailors of every nation on the globe.

§ EARL TALBOT

said, he would request the attention of their Lordships while he briefly gave expressions to his opinions on the subject under discussion. He had given way to the noble Lord who bore the illustrious name of Nelson, and had permitted him to take precedence of him, and he was glad he had done so. He was rejoiced to hear him advocate the necessity of attending to the defences of that country which his illustrative relative was so conspicuous in guarding. It was impossible to over-rate the importance of this question; and the first thing that occurred to him in looking to it was, to inquire where was the necessity for meddling with the subject at all. He found in the petitions that had been presented to their Lordships against this Bill, an adequate answer to all the arguments that had been urged in support of it. Those petitions had been prepared in as constitutional a manner as any petitions that, within his recollection, had been presented to Parliament. They were not manufactured petitions; they were not petitions placed at the corners of streets, and signed by boys or women, or signed by some persons five or six times over. They were petitions emanating from merchants and corporate bodies, and from men who understood their business, and who came respectfully to their Lordships' House to implore them not to pass this measure, which they thought would be fraught with danger to the public interests. It had been said by noble Lords at the other side that this measure was intimately connected with the subject of free trade. It might be considered in two branches: it might be considered as connected with free trade, or it might be considered as totally apart from free trade. If they were to consider it as connected with free trade, it would naturally occur to 27 a reasonable mind to inquire how far that experiment of free trade had succeeded. In consequence of the disturbances in Europe, and in consequence, also, of that distress which they must all lament, it might be argued, and argued he thought fairly, on both sides of the question, that free trade had not had a fair trial. But they were led to expect that it would be a panacea for all the evils that might occur. They might say, therefore, at all events, that free trade had not stopped the difficulties that had arisen. He was not then going to say that free trade was a failure. His argument was, that free trade had not yet had a sufficient trial to enable them to found other measures on the same principle, and he therefore entertained a strong conviction that this measure ought not to be passed into a law. The question had been divided into three branches, and was to be considered in an historical, commercial, and national point of view. Without referring at length to the public history of those laws, it would suffice to say that they had existed for about 200 years, and that there was a code before them which had existed for 200 years, and during that period their maritime trade had arrived at that admitted supremacy which it now enjoys. To meddle with so venerable a system appeared to him extremely hazardous, and especially in the face of such evidence as that which had been brought forward on the present occasion. With the commercial part of the subject he felt himself very incompetent to deal; but he had perused the greater part of the evidence submitted to both Houses of Parliament, and he would say that the great mass of the evidence was in favour of supporting the navigation laws as they are in all their essential points. If there was any point in the navigation laws requiring alteration, why not make that alteration the subject of treaty, and remove the parts that were considered objectionable? With respect to one of the points objected to, he bad conversations with commercial men, and he knew they would find no difficulty in effecting, by treaty, such a modification of those laws as would meet a case of that description. The noble Lord who had opened the debate that evening had laid great stress on the number of seamen having increased so largely, and on that he founded an argumenten the impolicy of those laws; but instead of doing that he should, in his (Earl Talbot's) opinion, have founded an argument the other way. Under those 28 laws the number of their seamen had greatly increased, and men who could prove useful to their country in time of need had risen under them. He (Earl Talbot) would not detain their Lordships by going into a detail of the price of building ships. His noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had admitted that evening that the cost of shipbuilding must be greater in this country than it was abroad; but his noble Friend contended that British-built ships would be cheaper, in the long run, inasmuch as the ships built in this country would last for a greater number of years. But it should be recollected that the capital embarked in the shipbuilding trade would naturally be applied to the building of ships at the cheapest rate, and in the cheapest market, irrespective of all such considerations. Let them see what an advantage it would be to the owner to build the ship abroad. First of all, he would save the duty on the timber, and likewise have the benefit of other advantages. It might be said this Bill was passed to take off all restrictions on commerce; but if they were to go on the system of entire relaxation, they should not stop half way, or clog their Bill with any clause that would place the English shipowner in difficulty, or place a burden on him he was unable to bear. By the introduction of any clause such as that referring to the coasting trade, Her Majesty's Government showed that they wanted confidence in the measure they had introduced. Before introducing that measure, it was their bounden duty to consider the question, and to arrive at the conclusion that the coasting trade should not be thrown open in consequence of the difficulties in the way of doing so. They should have found that out before they ventured to produce the Bill to Parliament at all. Let it he recollected how this Bill had been introduced. The Bill was brought forward at the suggestion of a Friend of his (Earl Talbot) in another place, who, in a joking way, said, "We have got free trade; let us now have a go at the navigation laws." That expression, he supposed, had been taken up by Her Majesty's Government; and, because it was uttered, they deemed it necessary to introduce a Bill of the importance of that now before the House. He would remind their Lordships that a Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into this subject; but without waiting for the results of the inquiry the Bill was introduced, and he could 29 not but say that that branch of the Legislature had been treated with marked disrespect. As regarded the question of reciprocity, see the way they had been met. He did not complain of reciprocity; but with their insular position, and with the immense empire they had to maintain, he did protest against their giving everything away without anything being given to them in return. They had a reciprocity system with America a long time before, but it was merely a nominal reciprocity. If they gave up something, they ought to get something in return; but they should not go forward in the headlong way they were going by this Bill, to attain that object. He was given to understand that a very salutary and very easily comprehended rule was adopted by Belgium. He ought, perhaps, to apologise to their Lordships for at all addressing them on this occasion; but holding, as he did, a commission in the Navy, he felt that he had some claim to address their Lordships on the subject of manning the Navy. The question, as it affected the Navy, was one of considerable importance; but after the eloquent speech which they had heard from the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) who closed the debate on the previous night, he felt that he (Earl Talbot) could not say any thing that would add to the impression which that noble Lord must have made upon their Lordships. When he recollected all the information which that noble Earl must have acquired while he governed their eastern empire—when he remembered, also, the knowledge he must have obtained while filling the office of First Lord of the Admiralty in this country—and when it would be found that the assertions made by him were supported by the evidence of all the naval officers examined before their Lordships' Committee, he felt assured that he was perfectly justified in agreeing in every sentiment that had fallen from the noble Earl. He conceived that the danger that might follow would be incalculable. It would be dangerous to diminish the number of their sailors, when it might be necessary to call suddenly upon them in time of war. A great alteration had taken place in the way of sailing ships, in consequence of the facilities that were given by the introduction of steam; and it was to be apprehended that by the facilities afforded for the transmission of coal by railway, the coasting and collier trade, so valuable a nursery for seamen, might be 30 seriously affected; and also that the operations in time of war would be much more sudden than in former times. They would want to throw their strength upon particular points with rapidity, and it would be found that steam would have the effect, besides, of diminishing very much the practice of seamanship. The introduction of steam must, therefore, of necessity have a strong tendency to affect the well-known character of the British tar. Let them remember that if they made this alteration they could not retract except at the risk of quarrelling with their neighbours; and he hoped, with the concurrence of a majority of their Lordships, that he should have the satisfaction of taking a part in stopping a measure which might be productive of considerable injury to the best interests of this great maritime empire.

§ EARL WALDEGRAVE

addressed their Lordships; but was quite inaudible.

§ The EARL of HARROWBY

,^* before he entered on the general subject before the House, begged their permission to advert to a charge made by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) last night against Mr. Cardwell, one of the Members for Liverpool, who, he stated, had made a strong declaration upon his election in favour of the navigation laws—who had by reason of that declaration received the support of the shipowners and others of that port—and whose conduct the noble and learned Lord alleged had been inconsistent with those professions. Now, having a great respect for that Gentleman—although he had the misfortune to differ with him on this occasion—he was anxious that their Lordships should be put in possession of the facts, and for this purpose would refer to an authentic statement of them which he held in his hand. From this it appeared that a Committee of the Liverpool Conservative Association, deputed to select candidates at the last election, agreed to recommend Mr. Cardwell's name, with that of Sir Digby Mackworth, and reported accordingly to a general meeting of the Association, on the 24th of June, 1847. By that meeting the following resolution was adopted:— That this mooting do now adjourn until Monday, at half-past two, and in the meantime the Chairman be requested to correspond with Mr. Cardwell, M.P., and Sir Digby Mackworth, and to ascertain whether those gentlemen will give an assurance to oppose all endowment of the ^* From a Report published by Ridgway. 31 Roman Catholic clergy, and the abrogation of the Navigation Laws, should those measures be brought forward in the Legislature. This resolution was communicated to Mr. Cardwell, and the following was his answer, so far as respects the navigation laws:— I do not anticipate any proposal either for the endowment of the priests or for the repeal of the navigation laws. With respect to the navigation laws, I consider their object to have boon the regulation of our trade and shipping with an especial reference to our maritime supremacy. A Committee has been sitting from the commencement of the Session to inquire into their operation and effect. When they have closed their labours I shall feel it my duty to consider the evidence, and shall not consent to any modifications of the law which may appear to me calculated to interfere with the prosperity of the shipping and commercial interests, and the maintenance of our maritime power. I request you will convey to the adjourned meeting my assurance that these are my genuine sentiments, stated without any reserve, and without any intention or expectation that I shall change them. Permit me to add, respectfully, but firmly, that I decline to enter into any engagement, expressed or implied, which may fetter my free action in Parliament, or render it incompatible with my personal honour to pursue, from time to time, the course suggested to me by my sense of public duty. The consequence of this language was, that he was rejected by the Conservative Association, and did not receive their support. On a subsequent occasion, when addresssing a meeting held in the Exchange Ward, on the 26th of July, 1847, Mr. Cardwell closed his observations as regarded the navigation laws, with words to this effect:— Well then, I say, Gentlemen, I will consent to no change unless, upon future careful inquiry, and full consultation with all parties interested, I am satisfied that it would be conducive to the general good. And I state plainly, also, that, being so satisfied that a change would be so conducive, no power on earth should ever induce me to oppose it. These statements would, he hoped, acquit his hon. Friend, Mr. Cardwell, of the charge brought against him by the noble and learned Lord.

He would now beg to say a few words respecting the Bill before their Lordships. Before he had the honour of a seat in that House, he had been called upon in the other House to give a vote upon the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Navigation Laws, and he had not refused to go into the inquiry, being not only not so bigoted to those laws as to refuse all investigation into their effects, but on the contrary, thinking it highly desirable 32 from time to time to consider what changes in those laws the lapse of time and changing circumstances both in our own trade and that of foreign countries might make it proper to effect. It was necessary that from time to time such adjustments should be made between the occasionally conflicting interests of trade and navigation. Such adjustments had been made by the Legislature at different times; but the one great principle of protection to our mercantile marine, as an object of paramount importance, had never been lost sight of, nay, had been kept most studiously in view by every statesman who had dealt with them down to the present time.

It had been made a subject of much discussion in this debate, whether this were a question of free trade or not. Now for his own part he (Lord Harrowby) cared not whether it were or no. He never could consider that the questions of free trade and protection were, like those of right and wrong, two great antagonistic principles, which admitted of no variation in their application. They were, in his mind, questions, in which the reasons for applying the one principle or the other predominated, according to the nature of the interests at issue, and the occasion of their application. But in this case, by the admission of all parties, in this House at least, as it had been by all previous statesmen and all previous legislatures, there was at least something which took the question out of the category of simple free trade, and compelled the consideration of it on a different basis. The noble Marquess himself, and all who followed on his side, had fully admitted that the mercantile marine of this country was the basis of her naval strength, and if of her naval strength, of her very existence, and had declared in the strongest and most emphatic language, that if they could be convinced that the measure before the House had any tendency to impair that marine, to injure that mercantile marine, no consideration of simple commercial advantage could ever induce them to seek it at such a cost—concurring in this with every preceding statesman and authority on this subject, that whenever the interests of commerce and navigation were really at variance, those of navigation must predominate, as essential to the defence and security of the empire. All parties thus practically concurred in taking this question out of the category of simple free trade; and the question must ultimately, in the minds of all, 33 concentrate on this one point, can the mercantile marine of Great Britain compete, unprotected, with the marine of other countries? and if not, what is the amount of protection requisite to enable it to do so? For he fully admitted that it was our duty not to continue a single restriction, not to impose a single obstacle in the way of the greatest liberty to commerce, which was not absolutely essential to that object. Now, a great deal of powder had been burnt upon this subject, which had rather tended to obscure, than to throw a steady light upon it. Calculations and counter-calculations had been produced with the view of showing, à priori, that the British shipowner could or could not compote with the foreigner—calculations as to the expense of building, the expense of navigation; and he would admit that such calculations were often a basis for legislation not very satisfactory, for somehow or other the result did not always appear ultimately to be that which such à priori calculations, apparently most indisputable, would lead a man to expect. Some elements, it would seem, were omitted, the omission of which was not to be detected at the time, which made the whole difference in the result. But the observation of facts, as to the past, if carefully and conscientiously made, that is, genuine, carefully considered and conscientious statistics, could not mislead; but then they must be conscientiously selected, they must be the real tests of the question at issue; and on this point he did think that their Lordships and the country had great reason to complain. It was painful to him to make reflections here or any where on the proceedings of a gentleman, Mr. Porter, the honour of whose acquaintance he enjoyed, and whom he hoped often to meet again; but the sense of a public duty to a great question would not permit him to be silent. Well then, he said, that a vast mass of figures had been produced by that gentleman as bearing upon the question at issue, and with the object of producing an effect upon this question, which had no real bearing upon it whatever.

Now, take first the celebrated schedule, which he had produced before the Committee of the House of Commons, of what were called the protected and unprotected trades, purporting to show the relative progress of British navigation under these two heads, and with the view, if any view it had, of showing that without protection British navigation throve and increased 34 better than with its aid; and look solely to the figures so arranged, without analysing the particulars—look only to the gross results, and the conclusion would appear to be inevitable. It would be found, that on the gross figures so arranged, an increase of shipping on the protected side would appear of only 94 per cent, while that on the unprotected side would appear to have been 182 per cent. But how were these results produced? Why, by including the repeated voyages of steamers, in one set of cases, and in another the navigation with countries, in the trade with which, as they had no ships, or but very few of their own, and the ships of no third party were admitted, we had, though not by law, yet by the facts, an effective protection, and even monopoly. Now was this fair? What was the point at issue? The power of competing in sailing vessels, of maintaining a great mercantile marine to sustain and feed our Navy. Was this shown by the command which our superiority in machinery gave us over the communication by short and weekly-repeated voyages between France and Belgium, and Holland and Hamburgh? If it was not good for this purpose, for what purpose was it advanced? But whatever the purpose might have been, the effect could only mislead, and did mislead, those who argued on this question, and did not look closely into the details. It was misleading up to this moment even those who were debating the question at this hour in their Lordships' House; for the results of such tables as these had been quoted already in this debate, and would, he had little doubt, in spite of demonstration, be referred to again as conclusive evidence. But what did this table of Mr. Porter's, when analysed, really establish? That Ave could compete with China, which had no marine that crossed the seas—with Sumatra and Java—with Mexico, and the States of South America, which had no marine—with Turkey and Egypt—with Tripoli, Barbary, and Morocco—with Spain and with Portugal—countries, certainly, which we had never considered as formidable competitors in such a race, all disqualified by one circumstance or another, political or geographical, for such a struggle—that we could effectively compete with Russia, locked upon one side by six months' frost, with little sea-coast, and under institutions of serfage, which utterly incapacitated her, if no other obstacle existed, for ever possessing a numerous or energetic seafaring 35 population. Well, these were not very satisfactory tests; these were not the experimenta crucis, as the philosophers call them, which, by eliminating all disturbing influences, enable a man to arrive at any real result, any real solution of the question. What countries then remained? France, the Netherlands, and Germany. And what were the figures there:—

	1824.	1846.
	Tons.	Tons.
France	82,650	556,821
United Netherlands	68,285	382,975
Germany	67,345	206,201
	218,280	1,145,997

What a magnificent increase of British tonnage! Could anything be more satisfactory, more conclusive, as to the elements of maritime predominance, which such a statement showed. But analyse it—and what was the result? In the first place you must sot beside it, the cotemporary increase in the shipping of these same countries:—

	1824.	1846.
France	52,648	262,938
United Netherlands	107,729	230,721
Germany	46,106	122,485
	206,483	616,144

And it will he found that the shipping of these countries made no very contemptible strides within the same period; and, in the next place, the vast proportion, as he (Lord Harrowby) had said before, of the tonnage which so swelled the account in the columns of British shipping, represented only the repeated voyages of steamers across the Channel, or to Hamburgh, and in no way bore upon the real question at issue—the predominance of British navigation. It had no more to do with the question at issue, than if, the inquiry being whether stage coaches could compete with railroads, a table were produced, including stage coaches and cabs under a common head, and swelling the account by the number of clearances inwards and outwards, of the latter vehicles, between Euston-square and Palace-yard.

We had now disposed of the whole schedule save Prussia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and the United States of America; and here, indeed, and here only, there was a real competition—here only a fair test of the result. Here there were sailors against sailors, ships against ships, a real and effective struggle, and what was the result? Let the Baltic shipping first be taken by itself. 36

	1824.	1846.
British ships trading with Prussia	94,564	63,425
Denmark	6,738	9,531
Norway	11,419	3,313
Sweden	17,074	12,625
	129,795	88,894

In two-and-twenty years of increase of population, and wealth, and intercourse, a decline in British navigation of not much less than 40 per cent. But let their Lordships look at the other side, which Mr. Porter was in no hurry to place before them, the progress of the shipping of the same foreign countries, in the same intercourse during the same period.

	1824.	1846.
Prussia	151,621	270,801
Denmark	23,689	105,973
Norway	135,272	113,738
Sweden	40,092	80,649
	350,674	571,161

The result, therefore, in this really unprotected intercourse, when there was an effective competition, and neither party had any real advantage—in fact, in the only case in which the real test so far had been applied—was, that British shipping had declined, between 1824 and 1846, from 129,795 tons to 88,894 tons—a decrease of not far from 40 per cent; while the foreign shipping engaged in the same intercourse within the same periods, had increased from 350,674 tons, to 571,161 tons—an increase of about 63 per cent. Was this encouragement to believe, that unprotected British navigation could compete with all foreign navigation? And yet, so far, this was the only case in which the experiment had been fairly tried. Now, in dwelling on this part of the case, he did not mean to attack the reciprocity treaties of Mr. Huskisson, under the operation of which this experiment had been going on. He looked upon them, as Mr. Huskisson himself had always stated them, as a concession to avoid greater evils, not as an absolute good in themselves. But for this point the result was conclusive. British navigation fared but ill in the direct trade with the Baltic Powers, save with Russia, who was disqualified by peculiar causes of her own. What reason was there to expect that British navigation would fare better in the carrying and the colonial trades, which it was now proposed to throw open to the same Powers?

But how was it with the United States?

Let their Lordships refer to the same table of Mr. Porter's, and they would see 37 an increase in British, shipping from 44,994 tons, to 205,123 tons—a very respectable and encouraging increase on the face of it; but, in the first place, let them look at that which Mr. Porter had not shown, the cotemporary condition of American shipping, and they would find an increase from 153,475 tons, to 435,399 tons; on the face of it, no great encouragement to throw open to such competition trades from which such competitors are now excluded. But let them examine further, and ascertain what was the nature of the British shipping, which was able to keep its ground at all in the struggle with American shipping. The figures could not be procured, but the fact was undoubted. The only ships, except steamers, which could live in that competition were the cheap and inferior ships, built in our North American colonies, enjoying the same advantages for construction which the Americans themselves enjoyed, and which, being principally employed in the timber trade with the mother country during the summer, were enabled to carry the comparatively light article of cotton at a low rate of freight during the winter season. The whole valuable carriage between this country and the United States, it was notorious—nine-tenths in value was the calculation—was in ships of the United States; and he was afraid that no change in the American navigation laws, consequent upon the Bill before them, would suffice to remove the disadvantages under which British navigation in intercourse with the United States was, undoubtedly, at present labouring. The orders for goods came from America, and were directed, as well by American feeling and connexions as by navigation laws, into American ships.

He hoped he had now satisfied their Lordships, not only that Mr. Porter's statistics had not established the case in favour of the safety of exposing British shipping to unaided competition, but directly the reverse. But, if any doubt yet remained, he (Lord Harrowby) would appeal to Mr. Porter himself for proof, in his evidence before the Committee of their Lordships' House, as to the valuelessness of the tables which he had presented, for the purpose to which they had been applied, in fact to the question now before their Lordships. He then admitted that the classification of protected and unprotected trades was in itself incorrect, and that many of these, which were unpro- 38 tected by law or treaty, were in fact protected by other circumstances. On the subject of the repeated voyages of steamers, which swell the apparent increase of British shipping in the trades with France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany, when the question was put to him in Committee, "Therefore this shows the increase of trade, not of shipping?" he was compelled to answer, "Clearly." And with regard to the steam tonnage, there are many repeated voyages taken into account, which go to show the increase of the trade, but not of the shipping?"—"Exactly, was his reply. When he was further asked— But admitting that steam vessels form a very large element, that they are, in fact, a paramount element of increase in the trade, do you not think that the mere passages of steamboats backwards and forwards between adjacent countries in voyages of twenty-four hours, does not bear very strongly one way or the other, the question being the formation of seamen, and the navigation of ships generally? His answer is— I certainly have not been accustomed to look at things in that point of view—I have looked at them with reference to the trade of the country. Now, it was very right that an officer of the Board of Trade should look at the trade of the country; but when the question was one of shipping, and not of trade, it was not right of him to bring forward statements so arranged as to wear the appearance of bearing upon navigation when he knew they had in reality no such bearing—so arranged as to mislead, as practically they had misled, and were still misleading, parties both in this House and out of this House, and which had gone far to produce an impression, and an incorrect one, on the public mind. Knowing the value and the bearing of his own statistics, he should rather have warned parties into whose hands they might fall, of the abuse that might be made of them, than have permitted them to produce an effect not the true one.

But he (Lord Harrowby) had not done with these statistics. Mr. Porter had made a further statement, by which it appeared that the tonnage between Great Britain and the United States had increased between the years 1821 and 1844 from 52,000 tons, to 776,000 tons. Now, this statement had rather astonished those who were engaged in the American trade, and who were aware of the difficulty with which the ships of Great Britain main- 39 tained themselves at all in competition with the Americans; and accordingly they looked into the American returns, to verify the facts, and satisfied themselves that the numbers stated by Mr. Porter were a complete mistake, including, as they did, not only the sea-going vessels entering the ports of the United States from Great Britain, to the amount of about 240,000 tons, and 33,000 tons of the British West Indies, but also 515,879 tons of the British colonies in North America, consisting to a very great extent of vessels trafficking on the great American lakes, whether by steam or sail, and therefore having no bearing whatever upon the question in debate. Evidence on this point was adduced before their Lordships' Committee last year—but in vain. Mr. Porter persevered in his statement, and in a correspondence with Mr. Cardwell, which he (Lord Harrowby) had seen in the public journals, reaffirmed, only so late as March 15th of this year, his former statement, adding to it in distinct terms, that "the whole consisted of vessels entering the seaports of those States;" and subjoining in a postscript, "I do not pretend to infallibility, but in this case you may quite depend upon it that I am right." Could their Lordships believe that after this reconsideration of the facts, and this reaffirmation of their accuracy, he was obliged, on the 29th of March, to confess, that on looking into the American accounts, he found that out of the 811,000 tons, which he had thus positively given to British sea-going tonnage for the year 1846, 300,000 were, in fact, lake tonnage—only 512,000 Atlantic tonnage; and that it ultimately appeared that even these figures had to be transposed, and about 300,000 alone remained the amount of the whole veritable Atlantic British tonnage trading with the United States, including that from the British West Indies, instead of the 811,000 which had been so obstinately persisted in, in spite of evidence, by the statistical office of the Board of Trade? Then what should he (Lord Harrowby) say of conduct like this? He would not call it dishonesty, because he did not believe it to be so; but he did call it a species of fanaticism, which blinded the intellectual vision, and of which instances appeared from time to time, confusing and staggering the apprehension of all ordinary men. At any rate, with such instances before them, their Lordships would be careful how they accepted statistics from that quarter. It was such in- 40 stances as these which justified the suspicion into which statistics had fallen, and discredited the whole science.

He would take another instance to show with what caution tables of this kind ought to be received—how closely they should be scrutinised before their value was admitted. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) had told their Lordships of the risk of retaliation from other countries, with whom Great Britain now enjoyed the privilege of a carrying trade, if she did not admit them to the same advantage; and they told their Lordships that 240,000 tons of shipping engaged in such voyages between third ports, and he did not know how many seamen navigating them, were at stake.

Now, he (Lord Harrowby) did not mean to make light of that possibility, and thought it very advisable to consider it, case by case, looking in each instance to the likelihood of such threats being carried out, or not, according to the evident interest of each party, and looking to the amount of navigation in each case at stake. But he (Lord Harrowby) could not but think that the figures in this case, as in the others which he had gone into, were no real representation of the facts, that is, of the real extent of the navigation. There were no returns by which the whole of that neutral navigation could be analysed; but in page 475 of the report of their Lordships' Committee, a table appeared which threw considerable light upon the subject, and which would lead their Lordships to believe that the tonnage really at issue in this carrying trade was but small. Out of the 240,000 tons, or thereabouts, this table gave the particulars of about 150,000 tons; and when 42,000 tons were found engaged in a voyage from Turkey to Odessa, 32,000 from Turkey to Taganrog, equally in the Black Sea, 3,616 between Spanish ports and Cadiz; 2,960 between French ports and Antwerp, &c. &c., and other voyages of like dimensions, occupying in most cases not a week in the passage, it was impossible to consider, that their importance had not been greatly exaggerated, and that in fact, if reduced to voyages of a year's duration, the whole amount would be but very trifling. It was clear that they were but fragments of other voyages, useful in their way, in completing the links of a chain of traffic, but not furnishing support to any thing like, not one-tenth at most, the amount of 41 tonnage which the mere statement of the figures would presume.

He had thus stated with as much brevity as he could the reasons which induced him not only to believe that there were no adequate grounds for thinking that it was safe to take this great leap in the dark, but, on the contrary, to entertain a strong conviction, that as far as evidence from similar cases was to be had, there was great reason to fear the most disastrous consequences from such a step. He knew there were inconveniences, he knew there were evils, which deserved consideration and required a remedy. But he was confident that there was nothing which it was not better to treat separately and on its own merits, adjusting the concession and the remedy to the specific case, and not abandoning at once and in the gross the whole system of laws on which at least all preceding statesmen had rested their confidence for our maritime security.

But even if the work were to be done, if their Lordships were prepared to abandon these ancient bulwarks of British power, surely the manner of proceeding proposed by Her Majesty's Government was the most unwise, the most inconvenient, the rashest that could have been suggested.

As far as he understood the Bill, its effect was this, that from and after the 1st of January, 1850, that is to say, in six months or little more, the whole navigation of the country and its colonies was to be open without reserve to every other country, whether those countries had or had not made even a step in advance in the way of reciprocal advantages; that therefore the result must be this, that within the next six months or little more, every country on the face of the globe, with which we had commercial dealings, whether republic or monarchy, federation or despotism, must have altered the whole system by which their navigation and trade were governed, so as to give us not only a nominal, but a real and effective equivalent for all that we gave to them, or that British shipping would be exposed at once and without preparation, not only to unassisted, unprotected, competition, but to competition under every possible disadvantage, giving the carrying trade, giving freight both ways, to countries which shall have given you no carrying trade, no reciprocal trade in return; and the only remedy for this state of things held out, was the impossible one of retaliation, withdrawing from foreign countries privileges which 42 they would already have been enjoying without equivalent concession on their parts. Such a scheme was impossible to carry out. A Government which had so loudly denounced a system of commercial hostility and reprisal could never engage in such a course; and the result would be, that these advantages would be given to foreign shipping, without return—and under the guise of equality, the most crushing inequality would be created. To expect that within the year an effective reciprocity could be secured, was really absurd. Why, we had been negotiating for it for years already, without success, as in Prussia, in France, and with the eastern possessions of Holland, where when we enjoyed reciprocity in name, it was denied us in effect—by a salt monopoly in Prussia—by Government contracts for coals in France—by the arrangements of a monopolising company in Holland. We had already little encouragement in the answers which had been returned by different Governments to our inquiries, as to their willingness to reciprocate. In some we were met with a sneer, in others with an ambiguous answer. Belgium was afraid of us; Holland called her colonial, a coasting trade, just as the United States gave the same title to her trade with California, and on that plea withheld it. It was proposed to admit ships built in the United States, but they already told you that they would not admit those which were built in British colonies. Was this picture encouraging? Did it hold out the smallest hope, that, having given everything, you would not find yourself in the condition of being compelled to acquiesce in the sacrifice of your shipping without equivalent, or to enter on that commercial warfare, to avoid which you pretended to recommend this precipitate, this wholesale, abandonment of your own advantages?

The only point on which he (Lord Harrowby) felt any real dffiiculty in meeting the proposal of the Government with a direct negative, was the condition of our colonics. We could not but feel, that our colonies, having lost all colonial favour, might well and naturally expect to be liberated from all colonial restriction But in fact and in truth the difficulty was confined to Canada. The West Indian colonies, in the just and most natural exasperation at the destruction of their prosperity, the disappointment of their best-grounded expectations, grasped in the first instance at the idea of deriving some ad- 43 vantage from the abolition of the navigation laws, and thus securing a cheaper freight for their productions. But a little reflection showed them, that any hope of advantage from this source was fallacious; that whatever advantage they might gain from a cheaper freight, would be shared by their powerful rivals, Cuba and Brazil, and that thus they themselves would appear in the British markets under no greater advantage than before. One by one, they, therefore, have withdrawn their plea for this imagined boon. It was only on coming into the House this day that he had put into his hand the expression of opinion on the part of a public meeting of planters in Guiana, in which they distinctly state, "that the repeal of the navigation laws would be anything but a boon," and reject it with scorn. To Trinidad and other colonies many of the advantages desired might be granted by Order in Council under the existing law. In Canada, and Canada alone, was there any real difficulty. He could not but be sensible of the importance of conciliating a colony so important, so nearly independent in its action, and in such vicinity to the United States; more especially when rankling under the disappointment of advantages to their principal productions, which seemed to have been guaranteed to them by recent legislation. But even here, also, much might be done without touching the navigation laws. The noble Lord himself, the Secretary for the Colonies, in his despatch of the 31st July, 1847, tells Lord Elgin— With regard to that part of the memorial which relates especially to the navigation of the St. Lawrence by foreign vessels, I have to state, that although this question is also connected with the general laws of navigation, it may, perhaps, be possible to deal with it separately, and to comply wholly or partially with the application of the memorialists, even though it should be decided to leave the rest of the navigation law untouched. He knew that this was not everything that the Canadians expect; but even the remainder might be better left to be made subject of separate negotiation with the Americans, than to be given up at once as part of a general concession. The Canadians themselves suffered from a heavy duty—8s. per quarter—imposed upon their corn when imported into the United States; and they told you themselves, that they only looked to being able to break through the opposition to the removal of this protection to American produce, which was raised by the protectionists of that coun- 44 try, by means and with the help of negotiations, which should make a relaxation of this prohibition a condition of concessions to be made to American navigation.

Under such circumstances, there being every reason for not breaking down precipitately a whole system on account of some local or exceptional difficulty, and in the most difficult and important case of all that difficulty being practically best fitted to be dealt with on its own merits and as a separate question, there could be no excuse for thus proceeding. He himself, at least, could see no reason for hesitating to give a decided negative to a proposition, based on no real necessity—involving the greatest hazards to the most essential interests of the empire—unsupported by authority or by experience—founded, if on anything, on the most fallacious information; and from which, when once carried out, and when we were under engagements with foreign nations, there was no possibility of reconsideration or retreat.

§ LORD BROUGHAM

said, his purpose, in alluding to the Liverpool election, was not to attack Mr. Cardwell; it was merely to show that the feeling of Liverpool was against the Bill, although its Members were for it. The question had arisen from the fact that a much-loved friend of his (Sir J. Graham) in the other House, had said, that, as the Members were for it, the town could not be against it. In order to refute that statement it had been necessary to refer to the Members for Liverpool. He had said that Sir Thomas Birch had been the secretary of his late friend, Lord Melbourne, but that Mr. Card-well could not be actuated by any influences of that character; and yet he had altered his opinions on the subject of the navigation laws in a very remarkable manner, although he had pledged himself on the hustings to support them. It was only with that view that he (Lord Brougham) had mentioned the matter, and not with the slightest intention of attacking that very respectable person, Mr. Cardwell. His defence for having said this would be taken from the mouth of the Mayor of Liverpool, who had seconded the nomination of Mr. Cardwell, and had been one of his leading canvassers. The Mayor of Liverpool, Mr. J. Bramley Moore, being called upon in the town-council, all the members of which were upon one side on this question, to account for having proposed a gentleman opposed to the navigation laws—

§ EARL GREY

Does the noble Lord intend this as an explanation?

§ LORD BROUGHAM

Certainly. His Parliamentary experience was four times as long as that of the noble Earl, and the result of that experience was, that when questions arose respecting Gentlemen who inaccurately or wrongfully made charges against others, they were always allowed a larger privilege of explanation. The Mayor of Liverpool said— I beg to call the attention of the council to the fact that I followed Mr. Cardwell through the whole of his canvass, and during the whole of that time I was under the impression that he was opposed to the repeal of the principle of the navigation laws. At the nomination Mr. Cardwell said— A prejudice has boon attempted to be excited against me, upon the supposition that I meditate some change in the navigation laws prejudicial to your interest. I have given to that statement—in every place and on every occasion—the most emphatic negative; and I leave it to the good sense of Liverpool whether you will be blinded by a cry or guided by facts. I hope you will see that measures that increase the number of things to be carried, will increase the prosperity of those who have to carry them; and seeing me with the chairman of the Dock Committee on the one hand, and the chairman of the Shipowners' Association on the other, you will judge of me by the company I keep, and regard me as safe on the subject of the navigation laws. It is good to leave well alone; it is also good to leave it alone for fear it should be made worse.

§ LORD WHARNCLIFFE

said, there was at least one advantage in proceeding thus late in the debate to add