then placed the resolution he moved in the hands of the chair

man.

Mr. Herries immediately succeeded Mr. Labouchere. On the understanding that the question was to be taken up where it was left last Session, he should not oppose the resolution, although he intended to offer his most strenuous and determined opposition to the measure, on grounds which he briefly exemplified. Canada asked for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, because she had been deprived of protection; but she would rather await the turn of opinion and recur to protection. This country had conformed itself to the long voyage trade by the construction of docks and warehouses: no country on earth was so well suited to be the depôt for the rest of the world, and he could not give up that trade.

Mr. Henry Drummond declared the measure to be the last of a series inculcated by "the Manchester School," the end and intention of which were to discharge all British labourers, and to employ foreign labourers in lieu of them-(loud cheering from the Protectionists)-foreign sawyers instead of English sawyers, foreign shipwrights instead of English shipwrights, and so on through the whole catalogue of employments. Alderman Thompson objected that the United States Minister was recalled with every Presidency, and that Mr. Bancroft was more liberal in his commercial principles than President Taylor.

Mr. Bankes, Mr. Hildyard, Sir John Tyrell, and the Marquis of Granby followed Mr. Herries in the same line of objection.

Mr. Hume, Colonel Thompson, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. John Williams, maintained the free-trade argument.

Mr. J. L. Ricardo said, the more he heard the question discussed on the Protectionist side, the more he was puzzled to understand the principle of their opposition to this measure. One assented to a relaxation of one part of the Navigation Laws, and another to a repeal of other parts; what, then, became of the fundamental principle? It was notorious that our mercantile marine was now inferior to that of other nations, and it would continue to be so whilst we leaned upon a vicious system.

At the close Mr. Labouchere stated that the Government, during the recess, had communicated to Foreign Powers the purport of this measure, and had endeavoured to obtain from them a general notion of the course they proposed to take, and the correspondence would very shortly be laid before the House.

The resolution was agreed to, and reported to the House, and a Bill founded thereon was ordered to be brought in.

Upon the 9th of March, the second reading having been moved as the Order of the Day by the President of the Board of Trade

Mr. Herries rose to oppose the further progress of the Bill, and to move that it be read a second time that day six months, objecting, as he did, to its principle as well as to its details. The interval since last Session had afforded time for considering this measure, and the result had been a vast body of opinions and of evi dence adverse to its policy. He examined the reasons assigned for the change by Mr. Labouchere. That of Canada, he showed, was good for nothing, if not repugnant. The reason derived from the West Indies seemed to be abandoned. The maritime policy of Foreign Powers, the next and most curious

reason, Mr. Herries considered at some length, insisting that no ground appeared in the correspondence with those Powers for expecting that the surrender of our Navigation Laws would purchase an adequate concession from them: all acted upon the sound protection principle. The question at issue, he observed, was this:-On one hand, the Navigation Laws had secured to this country a large commercial marine; on the other hand, it was contended that they presented obstructions to the free scope of commerce, and that a large mercantile marine was not necessary or auxiliary to a great naval Power. After exposing the fallacy of the last proposition, he adduced evidence to prove that, in spite of its restrictions, which were not onerous, the balance of advantages clearly preponderated in favour of a system which was the nursery of our flourishing mercantile marine, the foundation of our naval supremacy, and which, if once abandoned for the sake of a rash experiment, could never be restored.

Mr. J. Wilson, in replying to the objections of Mr. Herries, protested against the opinions expressed in the petitions, however numerously signed, being accepted as conclusive evidence of the sentiments out of doors; and then travelled in the route of Mr. Herries's arguments, pointing out his errors and misapprehensions in reference to the case of Canada, and appealing to the recent declarations of opinion in the West Indies in favour of this measure, and to the fact that many of the foreign commercial States had actually granted a perfectly free trade. Mr. Wilson. then entered into copious details, showing the beneficial action of free trade and the removal of restrictions, which, though exposing

our merchants to competition, had augmented the aggregate commerce of the country; and he asked why the shipping interest should be exempted from a rivalry which all other interests were compelled to encounter. He then proved the little real advantage which the Navigation Laws gave to the British shipowner, who, by the very policy of those laws, was exposed to competition in the long voyage trade in every country where competition was most injurious to him; and that all the tests which had been applied to the question showed the full ability of British shipowners to compete with the foreign. Even in the American trade British ships had increased more rapidly than the American. These laws, in some cases, acted as a protection to foreign ships at the expense of British ships; and while practically they were of little benefit to the shipowner, their restrictions operated, especially in emergencies, very injuriously upon consumers, and ultimately upon shipowners themselves. If a commercial marine was necessary to support our navy, free trade had increased, and would increase, that marine. Mr. Gladstone had recommended the reciprocity system, instead of repealing these laws; but Mr. Wilson stated at much length the grounds upon which he thought a reciprocity system objectionable in principle, and very inconvenient, if not impracticable; and he enumerated the many advantages and the few risks likely to result from the repeal of the Navigation Laws, which were a palpable well-defined evil.

The Marquis of Granby said the question really was whether the British shipowner could compete with foreigners; if he could not, the House would not do right,

merely because it had adopted the principle of free trade, to apply that principle to his ruin; and it was shown by the evidence before the Lords' Committee, that our shipowners could not maintain such a competition. It was admitted that ships built in this country were dearer than foreign, and the opinion that British ships lasted longer and were more valuable than others had turned out to be erroneous. The results of the reciprocity treaties furnished no evidence in favour of this measure, which was based upon a different principle. He also urged the numbers whom this change would throw out of employment; the visionary character of its vaunted advantages, and the reality of its evils; the impolicy of altering the apprenticeship system, and of diminishing the number of shipwrights in private yards; and the danger of introducing foreign shipping into the ports of our colonies. Mr. Cardwell, although he could not share in the gloomy apprehensions of Mr. Herries and the Marquis of Granby, felt anxiety in approaching this question, considering what was due to the great mercantile interests of this country and the colonies. He warned the House of the danger of not taking timely steps with regard to what was called the long voyage

66

clause," which some of the witnesses before the Lords' Committee regarded as one of the fundamental principles of the Navigation Laws; and he showed the effect of maintaining that clause in defeating the policy of the warehousing system, and robbing us of a large share of the commerce of the world. He urged, in opposition to Mr. Herries, the importance of the case of Canada with

relation to these laws (which he had treated as of no consequence), and he specified instances of anomalies in them which rendered it impossible that they could remain in their present state. The inferiority of the British ships was not so well established as Lord Granby had supposed; there was evidence to establish the fact, à priori, that the country which had the greatest capital, energy, and enterprise, and the command of all the markets in the world, would, upon fair and equal terms, compete with other nations; and he believed that the British shipowner could stand such fair competition. This was a subject with which it was the duty of Parliament to deal immediately and effectually; and the question was whether the House should reject all progress in the matter, or go into Committee for the purpose of obtaining a fair hearing for all reasonable objections, and a fair consideration for every interest and every improvement, so that they might arrive at a safe and satisfactory settlement of this most difficult and most important question.

Mr. Henley expressed his astonishment that Mr. Cardwell, instead of removing the anomalies to which he had adverted, should propose to sweep away these laws altogether-a process of reasoning he could not understand. Were we, for the sake of remedying some limited inconveniences, to pass a measure which would hazard the great interests of the country? Mr. Henley replied to some of the arguments of Mr. Wilson, who, he said, had scouted reciprocity; yet the bill legislated for it, and the Government had engaged in correspondence with foreign Governments for the pur

pose of securing it. What did the Government intend to do on the subject of impressment? If the masters of ships were to be taken from a superior class, were they still liable to be impressed? The experiment of free trade had not been sufficiently tried to justify the application of that principle to another great interest, which involved not only capital and industry but the national defence.

The debate, being here adjourned, was resumed on the 13th of March by

Mr. Gladstone, who sustained an elaborate argument in favour of a departure from our present system by a series of comparisons which went to show that our tonnage, both foreign and colonial, had increased at a far more rapid ratio since we embarked on a system of relaxation, so far as the Navigation Laws were concerned, than previously to our so doing. This was, of itself, a complete answer to those who held that further progress in the course of relaxation would be destructive to the shipping interests of this country. He would not then enter into the question of time, his conviction being that, on commercial and other grounds, this was a fitting season for effecting a large change in our navigation system. If this were a proper time for making such a change, the question was in what manner it could be best effected. Here he must say that he differed from many who supported the present measure. His doctrine was, that they should not abandon the path of experience. In his opinion, it was only on principles analogous to those acted on by Mr. Huskisson and others, that we could safely depart from the system of

navigation which we had so long pursued, and which had been for centuries interwoven with our national policy. There were several demands which the shipowner might fairly make upon the Legislature when it was about to deprive him of protection. In the first place, he was entitled to the removal of every peculiar burden by which he was now hampered. If we exposed him to unrestricted competition with foreigners, we should give him a drawback, or a remission of the duties upon the timber which he used in the construction of his ships. He should also, in the next place, be relieved from the restraint under which he laboured with respect to the manning of his ships. There was still another compensation to which the shipowner was entitled. By the repeal of the Navigation Laws, he would have to undergo a competition from the Baltic, sharp, as far as it went, and from the United States, all over the world. He was, therefore, entitled to ask that we should secure for him, if possible, an entrance into those fields of employment from which he was now excluded, as a compensation for the entrance permitted to the foreigner to those fields of employment of which the English shipowner had now a monopoly. The policy pointed out to them by experience was that of conditional relaxation. He had never entertained the notion that we should proceed by treaties of reciprocity with Foreign Powers. There were difficulties in the way of so doing, which it became a prudent Legislature to avoid. The American system, so far as it went, was that to which he would look as a model. By adopting that of conditional relaxation, they would

avoid the difficulties inseparable from the system of reciprocity treaties. The immediate effect of conditional relaxation would be to give to the vessels of such states as conferred privileges upon our shipping corresponding advantages in our ports. Such a course would be in accordance with precedent and experience, whilst it was that which was demanded by justice, and which would be found much more easy of execution than the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government. There was one feature of that plan to which he had an insuperable objection. Every word said by Mr. Wilson on the former night against the system of reciprocity told with augmented force against that of retaliation. He would join readily with those who might endeavour to get rid of that feature, regarding it, as he did, as a material defect in the Government plan. If the Government would not consent to legislate on the subject conditionally, he would advise it to do so directly, without the accompaniment of retaliation. Indeed, the conditional system was that upon which we now practically acted with regard to many of the maritime nations of the world. The plan which he thus proposed would do more for the general liberty of commerce than that which had emanated from the Treasury Bench. There was another feature in the Government proposition which he regarded as defective. He was of opinion that the mode in which it proposed to deal with the coasting trade would be found ineffectual for the purpose in view. Before we could expect to get the boon of the American coasting trade, we must throw our coasting trade unreservedly open to that country. He did not be

lieve that we should secure the coasting trade of America by proceeding on the principle of unconditional legislation. On the other hand, by proceeding on the conditional principle, they had every reason to believe that they would secure that trade. If his plan wanted another recommendation to entitle it to the favourable consideration of the House, it would be found in this, that by proceeding conditionally, they might at once effect a final Parliamentary settlement of this great question. He was aware that there was one fact which might be adduced in the form of an argument against the plan which he had ventured to suggest. It might be urged that it would not suit the views or meet the wishes of the colonies. What they wanted was supposed to be an unconditional repeal of the Navigation Laws. But he begged to remind the House that what they wanted was not such a repeal with a reserved power of retaliation. Having once tasted the sweets of unrestrained commercial intercourse with the whole world, the colonies would not be very ready to return to the system of restriction, either wholly or partially, should that system be reverted to by the mother country, either in whole or in part, by the exercise of the power of retaliation. So far as regarded the colonies, the exercise of the power in question would be unwise and impolitic. On this and on the other grounds, he would submit, in all earnestness, to the Government the propriety of erasing this feature from its plan, if it was resolved to proceed upon the principle of unconditional legislation. The right honourable Gentleman then proceeded to detail his reasons for