IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) // ^o ■ ■'S? C/j "m v.^ 1.0 '-IM IIIM llll-^:^ I.I 11.25 - 6" IM 1116 V <^ /^ ''^ c'; :^ > ^ W -^ Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^':%^\^^ ^. K^ m Wn " CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniquas at bibiiographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Taatures of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. m n n n D D D Coloured covers/ Couvertura d« couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restacrte et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intenor margin/ La re iiure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la nrarge intirieure Biank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Wherever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lore d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texta, mais, lorsque cela if^it possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaira qu'il lui a eti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre unii^ues du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image rcproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sent indiquAs ci-dassous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur6es et/ou pelKculdes n Pages damaged/ Pages I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqudes r~y Pages detached/ ucl Pages d^tachies I Y Showthrough/ L^ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qusliti inigale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition avaHable/ Seule Edition disponible 7 ti D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tieiues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6x6 film^es 6 nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilieure image possible. 1 P a fl T Sl T IV di ei b< ri r« n" This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de riduc.ion indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«re has ba«n raproducud thanks to tha ganarosity of: Manuscript Division Public Archives of Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and tagibility of tha original cop" and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Original copias in printad papar eovars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding oi: tha last paga with a pnntad or illustratad impraa- sion. or tha back covar when appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha fir^t paga with a printad or illustratad impraa- sion, and ending on the laat paga with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»•( meaning "CON* TINUEO"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appliaa. Maps, piatea, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grdca i la g^niroait* da: Division des manuscrits Archives publiques du Canada Lea images suivantea ont iti raproduitea avec la plua grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nattet* de l'exemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec lea conditions du contrat de fllmaga. Lea axemplairas originaux dont la couverture en papier eat imprimte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la darniAra paga qui comporta une ampreinte d'impreaaion ou d'lllustration, soit par le second plat, selon le caa. Tous las autrea axemplairas originaux sont filmte an commandant par la premiere page qui comporta une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration et en terminant par la darnt^re page qui comporta une telle empreinte. Un dea symbolee suivants apparaitra sur la demiAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le caa: le symbols — »• si^nifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FSN". Lea cartea. planchos. tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte d dea taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduft «ii un seui cliche, il est film^ d partir da Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite. et de haut en bas, an prenant le nombre d'Imagas n^cessaira. Las diagrammes suivants illuatrant la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^b S w^SS^bSB^ ^S ^ 3«e NAVIGATION LAWS. SPEECH OF JAMES WIISON, ESQ., M.P. FOR WESTBURY. HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 9, 1849. [price 6d., or Is. free by fost.J -^V -x. SPEECH ON THE NAVIGATION LAWS, DELIVERED ON THE Oxn MARCH, l«lf, ny JAMES WILSON, E S Q., M.r. FOR WESTBURY. LONDON : PUBLISHED BY D. M. A I R D, 3i0, STRAND, ^^ ^ NAVIGATION LAWS. S P E E C H , ETC. ETC. Mr. Labouchere moved that tliis Bill be read a second time. II- Mr. Herries, after a speech against tlic Bill, moved tliat it be read this dav six months. Mr. Wilson! in support of the Bill, addressed the House as follows: — , Mr. Speaker— Sir, in risinnj to oppose the amendment moved by the Ri'dit Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Herries) who has just addressed the House, to the effect that this Bill be read this day six months, I am at once willing to admit that the Govern- ment have no right to complain of tlie tone in which the Kight Honourable Gentleman has stated his grounds of objection to this most important measure. The Right Honourable (Gentle- man commenced and concluded his address by referring in the highest terms to the petitions presented to the House this night from the city of London, from Liverpool, and from Glasgow; but, Sir, while I would not be understood in the slightest degree to undervalue an expression ot opinion emanating from so influential, so respectable, so honourable, and so ^inuiligent a body of men as the merchants ot London, and especially when I find their opinions corrobo- rated by petitions proceeding from the not less influential or intelligent merchants of Liverpool awd Glasgow— without, Sir, being desirous of making a single remark that can be construed as invidious to those bodies— yet I must be per- mitted to remind vou that when Sir Robert Walpole, the most powerful Minister who ever led this House, came down to propose a law, by far the most important that was ever passed, for the extensive interests of commerce— a law wiUiout which in the present day a country would be considered barely civilised (I allude to the warehousing or bonding system)— Sir, I say, when I remember that when that Minister came down first 'to propose that measure, he was met by such an oppo- sition from the city of London that his personal safety was A 5i 4 endangered, and he was obliged to abandon it for the time ; and when I further remember that had the earnest entreaties of the merchants of Liverpool been listened to in this liouae, free navigation between Great Britain and Ireland would not have been conceded, it is impossible that I can regard petitions from London and Liverpool, although signed !)y '20,000 or i>7,000 persons out of such iunnense populations, as conclusive against the policy proposed to be adopted by her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Navigation Laws. But the Right Honom'able Gentleman the Member "or Stamford then went on to allude to the observations made by my Right Honourable Friend the Pre- sident of the Board of Trade, wiien he introduced this measure, and the grounds upon which he rcconnncnded it to the attention of the House ; and I must say that I never was more surprised than when I heard the Right Honourable Gentleman say, that after all that had passed, he was obliged to come to the con- clusion that the demands made by our colonies to be relieved from the restrictions of the Navifvation Laws could no longer be urged. The case of Canada he thinks must fall to the groimd, because, said he, the petitions received last yoar have been nega- tived by those received during the present Session.. Sir, I must say, I never was more surprised than to hear such a statement from a gentleman whose habits of business and industry are u guarantee that he is not a careless peruser of the papers laid on the table of this House. Sir, what arc the facts .'' The Right Honourable Gentleman says, look to the petition proceeding from the Council of the Board of Trade of jNIontreal, signed by the President. That petition, he says, prays for a restoration of protection ; and although it does allude to the Navigation Laws, yet it does so as a most unimportant and secondary con- sideration. Now, Sir, here is the document as it was presented to this House : let it speak for itself After a statement of what reallv are the grievances of the colony, it refers to two measures which it deems essential to their removal. What does the House think is the first? Tiie words are these: — "These measures, as far as the Luperial Legislature is concerned, are, firstly, the repeal of the Navigation Laws as they relate to Canada, and the throwing open the navigation of the St. Law- rence ; and, secondly, the enactment of a moderate fixed duty,, say, not less than 5s. a quarter, on foreign wheat ; colonial to be admitted free." Now, let the House remember that this petition proceeds from the Protectionist section of the Board of Trade, who, nevertheless, contrary to the statement of the Right Hon- ourable Gentleman opposite, in place of merely alluding to the 'J^' c Navigation Laws indirectly and indistinctly, put them forward as the first and most prominent of their jrricvances, and in priority to protection. Hut, again, the liight Honourable Gentleman must know that a protest was entered against that petition by a large and influential body ot the members o^ the Board oV Trade, who, while they adhered to the petition for th? rejwal of the Navigation Laws, protested against that i)art which called for a restoration of protection ; and on the same day on which that petition was presented to this House by the Honourable (iende- niandjc Member for Poole (Mr. llobiirson), another petition was presented by the Noble Lord the I'irst Minister from the citizens of Montreal, and another by my Honourable Friend the Member for Kinsale ( Mr. Hawes) from the Hoard of Trade for Hamilton, in Upper C'anada, both praying for a repeal of the Navigation Laws, without any prayer for protection, as essential to the wel- fare of the colony; and, Sir, last of all, within the last few days, there has been laid on this table an address to her Majesty from the Legislative Council and Conmions in Parliament assembled in Canada, })rayiiig that the measure proposed to the Imperial I'arliament in the last Session, on the subject of the Navigation Laws may be passed with all possible speed. Again no mention of protection. Then, Sir, here we have petitions presented in the piesent Session from men of all shades of opinion in Canada; but who, nevertheless, arc agreed at least upon one point — in calling upon us to rescind the restrictions upon dieir navigation. Li tlie face of these petitions it is. Sir, that the Right Honourable Gentleman says we have Jio case in Canada; and he dien went on to say diat die Cana- dians were quite mistaken as t) the true cause of the inconvenience which diey felt. It is not, says the Right Honourable Member, the Navigation Laws which embarrass their trade : it is the great natural difficulties of navigating the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, and die fact that for at least four months in every year that river is frozen, while the ports of the United States are open all the year. S'r, was there ever such an argu- ment in favour of restrictions ■' Because our fellow-subjects have natural impediments to contend against, are these to be urged as a reason why we should impose upon them further difficulties of an artificial and voluntary kind ? If it be true, as it no doubt is, that the internal navigation of Canada be difficult, that is the strongest reason why we should remove every obstacle to the external navigation. Nay, the policy of this House has already gone further. We have already recog- nised the policy of interfering by the credit of the Imperial Government, to enable tlie Cantifiians to remedy some of the internal obsti uetions to their trade. 'I'his House some years ago saneiioned and guaranteed a loan, raised by Canada, for the purpose of construeting great ship eanals to connect the Western Lakes with tlie St. Lawrence, to aid its navigation : for this purpose about firo millions have been expended, the ni- terc.it of which is guaranteed by this country. Is all this expenditure, then, to be rendered useles;;, fuid its repayment im- j)ossible, by this country retaining in their presert n.-schievous condition the restrictions which our law imposes ui)on their navii^ation iVom the month of the Sr. I.awrence to other parts of the world .^ Then, Sir, die Right Honourable (ientleman rcti -red to the West Indies. At least, he thinks, noihing mo.e will be said on that point. Why, I must say that the Right Honourable Member can -have paid but little attention to v.'hat has been going on in those colonies since die last ses- sion of iVirliament. In JaMiaica, one of the most urgent mea- sures demanded by the people, is a repeal of die restrictions on their navigation, in order diat diey may erect Jamaica into a great central en\porium of trade, as it once was, for the supi)ly of the main land and die neiglibouring islands. Again, from Trinidad representations of the strongest kind come from Lord Harris, showing die prejudicial influence of tlic Navigation Laws. The planters of Cxuiana have complained, and justly complained, that at times while the slave-grown sugar of St Croix was sent to England in Danish ships, or of Cuba in Spanish ships, at '21, 10s. a ton, they were obliged to pay 3/. 10s. or 4Z. Sir, are these com- plaints tliat it would be cither wise or just to disregard ? No one can deny diat those islands arc suffering at this time under severe depression which we all deplore, however much we may differ as to its cause or its cure; and would it be just— would it be wise— to continuedisabilitiesandrestrictionsof thiskindupon those colonics, when you call upon them to compete openly with all the world ? Honourable Gendcmen opposite may be of opinion that die West Indians arc all mistaken as to the effect which a repeal of the Navigation Laws would have on their interests ; but the West Indians will in this case judge for themselves, and will not consult the benches opposite. Nothing would persuade die planter in Guiana, that it would not be of great ad- vantage to him to take up an American ship which had brought a cargo of lumber or provisions from the United States, to send his sugar to Europe at 2Z. or SI. a ton, in place of paying 41. or 5Z. a ton for British ships, at moments when they were scarce. Sn> they still remember the bitter experience of 1847, when, in J?-/^ addition to u fiilin;,' crop, tlioy wore siihjoctcd to double freights. Nothiii^r will lursumlo Trinidad a.id J.unaica lluU t\\ov would not be benefited by cheaper freiglits, atid by a tree access to the trade of the main land, 'rberefore, . must say, in place of the c()lonial reasons <,d\'fn by my Uiabt Honourat)le Frienrl for the introduction of this meas-ire being weakvr than they were, every day's experience 1ms tended only to confirm the view which he took, that justice and policy alike denmiul a repeal of the restrictions imposed upon them by our Navigation Laws. Then, Sii, the Ilight Honourable Crcntlcman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) referred to the grounds which had bee«i alleged in favom- of this measure, arising out of our connexions nith the varioiis ..'ontinental States ; mid to the cor- respondence between the Secretary oi" State for Foreign Affairs and those governments, which has been laid on thi^ table. The Kight Hono>n-a!)le Member s^ -'cc of the invitation of America, the threats of Prussia, f^tid the warnings of Russia, which hivvc been alluded to, — as undeserving die attcnticm of this Houiic. I would venture to offer a different counsel to this House. It would not be wise to disregard those numer- ous favourable opportunities of placing your navigation Avith the whole world, or at least with by far* the most important countries of the world, on a soiip.d and permanent looting. The United States have offc'-ed to give you every privilege which you are ready to extend to them. This, indc '., is the fixed policy of their law; and therefore when the Right Honourable Gentleman throws out insinuations iis to what guarantee we have that after our law is passed the Congress of the United States v/ill sanction the overtures made by the Government of the day, or by die minister who now represents that Govern- ment in this country, I reply, that independent of a re- liance upon the honour and integrity of American States- men, we have this ample guarantee, that it is the settled policy of the TTnited States, confirmed by existing acts of the Legislature, that all concessions in regard to navigation shall be mnde to foreign countries which Uiey concede to American ships. The executive, therefore, have the jjower in their hands without recourse to Congress, to " give little to those who give little — much to those who give mucli — and all to those who give all." That, Sir, is an ample guarantee, to say nothing of the high and distinguished character of the min'ster of the United States, now in this country, that if wc give "all" we shall eceive " all." But, then, the Right Honourable Gentleman 8 went on to say, that the replies from the different States on tlic Continent were not satisfactory. He says, from Belgium alone you have a distinct answer — and that is, that she will continue to protect her own ships ; and there is no doubt, he thinks, that France and Spain will continue their p esent policy. And with regard to Austria, Prissia, Russia, the Hanse Towns, and all the other Northern States, the Right Honourable Gentleman expresses his inability to discover that any of them are disposed to extend to thitj country greater advantages than we now possess. No wonder that he docs so. Why, is not the Right Honour- able ( rentleman aware that all these countries already give us all the privileges which we now propose to extend to them ? The only question is, whether they will be willing to continue them. Many of those treaties are on the point of expiring, and already we liave notices which cannot be mistaken, that many of the privilege? which w^e now possess will be withdrawn if we perse- vere in our restrictive and one-sided system. Already Prussia has given a distinct notice ; Prussia, which it is more than prob- able will I'egulate the commercial policy of the whole of Ger- many, including the ports of the Baltic, as well as those of Ham- burg and Bremen, the great outlets of their trade, this important State only suspends retaliatory measures in the belief that we are disposed to be more just. Honourable Gentlemen opposite have often attempted to speak disparagingly of Prussia, because they find in our exports a comparatively small sum attached to that country, overlooking the fact, that a large bulk of the shipments to Belgium, to Holland, to s tne of the Mediterranean port;?, and nearly the whole of those to Hamburg and Bremen, are for consumption in the interior of Germany ; the exports to which, as a whole, through these various chamiels, cannot be estimafd at less than 10,000,000/., being more than two-thirds of the entire exports to your colonies. Sir, is this a trade to disparaged Ir '^>qt a people to disregard? Then, Sir, again, with regard to Russia, our treaty with that country will expire in 1851 ; already tlicy have passed a general law, imposing upon the ships of every country like restrictions as are imposed on their ships by such countries ; and this law has been put in force with regard to some countries. The only reason why it has not been put in force against us, is the existence of our treaty, which, till 1851, secures us from its operation. Then we should assuredly be exposed to it, and what then will our shipowners, who wish to exclude Russian sliips from tlie long voyage trade of this country sav when thcv find themselves deprived of tlie extfinsivt; .carrying trade which they now enjo) from the United States i* t » C-?V ^ 9 i* I * I • and ihe tropics to the Russian ports in the Baltic ? — when they have to their cost discovered that restriction is a game at which two can play? It will then ill become us to lecture the Russians, and tell them that they only injure themselves by such a policy. We set the example. The Right Honour- able Gentleman has referred to France. France, he says, will persevere in the protective system. Well, but France has gone beyond her own policy, in order to I'etaliate upon our more strict and severe system. The law of France does not proliibit, as we do, the importation of the pro- duce of Asia, Africa, and America, from other parts of Europe. But because vvc do so, France makes a special exception with re- gard to this country, and does prohibit such produce from Briii ^i ports. What is the consequence ? The French arc large consumers of East India indigo, of Ceylon cinnamon, which, but for such restriction, would be purchased at our public sales in London and taken to France. As it is, they are compelled to send ships direct to Calcutta and Ceylon for those products, and if, as indigo, cinnamon, and Australian wools, frequently are, sent from London to France, they are shipped first to Holland or Belgium, and from thence to France. So that even with regard to France, the measure before the Flouse would relieve us from the consequences of this retaliation upon our own restric- tions. Then, again, the Right Honourable Gentleman refers to the reply received from Austria, which he thinks is barely courteous. W^ell, Austria does express, and I think fairly express, her surprise, that now, when for so many years she has conceded to us all the privileges this Bill proposes to confer on their ships, that we should have been so tardy in reciprocating the liberal treatment we have received at her liands. Now, Sir, are all these considerations which it would be wise for this House to overlook"^ I think not. Although 1 may concede to Honourable Gentlemen opposite, that if we had no other grounds than the invitation of America, the threats of Prussia, the warnings of Russia — if we had no other grounds, this House might fairly pause in adopting a great change only out of regard to the wishes of other countries. But, Sir, when I bear in mind the great internal, imperial grounds of high policy, when I bear in mind that we have reasons of our own, affecting the welfare of our colonies and our own people, of a kind which I cannot hesitate in thinking conclusive in favour of the measure, the circumstances to wliich I have alluded in relation to foreiirn states, do confirm iiic in fhc opinion tliat we should lose no time in coining to a final settlement on so im- portant a subject. 10 Sir, our Navigation Laws are contrary to the whole genius of our modern commercial policy. While in matters of trade by the various great and enlightened changes which of late years have been introduced into our commercial legislation by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, we have out- stripped in true and liberal policy all other countries of the world — while every country in Europe adheres still to the pro- tective principle on its trade — it is a strange anomaly with regard to Navigation that we cling still to a more restrictive policy than any other countrv whatever. Sir, the laro-c division which took place last session in favour of a measure similar to that now before the House, was conclusive that this House was of opinion that such an anomaly should not be permitted to remain. And, I think if these restrictions are ever to be removed, if our Navigation Laws are to be made to conform to the general commercial policy of the country, there are many reasons why the present is a peculiarly fitting time for such Ii measure. Sir, a repeal of the Navigation Laws is only a just and fitting cumplement of the great policy adopted from 184-2 to 1846. Those measures not only render a repeal of the Navigation Laws a matter of common justice to all the other interests affected by free trade, but they have been productive of such an increased employraent for shipping, that this interest in particular has not even a single ground for complaint. The measure now proposed has been preceded by other measures which have so much increased the demand for shipping, that all reason of complaint at being subjected to the same policy appears to vanish when we refer to the enormous increase which has taken place in our import trade during the last -even j'ears. Now, Sir, allow me to call the attention of the House to what really have been the results of that policy. Honourable mem- bers may differ as to the policy of those measures. That is a subject on which I am not now o-oino- to enter, although I must observe in passing, that never at any period was I more con- fident of their wisdom than I am now. Nothiiiij that has occurred has in the slightest degree shaken my faith in that policy, and in the ultimate advantage which it will confer upon this country. But, however Honourable Members may differ on this point, there can be no difference of opinion as to the effect of those measures in enormously increasing the trade of the country, and, consequently, the employment for shipping. Sir, let us look first at the trade with the north of Europe ; that cor :ists chiefly of grain, flax, hemp, timber, and cattle. Novt, Sir, what has been the case with regard to these articles. Why, in 1841 cattle were entirely prohibited; while in 1848 the c^V/^ ^ ! 11 number ii/\portcdwas 195,123. In 1841 foreign timbcrwas subject to a duty of 55s. the load; this duty has been reduced to 15s.; and while in 1841 the quantity of foreign timber imported was only 250,000 loads, in 1848 it had increased to 700,000 loads, besides a large increase of colonial timber, to which I shall hereafter allude. Again, the average importations of grain prior to 1842 were less than 2,000,000 quarters ; while in the last two years we have imported 12,000,000 qrs. and 7,000,000 qrs. respectively. Then, widi regard to flax and hemp, the duty on which has been abolished, in 1841 the quantity imported was 1,7:38,000 cwts., and in 1848, 2,300,000 cwts. ; in all these caer duties were reduced by successive Acts from 10s. a load on colonial timber to Is. die load*^; and on foreign timber from 55s. the load to 15s. What has been the effect ? In place of 700,000 loads of colonial timber imported m 1841, no less diau 1,150,000 loads - -ve imported in 1848; and, in place of 250,000 loads of foreign timber imported in 1841, no less than 700,000 loads were imported in 1848. Of all kinds of timber die increase, dierefore, from 1>^41 to 1848, only seven years, has been from 950,000 loads, to no less than 1,850,000 loads, being nearly double. Now, Sir, these are only a few of the most bulky articles affected by the changes in die tariffs during those years, which, for the sake of clearness, 1 will recapitulate. There were imported in 1841 and 1848, of diese bulky articles, giving a vast increased emplovment to ships, as follow : — Live Animals none Meiit of Viirioiis kinds cwts !)] fi-l^ Coffee lbs 4.'},;n7',7fi2 Gtwxix ,jrs 3,-2(l().()()() Currants cwts 1 73,001) Flux and Hemp ],7.SH,0()() Silk, raw lbs 3,:](w,00O Spirits gals 7/)00,000 Siifjar cwts 4,!10r),()()() Cotton Wool 4,.')r)7,O0() Sheep's Wool lbs 5(1,170,090 Olive Oil tuns 4,700 Timhpr, Colonial loads 700,000 Tiiuber, Foreign 200,000 Total of Timber 900,000 184S. 19.5, JiiO noo.ooo 07,000,000 7,00(),()OI) 40'2,000 2,.S()0,il00 4,413,000 9,000,000 (1847) 8.200.000 0,;)li2,()00 VO,.-)';) 1,957 10.000 1,150.000 700,000 : 1,850,000 ^V;? 13 Sir, I have said that I am not now about to enter into a de- fence of the policy of the measures of the last seven years, which, however, 1 shall be always ready to do when fitting occasions present themselves ; it is not for this purpose that I now refer to these facts. 1 do so for the purpose of showing that, whether right or wrong, their effect has been to increase in an extraor- dinary manner the extent of our carrying trade, and that if Par- liament is of opinion that these laws should be modified or entirely abolished, no better time could be hoped for, when that change could be made without even a momentary inconvenience to the shipping interests than when such a rapid development of our general trade is taking place. But, Sir, I will go further. An Honourable Gentleman, who spoke a few eveni'nn-g a^-o in favour of protection, said that " he was in favour of protection, but not a one-sided protection, but equal protection to every one ;" if such a thing were possible, then I am at a loss to know what benefit it would be to any one ; it would be a mere system of compensations. But as all experience has shown, it is impossible to protect all alike, then by the Honourable Gentleman's siiow- iiig, protection must commit an iujustice upon some interests. Then,^ Sir, I turn round, and, taking die reverse of the Honour- able Gendeman's proposition, I sayl am in favour of free trade, but not a one-sided free trade, but free trade to all. I cannot feel that this House is aedng quite fair to tlie Colonies, and all those varied interests which we have subjected to the compe- tition of free trade during the last seven years, to expose them to the inconveniences and restrictions of the Navigation Laws. For example,^ it was only last session that we admitted the refined sugar of the Continent of Europe into competition with the refined sugar of diis country at a duty exacdy equivalent to that charged on raw sugar. But with how much j ustice do the British refiners come to the Government and complain, that while they are exposed to free competition with the refiners of Holland, they are not allowed to use the sugars imported into this country in unprivileged ships, although they are ;3()s.or2/. a ton cheaper. Sir, it is impossible to widistand such appeals ; and this is only one of the many cases in which the severity of those laws press upon British interests, diemselves exposed to free competition. Every consideration of fairness and justice renders the mainte- nance of such restrictions impossible. Let us just consider for a moment some of the practical inconveniences arising out of those restricdons, of which, though we hear but litde, diis House may rest assured that they cost the merchants of tis country great trouble to provide against, and in order to evade the 14 practical difficulties which they entail on their transactions. I have already referred to the loss sustained by the colonies at particular times when British ships are scarce' But just let us look at what takes place in our continental trade. With a view to ?/ 17 «rcat advocates of shipowners' claims, expressed themselves ytron^ly o.i this point. Mr. Richmond distinctly said, with rco-ard to the lav;s as they now stand—" They are perfectly mu- tilated, and I was not aware tiiat so little is left as there is • in iact,l consider the Navicration Laws virtually repealed now." Mr. Young was equally strong upon this point. U'hose witnesses were alluchng to the eflects of the Reciprocity Treaties under the Act ot Mr. Huskisson.* Now, Sir, 1 would not be acting with candour to this House, if I did not say that I quite concur with thuse witnesses-that I firmly believe, that so far as the ship- owner of this country is concerned, chiefly by the permanent-- tnc ancient policy of your laws, and partly by the treaties of re- ciprocity into which you have entered— and entered advisedly —that the competition which the British shipowner now cncoui ters with the foreign shipping of the world is as large and entire tor all practical purposes as it can be made. Now, Sir, let us hrst consider the ertect of our ancient policy in its strictest sense, l)cforc any infringement whatever took place in those laws! 5900. How do you estimate " adequate protection ;" vou state that ron ,1n not consider that the Navigation Lais al^lrd an adcVS n ot^ct on how do you estimate that if it is not hy the rate of frei-ht 5 ^ "-otccnon , ftow do n/l ^^'V^/t»t^'Vr^i'»t it is inadequate in thos. trades in which you have virtually, abrogated the Nmngation Laws; you have done that with thecZmrie'tuh wose tyiaes imA, therefore, I cannot be ot opin on that there is an ademiinv "^ Kr v"' "? ''^"''^ ^''\^''' ''^'''' ''"'•' ^> "^"'^ ^vhatever ^ ^ f J- 7n • r r'^.<'"»^ <^»« Navigation Laws do not eive adeounte nro he SSraWet'"' ^''^^'"^ ' "'' ^'^" "^^est what amount of prottS wo'uTi o£^^^r!!i^^!iZ!r'^V'''''''''' ^""^^^ ^^^"•''' ^'' I>«ve n,ade treaties J-JS::^atev:,^"'''''''''' """'''' '"''^ -irtuaVyrepealed^andwehaveno EvervrecinrocaUrlf^V, r^ protection now; they are co.nphtely mutilated. ^vas s^o li fe left T^t- t^^^a something away. I was not' aware that there Repealed now.-' '' ^" ^""''^ ^ '''''''^'' *'^« Navigation Laws virtually Ho^S'^Sw^eieT"^' ^^'' ^T ^""^^ ^-'^^ the United States, Prussia, Russia, Greece FrrnceVf!""'^^' ^.T'Y'^^ ^'•'^™"^"' JJenmark, Lubeck. Austria cSiafSk^r "' ''^''"'"^''' Mecklenburg, State of U Piata.; B 18 What is the old fundamental law with regard to the long voy-' age trade, which is most prized, and which continues intact to this day? By the original law, the produce of every country in the world can be brought to Great Britain from such coun- tries on the same terms in the ships of the country, as in British ships. Now, Sir, what is the practical effect of this law? Is it not to bring the British shipowner in direct compe- tition with the shipping of every other country precisely in those trades and under those circumstances in which the competition is most severe, and in which the British ship- owners labour under the greatest disadvantage ? Take Prussia or Sweden for example : so far as regards the importation of grain or timber, the produce of those countries, by your ancient law their ships are entitled to bring on the same terms as English ships. Well, but in the Prussian ports in the Baltic, for instance, the Prussian shipowner has great advantage over the English, so far as his local connexion enables him to procure freights at homo, which a strange ship seeking freights would not possess. But, agam. take the case of the United States of America. By our general Navigation Laws, without the inter- position of any Treaty — (for the Treaty of 1815 was made only for the purpose of removing a retaliatory act which had been passed in distinct relation to the United States)— by the ancient policy of our law, the produce of the United States can be brought to this country direct in American ships on the same terms as in English ships. But in that competition the American shipowner has these natural advantages : — in the first place, the most bulky cargoes which are the most profitable, are those which come from the United States; and in the next place, sup- pose an American ship and an English ship, both in New- English Orleans, waiting ^or a cargo of cotton, the American ship- owner on the spot has local connexions, perhaps part owners, who are shippers, and in many other respects has minor advan- tages. But ihe American shipowner has another advantage, in the return voyage from Europe, which the English shipowner has not, and this is one of our own making. The policy of the American law is to give to every country, in navigation, what they receive : therefore, as we prohibit American ships to bring produce from other countries, they prohibit English ships carry- ing from Europe any produce but English, so that the assorted cargoes of Continental and British goods are shipped chiefly in American ships. Well, then. Sir, we thus do compete, and always have completed, with every country in the world, each in its own trade— that being precisely the case in which competi- ^mm / tion is most difficult. Tiion, if we iiavc competed, and com- peted successfully, jis 1 shall show, with Prussia, America, and all others in their own trades, why should we fear their compe- tition in the indirect neutral markets of the world, where both go upon precisely tlie same terms, and in which, indeed, this coun- try has the advantage of being the largest exporters of goods V Why shoidd we not fear Prussia in Dantzig, and fear her in Rio de Janeiro? Why should we not fear the United States in New Orleans, and shrink from a competition with the same ships in Cuba or La Plata, or in Cl.:na? Nay, niore; wheii we find that we can, which we do, successfully compete with the United States in carrying cotton from New York to Russia and other foreign ports, why shouhl we shrink from the competition of bringing sugar from Cuba or coffee from Brazil ? But, Sir, it may be said, that, whereas British ships have the exclusive monopoly of the colonial trade, at least they derive a great bene- fit and a higher profit from that. Now, Sir, as a general rule, I believe that also to be a great mistake. More than one half of the entire shipping of this country is employed in the neutral foreign trade, where, as I have shown, the English shipowner comes into direct and open competition with die shipowners of the world; and in which, therefore, they can command no higher freights than other countries. Well, then, if one half of the ships sailing from Liverpool be in those trades, and the other half in the colonial trades, it is a self-evident proposition that competition between our own ships must reduce the whole trades to the same level of freights. One class of ships will not continue in the Brazillian or the American trade, if they could command better freights by going into the closely-protected trades of the Canadas or the West Indies. It is therefore obvious that, whereas the freiglits of the British ships trading to our colonies, and of those trading to other countries, are reduced by compe- tition to an equality, and whereas British ships trading to foreign countries obtain only the same freights as foreign ships in the same trades, it follows, I say, that British ships in our colonial trade and foreign ships in foreign trades are thus indirectly re- duced to a perfect equality of freights. I wish the House to understand that I speak now of the general average rate of freights. I own there are accidental periods when, from unex- pected events, the foresight of our merchants has not been able to provide for sudden demands, much higher freights may be obtained. But it is chiefly at such times and in such cases that a great evil is inflicted on the colonist, the merchant, and the consumer at home by these laws. But, Sir, 1 may fairly ask I B <> 20 why the British shipowner should not compete with foreii^n shippincT ? I must own that, looking to the evidence taken be- fore the Navigation Committees, I canrjot sympathi.se with those Honourable Members who iear that competition, when I look to the only great commercial country with which competition might be expected to be severe — I mean the United States — whose capital, energy, enterprise, and the vast amount of their natural productions which they exchange with the whole world, give them a power which no other country possesses. Sir, last year the evidence of Captain Briggs was referred to in this House as to die cost of shipbuilding in the United States. Since then Mr. Minturn, well known to some mend)ers of this House as a man of the highest respectability and honour, whose (evidence it is impossible to read without bein*; struck with the delicate care which he used to say nothing that could give the slightest offence to this country, has also given evidence on the subject of the cost of shipbuilding in die United States. The House will permit me to refer shortly to one part of this evidence : — 8537. Whore did you get your onk from in New York? A large portion come from Virginia, brought by sea in vessels ; the live oak comes entirely from Florida; the sheathing copper and iron comes from England. 8538. Is there any duty upon them ? The iron pays a duty of 30 per cent., oheathinj? copper is free of duty ; but cake, or lig, copper, from which bolts are manufactured in America, pays a duty of 5 per cent. 8539 With regard to sails — where do you oret them from ? We have depended entirely on England, Holland, and Russia for flax or hemp sail-cloth until within a few years; we are now making some hemp can- vass in America. Cotton sail-cloth has for a long time been used to consider- able extent. 8540. Does that pay duty ? Yes ; twenty per cent, ad valorem, 8541. As to shipwrights' wages ; what r.re they in America? Shipwrights' wages are about two dollars and a half a day, about 10s. 6d. sterling. 8542. What number of hours do they wnrk? In New York they work only ten hou. > -. ae^'- ivork, and nine hours on old works. There is that distinction — reppir''ii: 'iji'- nine hour : I uilding ships, ten hours. In New England they wo . ,.ii ri, 'c«\ ive hours in summer. 8598. In what respect should you consider that a ship can be built cheaper in America than in England ; where would be the saving? The only item in ship-building which, to my knowledge, is cheaper in Ame- rica than in England is wood; and this, fir ships built in New York, has to bear heavy transportation, much of the timber being brought by sea from Vir- ginia and Florida ; and the plank from Lake Erie; a distance of 500 mUes. The iron imported from England, and pays a duty of 30s., besides the expense cf importation. Copper is also much higher than in England, and wages are nearly double. kMla Hiteailtt J^J /^ 21 Well, then, Sir,wlmt advantage lips the American shiphiiilder to set against liin dearer iron, copper, sailclotli, cordage, and wages? It is said he has cheaper timber, on which he pays no duty. But what says Mr. Wigram, a most competent authority oil this subject, as being one of the largest builders on the 'riiames 'i He estimates the duty on timber at ;Js. (Jd. the ton : out of the 18/. or 20/. a ton whirh a ship costs in building*. Now, Sir, can it be believed that the British sliipowner, having iron, copper, sailcloth, cordage, all on the spot, without freight and free of duty, and wages at nearly half the Aiierieari rales, is not far more than com) nsated for'the difTerence o»' the cost of timber here ? Again, let me refer to what Mr. (.rraham, Secretary to Lloyd's Registry of Shippinp;-, savs in his evi- dence. Mr. Graham says, at Question 3455 of the Conunons Connnittec:— 'on), ^iqaT ^"'^'^ ^° depressed a period for shipping as in 1842 and 1843. I remember in 1842 visiting Liverpool, and hearing notli,ng but complaints that ships were lying rotting in the docks, unsaleable at any price, and without the possibility of obtaining treights. It was said that more ships had a broom suspended to tlie mast-head (which is a sign that they are for sale) than at any time during the memory of the oldest man in Liverpool. And can it be a matter of surprise when we look to the sudden increase of production from a temporary cause, which had ee;ised when they were ready for use. Then, from an average produc- tion of 319,110 tons in those years, the quantity fell to an average of 154,005 tons in 1843 and 1844, and in 1847, the last year of which we have the accounts, it had again risen to 266,000 tons, l^or the sake of clearness, let me recapitulate this instructive state- '=^y>?l ment. The tonnage built and registered in the periods I have referred to was as follows : Three Years. 1821 1822 1823 ToNMAOE, Built and Bboistered Tons. 71,800] 67,100 86,100, .\verage. • 76,000 Tons Two Years. 1825 SSI 205.282 1826 Three Years. 1829 1830 1891 116,872) 110,130 i 115,066 119,997J Three Years. 1835 1836 1837 184,9521 156,240 \ 182,306 207,228 J Three Years. 1839 1840 1841 295,928) 360,237 1319,110 301,106) Two Years. 1843 1844 \m%lV''''''^ 1846 213,000 266,000 * 1847 •• ■• ••« •• , . Can any Honourable Member look to these violent and wild fluctuations, caused by the events to which I have referred, and believe that the accidental high freights, and the fits and starts to which they lead, are really of permanent benefit to tlie ship- owner ? Would it not be far better for him and the consumer too, if at such times, our trade being perfectly free and unre- stricted, we had recourse to foreign ships to equalize, as nearly as could be, the supply and demand ; for I am persuaded, as a rule, that we should still continue chiefly to use British ships in all the trades in which we now employ them. Sir, there is but one subject more in reference to the opera- tion of the Navigation Laws to which I will very shortly ad- vert. The Right Honourable Gentleman, the Member for * The following were the quantities nt British and Colonial shipping built and registered in each year, from 1821 to 1847 : — Toiif! 1821 74,817 1822 67,144 1823 86.028 1824 143.741 1825 21(4,924 182(5 205,640 1827 163,946 1828 140,913 1829 116,872 1830 110.130 1831 119.997 1832 ., ., 136.312 1833 144,047 I8:u ]-><,-ViT Tons. 1835 184.952 1830 156,240 1837 207,228 1838 241,406 1839 295,928 1840 .360,237 1841 301,166 1812 21)8,957 1843 141,277 1844 166,733 1845 215 615 1846 ..,, 21.!,63l 1817 21)6,000 o7^' 7t- ve ild nd rts ip- ler re- us ! a ips ra- id- for lilt Stamford (Mr. Herries) has laid great stress upon the necessity of maintaining these laws for the sake of securing oui naval supremacy. Another Honourable Gentleman, who takes the same view, said on a former occasion, that he cared nothing for the *' pitch and tar" of the question, meaning the commercial considerations of cost, &c. The Honourable Members opposite maintain that these laws should be retained on this account alone, whatever their commercial consequence. My Honour- able Friend behind me, the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), on the other hand, maintains that these laws are not necessary for such a purpose, because the commercial marine is not necessary for the maintenance of the navy. Now, Sir, it is unnecessary that I should adopt the views of either to support those I entertain. But take it for granted that Honourable Gentlemen opposite are right, and that a great commercial marine is necessary io sustain our royal navy, then I ask under what circumstances will it do so most effectually ? Surely it will be under those circumstances in which the largest development of our trade takes place — under which the greatest number of men are used in the commercial service. , Then there must be the greatest choice. Well then, before Mr. Huskisson partly opened the trade in 1823, the number of men engaged in the commercial marine was 165,474 ; in 1842 it had increased to 181,()0(»; and in 1847 to 252,000. Now, if I had no other object in view than that contended for by Hon. Members opposite — if I sunk all considerations into the one of having the best supply of men for the navy — whether would I adopt that system which had led to such a development of trade, which gives me now a choice of 252,000 in place of only 181,000 but seven years ago, or that system of restrictions which cramps your energies and limits your trade ? For this purpose all experience shows that free com- petition would give you not only a larger, but, what is more essen- tial, a better, body of men from which to select your sailors for the Royal Navy. Whether, then. Sir, wc look to the general argu- ments which have been adduced in this House, or whether we look to the evidence taken before the-Committees which have sat during the two last years, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the time is come when our shipping trade should be exposed to thatsame healthful competition — for healthful I believe it to be, as you have applied to all the other great interests in this country — and in the Colonies. I think. Sir, I have shewn, moreover, that, looking to the rapid increase which is now going on in our carrying trade, it would be impossible to select a time when that change would be attended with less injury, even of a temporary kind, to those immediately interested in shipping, or with xwQVc h'jnclit to the coniinunitv at 1 » argc. 28 Then, Sir, holding these views, I would now crave the attention of the House for a not very long time, while I endeavour to point out why I consider that the measures proposed by the Bill now before the House are the best calculated for that purpose. I ex- tremely regret that the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) is not in his place, because I would now wish to advert to the very able speech— I will say one of the most able speeches ever delivered in this House— upon the subject now under consideration, at any time whatever, which he addressed to us in the last session, but in which the Kight Honourable Gentleman seems inclined to adopt views with which it is impossible that I can concur. I say in- clined, because, if my recollection serves me right, he rather threw them out as suggestions which he was disposed to 'dopt, than as fixed opinions to which he stood committed. The port ( on of the Right Honourable Gentleman's speech to which I allude, is that in which he expresses a preference to proceed in thro\^ i'ng open our Navigation by treaties of reciprocity rather than in the way projjosed by the Bill before the House : — Mr. Caudwell : Reciprocity, not treaties. Mr. Wilson : Well, by reciprocity. But if not by treaties, it must at least be by negotiation. Sir, I object to adopting the plan of reciprocity— first, because it is against the great principles which have latterly governed our Commercial Leyislation :— second, because I do not think it wise in policy;— and thinlly, because I think it will prove most inconvenient, if not impossible, m practice. I believe. Sir, that one of the greatest errors whicb this Legislature could commit would be to countenance, by any step, an opinion which for years has been gaining ground on the continent of Europe in regard to the commerciaf policy of this country. Nothing, I am persuaded, will be more prejudicial to the extension of the principles of a liberal commercial policy among foreign countries, than that we should appear to sanction the notions entertained by those Governments— that we made con- cessions ori our part in matters of trade not so much for the true benefit which the removal of restrictions was likely to confer upon our own interests and our own commerce, as for the hop" that we might exact corresponding concessions from other states in ex- change, in favour of England. Nothing could be more prejudicial to our true interests than to sanction such a notion, which is already too prevalent, and which experience has shown has already stood more in the way of the advancement of free princi- ples abroad than any other cause. Foreign states look upon this country as being ancient and far advanced in all the art? and manufactures, as possessiiig the greatest supply of coal, iron, and 29 all the elements of manufoctures, as possessing great capital, a large commerce, and extensive colonies; and looking to all these, they view v^^ith jealousy and suspicion any overtures on our part to negotiate for reciprocal concessions. They entertain an opinion— I allude to the public in those countries— that with the advantages to which I have alluded England can now safely throw her trade open, without fear of rivalry from without, while she is well aware that any mutual concessions obtained by negotiations would open foreign markets to our trade, but not our trade to them. And, Sir, I have heard foreign Ministers repeatedly state that so powerful was this opinion, that nothing could embarrass them more in carrying out free trade to the extent they are ready to do, than that agents should be sent from this country for the purpose of negotiating such concessions. Such a course excites jealousy, fear, and suspicion ; and, above all, I believe the most prejudicial consequence which such a course is calculated to pro- duce is, to cause foreign Governments greatly to exaggerate the value to us of the concessions we demand, and to render their demands correspondingly extravagant and impracticable. All experience proves this. The Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, I think upon one occasion admitted that such had been his experience in 1842, and, if I mistake not, the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who, I am glad to see, has returned to his place,— if I mistake not, he has ex- pressed, and very strongly, upon former occasions similar views, and has given his testimony to a similar experience. And I must say that, considering the great abilities of the Right Honourable Gentleman, and the great experience which he had as President of the Board of Trade during a period which will ever be marked, in the annals of our commercial history, for the reforms which were then accomplished, there Is no one in this House whose views on such subjects I should at all times consider entitled to more consideration. Sir, in accordance with my own opinions, carefully considered, and in accordance with the expe- rience to which I have adverted, I believe the only safe and wise course for this country to pursue in all such matters is, to legislate for our own interests, altogether regardless of what others may do, to adopt that } olicy which we believe will be most beneficial to our own people, and the^^great interests of the country, whatever course others may! pursue, — knowing as we do, from all ex- perience, that the loss is theirs more than ours if they persist in a course of restriction which fetters their own industry and enterprise. I believe this course, and this alone, will open the eyes of foreign countries to the real advantages of Free" Trade. ^ ^ ^ 30 When they see us persevere in it, and continue in the course we began in 184-2, and secure the advantages of cheapness and abundance for the sake ot their benefit to ourselves, then they will begin to take a different view of their own interest in these questions. In making these general observations, I would not b(« understood to undervalue a friendly and amicable intercourse with other countries, and even co-operation for common ffood where it is practical; but I would never consent that |reat benefits should be withheld from our own people, simply because other countries did not choose to avail themselves of similar benefits. These are my general objections to the principle and the policy of reciprocity. But, Sir, I would not be dealing candidly with the Right Honourable Gentleman, It 1 did not irankly admit that in some respects, and those essen- tial ones, reciprocity, as applied to general trade and as applied to Navigation, admits of a great distinction. Reciprocity and retaliation may be considered as part of the same principle The policy of making concessions in exchange for similar concessions, IS tiie same as that of imposing restrictions in lieu of restrictions imposed by others. But let us see how such a principle operates m practice, in relation to genera^, commerce. Take England and Prussia for an example. It never happens that two countries import from each other the same kind of goods. 'Prussia imports from England manufactured goods, iron, &c., while England imports from Prussia corn, timber, wool, flax, and hemp. The persons in each country who are most interested in the trade of the other are not of the same class. In England the manu- facturing classes are mainly, if not solely, interested, in the trade with Prussia, both in the exports and imports; while in Prussia the agricultural classes are most interested in the trade of England. But supnose Prussia persists eith:r in maintaininxr or increasing the duties upon the manufactured goods which she imports from England, whereby our manu.^ictures would chiefly be injured, would that be any good reason why we should impose high duties or place heavy restrictions upon the importation of those articles of Prussian produce— corn, wool, and flax— form- ing, as they do, the elements of our manufactured goods— and thus again, of our own accord, inflicting upon the manufacturer at home an additional mischief and disadvantage in the competition of the world by enhancing the cost of his^oods,— for the benefit of whom.-^ The agricultural classes of England, who, there is no pretence to say, would be injured by the policy of Prussia in excluding our manufactures. To recompense an injury done to the Manchester and Leeds manufacturers by the law of Prussia, we would by such a course impose a further injury upon them,' 31 '-J'V^^ which, whether intended or not, would result in benefit to another class altogether. Could any course be more objectionable for the commercial arrangements of a great country like this? And yet this IS the policy which was somewhat ostentatiously put forward by the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Buckino- hamshire, as that by which he would wish to see our commercial system regulated. But, Sir, there is another inconvenience of a practical character, of which the Honourable Gentleman co-Id scarcely have thought when he divulged this as his plan. If he proceeds upon principles of reciprocity, then he must, in the language ot the American Minister, be prepared " to give little to those who will only give little; to give much to those who will give much ; and to give all to those who are ready to give all " Buc to what m practice must such a rule lead in commerce ? buppose the United States to admit your goods free of any duty then you, of course, would admit their wheat free of any duty :— then suppose Prussia charges a duty of 20 per cent, on your goods, you charge a similar duty on their wheat ; and if Russia places a duty of 50 per cent, on your goods, then you visit their wheat with a similar duty; and so on, with every country. On wliatever conditions they admit your goods, you will admit their produce ; and the absurd dilemma in which you will find yourself placed by such a course will be, that from every country from which wheat is imported, it will be at a different rate of duty •— m short, you must establish a separate tariff for each coun- try, corresponding with that of each country. Honourable Gentlemen opposite seem to dissent from these conclusions. I do not wonder they do so when they see the practical absurdities into which the principles which they profess would lead them if carried out as proposed by the Honourable Member for Buckincr- hamshire. Reciprocity in matters of trade, if it means anythino- means this,~and it would lead us into an intricate and impractica- ble system of commercial intercourse. But. Sir, I am bound to admit to the Right Honourable Member for the University of Uxtord (Mr. Gladstone), that it may be urged, and with some reason, that there is a difference between reciprocity in produce and in Navigation. I am willing frankly to recognise that differ- ence as far as it exists. I have already shown that, with regard to goods or produce, the duties imposed by one country do not mliict an injury on the corresponding interest, but rather on a contrary interest in a foreign country. But in the case of Naviga- tion, whatever restrictions are imposed or retained by any one Country, do inflict a direct blow upon the corresponding interest of the other ^oiintrv. A rpetrif't?«n nnt m'^^ti ^J"..; — *: — , i- Amenca directly injures the shipowner here, who will be interested .32 directly in its removal, and will therefore be the more disposed at «nce to pve up Ins pnvde^res at home, if he finds that 1 e^c inno retani hem except at the cost of having, similar restrSon^ imposed np..n Imn abroad. On the other hand, if AmertTw e o place In^rh duties upon our manufactures and we weiTto ,x>t- ! hate, we could only effectually do so by placin.. hi^h duties no on their manufactures, but on their corn or -otton Z w n that retaliation be likely to brin, Anierlcan manufa^ur ^'o their senses/ On t e contrary, it would just be what thev above all thm-s should desire ,— for while it would r ise tS l)rices of cotton and corn, the '*^ restrictions placed upon }our t.ado, and nlad should we he to roiiiove them; hut Prussia o. lirenicn wdl .,ot take the same view, of their own interest, and d(cl,ne to reciprocate with us? What answer ^^ould it he to the Uuuu.a planter, who con.plains that his rival in St. Croix can mself ^ What answer would it he to Lord Harris, who ur^res the ust comphunts of rrinidad, that their grievances would all he P,"Sr ' ^-""^ ''^I''-^ countries will not consent to take the same n lA 7"^' r''''' ''^ ^'•'V' "^^'^''^^^^ *''»* ""-^ «•-« with respect to r ,nnl/ •'., '"^"".'^''. ^ '"'^'''^ '''^^' ^" '»" those interests which c o plani of the restrictions imposed upon them hy the law as it stands. I might refer to the sugar reHners in England, who are charred from the use of the cheapest material, tliough exposed to the competition of the world. I might refer to the British owners o hides at Antwerp, of cotton at Havre. I might refer to ; Lj; ' r' /" ^^^^^ritius, or the colonists in Australia, and T 1 light ask what consolation it would he to them to he told that tlieir complaints are recognise ,i, but because other countries will not reciprocate, we cannot remove them. But I may be told, and J am bound ,n candour to say with mucb truth, that looking to u ^tate o he Navigation Laws of all the great maritime counfries n the world, which would be affected by any change in our laws, thnt they are so liberal, that proceeding upon the princii.le of re- nproc.ty, orders in council might be issued on the same day uii >vliich the act should receive her Majesty's assent, efFectually and virtually opening the trade between this country and tJiem. I mny be told that by the settled law of the United States they give ''all" to those who give "all" to them : that Kussia does th e same ; that Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Plain- 'f . ' ?T "-"^ '"^""^ Austria, do in effect give us all that we poukl ask for in return for the concessions proposed; and there- iere that orders in council, in relation to all those countries, might be issued at once, and the trade with them made perfectly free. I may be told, which is perfectly true, that all those coun- tries already give us, either by treaties or by the policy of their laws, al they can, and that the great danger in which we stand is tliat they will retaliate our restrictions upon us, as France ha^ (lone, as Prussia threatens to do, and as Russia already has done hy a law which will come into operation two years hence, on the expiry of our existing treaty. Nowall this I freely admit ; but if so, why clog our laws with reciprocity, and that only with a view to exact concessions from others which you at present have? Wife ■J*^ /u B5 ,m"oVff^'''" tc told that Belgiutn, France, and Spain do not act '•pon those principles. Well, liut is there any 1 ope they will ? No le whatever. And what ground is there for legislatingon 7 with a view of excepting them from the operations of our laws? Pxnn! 1°.'"^ 7T ™''y continue such annoyances as Mr. Gray was exposed to «t Antwerp, or the British owner of cotton at Havre out you will not do anything }>v such >x course to protect our shipl directto 1 P"'"."'" both entitled to send their own produce ^L r« • 'f.7^'"» *'^^^°*^ France and Spaii. conducted? liJ' ! ^-^ "^^those countries, but almost entirely by British ships Again, Spanish ships have at this moment L ric^ht erm S frJTl'^ ^u^' '^'''' to this country on the same shhs ?n sl"P«; but the trade is carried on in Snanish s L R ? -'"'^ ^'"'^'" ^^*^"*' ^'"^ ^«^y ^a'-ffely in British sbips. Belgium, France, and Spain, have therefore, at this Tnn ^■.•.- *'•'', If .""^^^^^ *^^^y ^'•c "ot able to avail themselves n comi)etition with British ships. And can there then be any grS neutra trade, from which alone they are now debarred? Nothif^ could be more visionary; and therefore, while I am bound to adm.t that practically, whether we proceeded by reciprocity or by the more simple and certain method of at once abolishing res ric- ti^ns, the mischiefs of which to our merchants are moreTcal than apparent-while the advantages to the shipowners are more apparent than real-while I admit that, whether we proceed by the one plan or the other, the practical consequences will be much the same-yet I cannot but give a great and aecided pre- ference to that proposed by the^Bill n^ow before the House because It at ains its objects in a much more simple and d'rect way, without having recourse to awkward and expensive eva- sions, which I thmk have shown, could not be avoided under he system of reciprocity. Sir, I believe the great objects which should never be lost sight of in commercial legislation,^nd wl ch are most essential to the true interests of merchants, are certainty and simplicity. Sir, with regard to that clause in the Bill by which It IS proposed to give to her Majesty in Council the power ot re-imposing any restrictions upon foreign states, if circum- stances of an extreme and unjust nature were to arise, which tSe of th^ r'"^u i' ^" ''' ^ ^^^^" '""y ^"^ ^'"^^ -^ this t ?e.tt tf^l";.,li T^^! ^°"^^^r' J"^t remark, that to proceed yi«(ip.c.Uj rrOuM tir. lu rucogmse resmctions as the rule of iNavigation, and free intercourse as the conditional exception • 36 while, on the other hand, the Bill as it stands proposes a perfect Iree intercourse as the rule, and restrictions as the exception. And, feir, I must say that, lookin- to the whole spirit of the leois- ation of Iate_ years-looking to the genius of our poonle— look1„cr to the o-reat interests of the country and of our coL a lal empire-! do most sincerely hope that perfect freedom of intercoui-se will long continue to be the great rule of our intercourse with forei-ni countries, and that hosti.o regulations, if ever enacted at all, w"ll De tlie rare— I fondly hope the very rare— exceptions. THE END. D. M, AiRO, 340 Strand, and 170 Fleet Strbei o?y-^