WEST-INDIA TRADE WITH AMERICA. (Hansard, 17 December 1830)

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
proposed that the second reading of the Bill on the subject should be postponed until after the recess, on account of the many interests it in- 1312 volved. During the holidays the Government would consider the subject, and see whether any measure could be prepared, better calculated to protect the different parties interested.

Mr. Herries
had no objection to the postponement, though he was sorry that any delay should take place on so important a question. He could assure the House, however, that the Bill already before it had been fully considered by the Members of the late Government, and that every endeavour had been made to meet the interests of those most concerned in the measure. In the event, therefore, of any new Bill that should be introduced being found objectionable, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would have the candour to revert to the present one.

§ Mr. George Robinson
said, that he had one or two questions to ask, and he would take this opportunity of asking them. From the correspondence between the American Minister and Lord Aberdeen, it appeared, that we had conceded to the United States the principle of a right in those States to a direct intercourse between them and our West-India colonies. Into this most injurious arrangement he would not enter at present, but when the time arrived, he should be able to show irresistibly that to grant such a principle, without equivalent, was most unadvisable. The late President of the Board of Trade had stated, that in so doing the Government had acted on the principles of Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson; but he denied that this was the case, and he could positively state, that Mr. Huskisson, shortly before his death, declared, that he never would agree to such an arrangement without an equivalent, and that it was directly contrary to the feelings of Mr. Canning on the subject. He therefore thought that he had a right to complain, for in 1826 Mr. Canning, and afterwards Lord Dudley, had stated that they never would consent to the concession of that principle without some very adequate cause. On the faith of that assertion the merchants of Canada, and our colonies in North America, had embarked their capital on the trade between Canada and the West Indies; but now this very principle was conceded, and their trade would be ruined. He had read the correspondence between Mr. Maclean and the Earl of Aberdeen, and 1313 he could see nothing in it but the greatest arrogance on the part of America—first making claims to which she had not the slightest pretence, and then threatening, if they were not conceded. In his opinion, that correspondence was a disgrace to the Administration under which it was carried on. One of the questions which he wished to ask of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) was, whether the present Government (after the late Government had conceded the principle of a direct intercourse between the United States and our West-India possessions, reserving to themselves the right of regulating their duties, as the Americans were to have the right of regulating theirs) was not aware that Mr. Maclean was re-opening the negotiation, thereby daring—and he used the word advisedly—to interfere with this Government in the regulation of our duties; and the consequence of which would be, that, after the recess, another schedule of duties would be put forward? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Herries), whether the late Government had not written to the usual officers at the Canadas, slating what would be the scale of duties, and that his communication was to be considered official? He wished to know positively if the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the scale of duties which had been sent out to the colonies, and whether official notice of that scale were sent to all the colonies, as that to which the Government was determined to adhere? The hon. Member then censured in strong terms the conduct of the late Government, which, he said, had tended to confer great advantages on the inhabitants of the United States. Our Ministers had been completely outdone by the superior diplomatic skill of Mr. Maclean, who had shown himself far better informed than our negociators in all that concerned the interests of our colonies, as well as in ail that concerned the interests of the United States. If there were any power of which we ought to be jealous it was the United States. She already almost equalled this great maritime country in the extent of her shipping; and while the measure under discussion would tend to dry up one source, and the principal source of our national wealth—he meant our shipping, it would add 200,000 tons to the shipping of the United States. The hon. Member concluded by requesting the Government to inform him if it 1314 was now carrying on negotiations with Mr. Maclean relative to this subject, and he requested his right hon. friend below (Mr. Herries) to answer the question he had put to him.

§ Sir H. Parnell
advised his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) not to answer the question of the hon. Member, for it was plainly not the duty of Government to give him any information concerning an existing negotiation, which might materially injure its progress. With respect to the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Harwich (Mr. Herries), he must say, that it was a direct violation of the Treaty we had concluded with the United States. There could be no doubt that negotiations were going on, for the American Minister would not fulfil his duty if he were not to endeavour to stop the progress of the measure. That negotiation must, however, lead to a new transaction. His right hon. friend could not adopt the principle of the bill proposed by the right hon. member for Harwich. Before that bill could pass, if the Government meant to pass it, he would call for a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Maclean and his Majesty's Government. The principle of the bill brought in by the right hon. member for Harwich, was the old principle of protection for our colonies and prohibition for other people. He for one would earnestly caution the House how it again adopted that now exploded and fallacious doctrine.

Mr. Herries
rose to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member, and appealed to the House whether the observations made by his hon. friend, and the reference to the subject under discussion, had been fair and open. The question before the House was, whether or not the bill should be postponed; and on that occasion he would not, nor was it fair to discuss the principles of the measure. He regretted that, having already spoken, he was unable to answer the observations of the hon. Member, who attacked the late Government, which were as capable of being answered as the remarks of his hon. friend. He had never heard statements more susceptible of being answered, he had never heard assertions made, more contrary to truth, nor had he ever heard greater mistakes than had been then made and committed. If he were not prevented by the forms of the House, he would expose 1315 the fallacy of these assertions by one single circumstance, and he regretted that he was unable to do so. He denied positively, that Mr. Canning had said that he would never open the trade of the colonies to the Americans. He had always stated, that if the American government would withdraw its regulations of 1821 and 1823, he would then consider of opening that trade. As to what his hon. friend (Sir H. Parnell) said, he must observe, that to declare, during a pending negotiation, that our Government was entirely in the wrong, was itself highly wrong; nothing could be more injurious. He should be ready to demonstrate, on any proper occasion, that the Americans were altogether wrong, and the English Government altogether right. In fact, the Americans had not a shadow of a right for their claims. The question was, whether we had a right to regulate the transfer trade of our own colonies in relation to a foreign State. Any Minister who should say, that we had not such a right, and power to do so, would not be worthy of holding office for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by apologizing for saying so much, and begging the House not to draw any conclusion unfavourable to his views, for not having said more, as, having spoken, he was not at liberty to answer the observations of the two hon. Members. With respect to the scale of duties mentioned by the hon. Member, he must say, that no official information could have been given to the colonies that such would be the scale of duties, because that had to be settled by the Parliament, and could not be settled by the Government. At the same time the persons connected with the colonies, who had access to the public offices, and must have such access, had certainly reason to believe, that such a scale would be adopted, and they had probably sent such information to the colonies.

Mr. Hume
deprecated the language used by the hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) as to America, and condemned the bill as contrary to the interest of the United States and our own West-India colonies. It increased the price of commodities in the West-Indies from fifty to 100 per cent, and rendered production there dearer in that proportion. He should always oppose the bill.

Mr. John Stewart
hoped, that when the bill was again brought forward, the ques- 1316 tion would be discussed in conjunction with the general question, and not on any partial grounds.

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
declined to answer the question of the hon. Member, and lamented that he should have indulged in such language against America. If that Power had injured us, redress could better be obtained by calm remonstrance than angry expressions.