HC Deb 27 July 1860 vol 160 cc276-8
MR. LINDSAY

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, what steps have been taken to carry out the unanimous Resolution of the House in regard to a Maritime Treaty with France, and what measures, if any, have been prepared to carry into effect the Resolution of the House respecting Harbours of Refuge? He wished to know with regard to the first part of the question whether any representation had been made to the French Government that while we admitted the ships of France to all the privileges enjoyed by our own vessels in British ports we were still precluded from carrying the produce of our colonial possessions to France, and that the commercial treaty would not produce the results which both countries anticipated unless some material change was made in the French navigation laws. He also wished to know whether, if any correspondence had passed on the subject between the Governments of France and England, the noble Lord would have any objection to lay it upon the table? As to the other part of the question, it would be recollected that some weeks ago the House, after a full discussion, by a clear and decided majority, adopted a Resolution that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge should be carried into effect. He wanted to know what steps the Government had taken in consequence of that Resolution. A Resolution of that House was a very grave matter, and the Government were bound to act upon it, or to give substantial reasons why it was impossible for them to do so. He might be told that there was no money available, but such an excuse could not be accepted at a moment when the Government were about to embark in an expenditure of £9,000,000 or £12,000,000 for land fortifications. He believed that Harbours of Refuge would not only save many lives and much valuable property, but would add materially to the defence of the country against aggression.

LOKD JOHN RUSSELL

stated that when the House passed the Resolution respecting the maritime law of France, Earl Cowley was informed that Her Majesty had agreed to the Address, and his Excellency was empowered to negotiate with the French Government on the subject. It happened that at that time there was great excitement in France, owing to the concessions which had been made to Great Britain with respect to the introduction of British manufactures. The manufacturing interests, who were afraid of losing their protection, had raised a considerable clamour on the subject of the commercial treaty, and the Resolution of that House respecting the maritime laws of France created great alarm in the French ports. Addresses were presented from all quarters to the French Government imploring them not to make any change in the navigation laws. Earl Cowley said that at such a moment he could not obtain any success in negotiating a maritime treaty, and in a conversation with M. Thouvenel he discovered that the French Government were not disposed at that time to entertain the question of an alteration in their navigation laws, in consequence of the change we made in 1848. Under these circumstances Earl Cowley, exercising a wise discretion, resolved not to press the negotiation, but to defer it until some more favourable opportunity.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that with reference to the second part of the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland he had to observe that at the time the Resolution with respect to the Harbours of Refuge was under consideration it was not very clearly explained what precise meaning was to be attached to it. He (Mr. Gibson) had asked the question whether it was intended by that Resolution that all the recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried out, and he was informed that that was not understood to be the meaning of the Resolution. On the other hand, he was led to believe that all that was meant by the House was a general indication that something should be done in the sense of carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners [Mr. LINDSAY: No, no!] Putting, therefore, that construction upon the Resolution—which, he admitted, ought to have weight with the Government, it would no doubt be their duty to submit a plan to Parliament next Session—if it should be in their power to do so—such as they could conscientiously recommend to the adoption of the House.