Sitting of 7 May 1849

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—John Arthur Roebuck, Esquire, for Sheffield.
PUBLIC BILLS—2o Parliamentary Oaths; St. John's, Newfoundland, Rebuilding; Grants of Land (New South Wales).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Sheriffs of London, from the City Corporation, for the Abolition of the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Bristol, against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill—By Mr. Hume, from Castle Acre, Norfolk, for an Extension of the Suffrage; and from Exeter, for Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. W. Lockhart, for the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. Cobden, from Heckmondwike, Yorkshire, for the Clergy Relief Bill.—By Mr. Duncan, from Dundee, for Inquiry into the Ecclesiastical Revenues.—By Sir David Dundas, from Golspie, against, and by Admiral Benbow, from Cradley, Worcestershire, in favour of, the Marriages Bill.—By Sir William Morison, from Kinross, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. E. Ellice, from the University of St. Andrews, against the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill.—By Mr. C. Howard, from Cumberland, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Henry, from several Places, respecting the Lancashire County Expenditure.—By Mr. Lushington, from Westminster, for the County Rates and Expenditure Bill—By Mr. Fuller, from the Cuckfield Union,

1393
for Exempting Counties from the Expense of Constructing Gaols—From Places in the Eastern Division of Suffolk, for Repeal of the Duty on Malt.—By Mr. Alexander Hastie, from Glasgow, for Repeal of the Duty on Paper.—By Mr. E. Ellice, from St. Andrew's, for Reduction of the Public Expenditure.—By Mr. Halsey, from the Watford Union, for Rating Owners of Tenements in lieu of Occupiers; and from Sawbridgworth, for Agricultural Relief.—By Mr. Miles, from Frome, for an Alteration of the Conditions on which Grants for Education are Dispensed.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Brighthelmstone, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—By Sir R. Ferguson, from Dysart, against the Lunatics (Scotland) Bill,—By Mr. Alcock, from the Epsom Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers. By Sir H. W. Barron, from Waterford, and other Places, for Assistance to complete the Waterford and Limerick Railway—By the Earl of Lincoln, from Falkirk, and by other hon. Members, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Alexander Hastie, from Glasgow, for Inquiry respecting the Roads and Bridges of Scotland.—By Mr. Hume, from Taunton, for Reduction of the Salaries of Public Officers.—By Sir James Graham, from Ripon, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. W. J. Fox, from Oldham, and by other hon. Members, for referring International Disputes to Arbitration.

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY REPORT.
MR. CHARTERISsaid, seeing the noble Lord the First Minister in his place, he rose to ask the question of which he had given notice. Before he did so, however, as considerable misunderstanding existed as to the object which he had in view, it being supposed by many that his question was directed against some individual Member of the House, than which, he assured them, nothing could be further from his intention; and, besides, as many of those present might not have a printed copy of the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the financial affairs of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, he should read a short extract from that report, the bettor to explain the purport of his question. The Committee said—
"In the investigation of the disbursements under the head of Parliamentary expenses, there are several items, the precise character of which your Committee could not arrive at. The items referred to are the following—

1846

April 17.

Parliamentary expenses,

A £500

0

0

April 24.

ditto

A 3,000

0

0

April 28.

ditto

A 2,406

17

6

,,

ditto

A 1,700

0

0

£7,606

17

6

In reference to the amount of the items marked A, namely, 7,606 l, 17 s 6d., the explanation given to your Committee by Mr. Waddington and Mr. Duncan was, that the sums, as stated, were disbursed by the company through them, for services rendered, and in a manner which did not leave them at liberty to give particulars, as these could not be given without implicating other parties."
Now, he had to remark that some of these parties affected by this report were Members of the Legislature, and that rumours
1394
of an unfavourable character were abroad that this sum of 7,606 l. had been expended in facilitating the passage of Bills through that House; in other words, and in plain English, in corrupting Members of the House of Commons. He could not believe that hon. Members had been guilty of conduct so degrading and disgraceful, but he could not think at the same time that they ought to pass the rumour without notice. He did not think they ought to leave such a rumour to poison the public ear uninvestigated, and therefore he thought they must institute an inquiry into a statement such as that, not only affecting as it did the character of the House, but exciting grave suspicions as to the private honour and character of individual Members of the House. He thought they ought to institute an inquiry into the items of this expenditure. He believed that an inquiry would show that there was no foundation for those rumours; but if it should turn out otherwise, they should yet have the satisfaction of detecting the individual Members who had been guilty of corruption, and of holding them up to the reprobation of all honourable men. He, therefore, bogged to ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been drawn to the report which had been recently published by a Committee appointed to inquire into the management of the affairs of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, in so far as it affected the general character of this House?
LORD J. RUSSELL: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that the words alluded to do tend to excite suspicions affecting the character and credit of this House. For my part I do not believe there is any foundation for the rumours, affecting still more deeply the private character of individual Members; but I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not right to leave these words given forth by a Committee, a public Committee of persons of known name and character, without inquiry. I do not think it would be any advantage that that inquiry should be instituted by one of the Members of Government, although, if it seems desirable, and is the general wish of the House, I shall not refuse to ask some Member of the Government to move for a Committee. But I think the hon. Gentleman, having turned his attention to the subject, and the question being a question affecting the character of Members of the House, it were bettor that the inquiry should be conducted by the hon. Gentleman, assisted, as

1395
I believe he will be, by leading Members of all parties, than that it should be undertaken by the Government. I trust that, after considering the subject, and taking what means he thinks proper for ascertaining the opinion of Members of the House as to the best mode of instituting and conducting the inquiry, he will undertake this important inquiry himself, and that he will not let it rest till he has investigated the matter to the foundation.
MR. WADDINGTONsaid, he did not rise to offer any remarks with a view of stopping any inquiry which the House might think fit to make; but he wished to inform the House that he was not aware of the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman till he saw them in print, or that other observation made by the Committee, when they said—"The Committee did not further press this question, as it appeared to be one which Mr. Waddington could not answer, lest it might be asked again 'in another place.'" He assured the House that he had named no hon. Member whatsoever before the Committee, but quite the contrary; he had made no observation or remark with regard to the House of Commons, reflecting on individual Members, or in any way implicating any Member of the House. As soon as the Committee's report was published, the directors of the company took the only course which could gain them the public attention, by issuing a series of observations in reference to that report. These observations had been issued, and he would now read the remarks of the directors in reference to this sum of 7,606 l. They said—
"In reference to an expenditure, however, of 7,606 l., which is referred to in the Committee's report, the directors think it right to say that it was made to bring about important benefits for the company, by assisting a Committee in April, 1846, called the Size-lane Committee, formed for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of amalgamation with the Eastern Counties and London and York interests, which had been proposed by Mr. Hudson at the meeting in 1845, and which had been received with such unbounded satisfaction by the shareholders; and of that Committee Mr. William Cash was a member. Had the objects of that Committee succeeded, an enormous amount of expenditure. Parliamentary and otherwise, would have been saved; and that these objects were legitimate and proper, are sufficiently established by the fact that a gentleman of such respectability acted upon the Committee."
That was the answer the directors had given to the proprietors in reference to this sum. He now begged to assure the House, as a man and a gentleman standing before
1396
a great and honourable assembly, that no Member of the House, directly or indirectly, had received a single shilling of that sum. He thought it due to the House, and to individual Members, to contradict this rumour, and to assure the House that if he had heard it said that any one Member of the House had received a single shilling of that sum, he would have repelled it as a calumny.
MR. CHARTERISsaid, with all respect for the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the declaration which he had made, he still believed it would be more satisfactory to institute an inquiry. And he, therefore, now begged to give notice, that on Thursday next, he would move for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of this case.
Subject dropped.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill having been read,
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR R. H. INGLISrose and said, he hardly thought it was quite consistent with the usual forms of that House to have the Order of the Day read for the second reading of a Bill introducing alterations into the constitution of England, without some statement of the alterations which it was calculated to effect. The measure, it was notorious, would never have been brought forward but for the purpose of the admission of a Jew into Parliament. The measure for relief of Jewish disabilities was first mooted soon after the election of a gentleman of the Hebrew faith for the city of London, as the colleague of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was rejected in the House of Lords. Immediately the noble Lord had reintroduced the measure under another name, "The Parliamentary Oaths Bill "—a course which, if not irregular, was hardly courteous to either House, and calculated to place the one in collision with the other. The measure, however, advanced no further than its mere announcement. Practically, the present measure was another "Jew Bill," altering, as it did, oaths hitherto thought essential, and which excluded Jews from that House. The alteration was suggested, too, without a single argument in its favour. He admitted the necessity of oaths being as short as pos-

1397
sible; but if one oath were substituted for another, that which was substituted ought to contain all the essential points of the other. Such, however, was not the case with the present Bill. It proposed to alter that oath of supremacy which had been in use during the last three centuries. As Members of a Protestant State, the Legislature of England had always considered it necessary and safe to insist upon its Members taking an oath abjuring that any foreign Prince or Potentate had a right to have any power in England. Although it was well known that the Pope did exercise a power over the minds of thousands of the people in this country, and of millions in Ireland, still he could exorcise no jurisdiction, either civil or ecclesiastical, in a manner known to the law; his orders could not be enforced in a legal manner; and he, for one, was not disposed to deprive his Sovereign of such protection as that afforded; it was a renunciation of power on the part of the Queen, without any equivalent, and for which there was no reason. It was proposed to omit the words—
"I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and Her successors all treasons and conspiracies which may come to my knowledge;"—
and there was no mention made in the oath proposed to be substituted by the Bill, to the Protestant character of the Sovereign. It was by their being Protestant that the Crown was limited to Her Majesty's illustrious family; it was as Protestants they were entitled to claim the Crown; it was as Protestants only they were entitled to the allegiance of the united kingdom. Yet the words "being Protestant" were omitted from the oath in this Bill. In introducing this Bill, his noble Friend had hoisted a neutral flag, in order to cover enemies' goods. The oath certainly referred to the Act of Succession; but it slurred over the essential distinction that the succession must necessarily be Protestant, and of the united Church of England and Ireland. His noble Friend at the head of the Government would permit him to say that this Bill, in so many words, took away from the Legislature of England its necessary and essentially Christian character. He had been told that the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," had only been introduced within twenty years. He would admit that, so far as their present connexion; but the words themselves were introduced in the 3rd of James L; and if they were not specially introduced
1398
into the same class of oaths before, the oaths themselves were never taken, except upon the Gospel, the cross, or a relic, from the earliest times. Certainly no one had ever been permitted to take any part in the legislation of this country who did not solemnly, in some form or other, take upon him a Christian obligation; and from the first existence of England as a Christian nation, we had always required the legislative power to be in Christian hands. Last year his noble Friend referred to Hume and Gibbon being in Parliament, and asked why Jews should be excluded if they were admitted? Hume and Gibbon never felt themselves at liberty to do anything against Christianity, or against the Church of England; but what was the case with Jews? He meant to say nothing which could justly give pain; but whenever they were admitted into that House, they would form a nucleus for their own opinions, and there were many instances of a small compact body having a great effect upon the public deliberations. He was therefore unwilling to add a new source of danger or difficulty to those which unhappily existed already, to the public institutions of this country—institutions which he regarded as most sacred. He contended that the Jews had never been invited to this country. They had come here for their own personal aggrandisement, to "seek wealth and to find it;" and they had no right to expect the First Minister of the Crown, on their account, to move that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," which ought to be our great distinction, should be expunged from our Parliamentary oaths. He trusted the day would never come when the House of Commons would consent to omit those words of security to our institutions. For the sake of a few, this Bill offended the scruples of many; for a small class, it offended the hearts and consciences of a vast majority of the people. If this were a question of justice, he would concede it at once; but believing it to be a question of that nature which could not be conceded without destroying the exclusively Christian character of the Legislature, he most earnestly urged the House to concur with him in resisting the further progress of the measure. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice.
MAJOR BERESFORDseconded the Amendment. He considered the measure to be founded upon a principle which involved the national respect and deference

1399
to the Christian religion that was hound up with our institutions. It struck fatally and at once at principles upon which this Christian nation had ever acted, and from which we had derived the greatest national benefits. One great argument for the Bill was, that because the city of London had chosen a wealthy Jew for one of their representatives, the House of Commons was bound to alter the existing law in order to allow that Gentleman to participate in its deliberations. The concession of this point involved so many anomalies, that he did not think it would be insisted upon. Once grant it, and the right of legislation would be practically given to one city, which would override the wishes and opinions of the rest of the country. If the question were to be decided by the constituencies, he had no doubt there would be a majority of four to one against the proposition, and he would willingly abide by the result. The opinion of the city of London had been made too much of in this matter, for the Gentleman in question had been returned by but a small majority. The introduction of this Bill had been justified by a reference to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act and the Reform Act. There was no analogy between those cases and the present. They were brought forward with the avowed purpose of guaranteeing rights to a large portion of our fellow-subjects of the same faith, and moreover there was considerable danger threatening; with regard to them; but could anybody say there were national objects in the present measure to make those precedents applicable? It might be a matter of personal ambition to represent the city of London; but would the rejection of this Bill bring any national danger, or any threatening calamity, applying as it did to men who belonged to a separate people, sojourners in the land—men who belonged as much to Germany as to England, and who firmly believed they belonged more to the land of Canaan than to either one or the other? For one, he would not consent to be a participator in what he believed to be a moral and political wrong; and he regretted that those whose first object should have been to foster the faith of the people had been the first to give offence to it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. F. PEELwould not have risen to address the House on that occasion were
1400
it not that he could confidently rely upon that indulgence which the House was ever disposed to extend to those who ventured to express their sentiments for the first time. [Cheers.] He stood the more in need of that indulgence, because he laboured under the disadvantage of following an hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) in debate, whose station in that House, and whose high personal character, entitled him to the utmost respect; and because he had the misfortune to have arrived at a conclusion directly opposite to that which the hon. Baronet had drawn, from the facts and arguments which he had brought forward for their consideration. Having, then, come to the decision of giving his vote for the second reading of the Bill before the House—a Bill by which it was designed to remove the incapacities that attached to the Jewish subjects of the realm, and to no other class of their fellow-subjects—he was desirous to claim the forbearance of the House while he stated some of the grounds on which he had arrived at that conclusion. He thought it could not be denied that a strong presumption was made out in favour of the Jews upon the broad and fundamental I proposition that the privileges and capacities of the constitution ought of right to belong to every natural-born subject of the realm; they belonged to them, not because they were communicants of this or that religion, but because they were Englishmen, bearing the burdens and fulfilling the obligations that devolved upon them as English subjects. Parliament had itself so far recognised the constitutional rights of the Jews by conferring upon them gradually and by parts eligibility to almost all offices, whether civil, military, or judicial. As a magistrate, the Jew might administer the law judicially, and as a sheriff ministerially. Almost every office of trust and authority was open to him in every branch of civil and military administration. He had the right of voting, provided he possessed the requisite qualification; he was admissible to municipal privileges. There remained, however, this disqualification, that though a body of constituents elected him as their representative, and though the returning officer was bound to return him as a Member of Parliament, yet he could not take his seat and vote upon any question in the House of Commons. While this was wanting to him, therefore, his political status was incomplete. He confessed himself unable

1401
to discover, on political grounds, why the disqualification to sit and vote in Parliament should be persisted in, while the power to hold office, and the privilege of the electoral franchise, were freely awarded to him. True it was that hon. Gentlemen on former occasions had attempted to draw distinction between civil office and public franchise, from the degree of political power that attached to them respectively. They were told that civil employment involved merely on the part of persons holding it an instrumental administration of the law in being at the time; but that to a seat in Parliament the irresponsible power of passing new laws was incident. He would not take upon himself to pronounce whether such a distinction was well or ill founded; but he would humbly remind the House that the Test Act passed in the reign of Charles II. was based upon a different principle. Under this Act, and Acts supplementary to it, the Dissenter was barred from civil employment, while his right to sit and vote in that House was never called in question. Again, it was argued that the propriety of maintaining the disability might be supported on the same ground of public policy upon which rested other disabilities known to the law, and arising from age, sex, property, profession, and natural allegiance. He confessed, that to his mind, these cases appeared in nowise analogous to that of the Jews, because they were either temporary in point of duration, or universal in respect of their application, and in no case conferred any stigma or civil degradation, or implied a want of civil worth in the persons who fell within the several categories to which he had referred. So much for the fact of Jewish exclusion, and for the principle of political equality by which it was condemned. He would wish now to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the law operates to effect the exclusion of the Jew. Upon the discovery of the gunpowder plot, an Act was framed affecting the Roman Catholics exclusively, and empowering any magistrate to administer an oath to suspected parties, testing their religious persuasion. This oath was an oath of allegiance or abjuration, and ended with the words, then introduced for the first time, "on the true faith of a Christian." A few years later—he believed in the seventh year of the reign of James I.—it was provided that that oath should be
1402
taken by Members of the House of Commons previous to their entering that House. Nothing further was, he believed, done in this respect till the 30th year of the reign of Charles II., when a more stringent measure of the same tendency as the former was enacted. By this Act Members of both Houses of Parliament were required, in addition to the oath of allegiance, to take the oath of supremacy, and also to subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation. On the accession of William III. these oaths were repealed, and in lieu of them a now oath of supremacy was framed, and also a new oath of allegiance, which they all knew did not contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and, therefore, at that period the Jew was not disabled from taking a seat in Parliament, as far as any legislative impediments went. But towards the close of the reign of William III., Louis XIV. having recognised the Pretender, and the greater part of the Pretender's adherents in these countries being Roman Catholics, an Act was passed imposing on the Members of both Houses the obligation of qualifying themselves by taking an additional oath, declaring that King William had a lawful title to the throne of these realms, and that no other person whatever had any such right or title. But though the substance of this new oath of abjuration thus differed from that of the original one, it was directed against the same class of religionists as the former; it was framed on the same model, and concluded, like its original, with the words "on the true faith of a Christian." These were the three oaths, then—namely, of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration (the declaration against transubstantiation being repealed in 1829)—that had been taken since the thirteenth year of William III.; and the concluding words of one of these oaths, that of abjuration, created an obstacle across the threshold of the House which no conscientious Jew could surmount. He had endeavoured to show, however, that this oath was not designed to exclude the Jew, but that it was intended for another class. It was never intended to insure a nominal profession of Christianity on the part of every Member of Parliament on his admission to either House; but the object was to exclude from Parliament one of the greatest divisions of professing Christians in the country. If he thought, therefore, that on political

1403
grounds the exclusion of the Jew was indefensible, how much more indefensible did it appear when he thought of the indirectness of the mode by which that exclusion had taken place? But that was not all. Some hon. Gentlemen might think that the substance of the oath of abjuration was in a political point of view of so much importance that it would not be safe to admit any man to Parliament whose conscience was not first bound with reference to it. If this were so, the Jew was quite willing to take the oath, if a different sanction were introduced. That he could bind his conscience as effectually as any Christian was not to be doubted. In no case was Christianity essential to an oath. It did not enter into the nature of an oath. The words "on the true faith of a Christian "were merely ceremonial—as purely ceremonial as the act of kissing the book. Their introduction into the form of the oath was, in all probability, as accidental as their effect had turned out to be; or, at the most, they were introduced to give greater significancy and solemnity to the taking of the oath, and to enforce more stringently the obligation of its observance upon the mind and conscience of a Christian. In support of this view of the nature of an oath, he might cite the example of the Legislature itself, for it had given to the oath, when taken by the Roman Catholic, a different form, in which these words were omitted, as having no necessary connexion with the oath of abjuration. Thus, if these words were omitted, the oath would be still as binding on the Jew as it was now binding on the Christian. Such an alteration as this would not, however, satisfy the opponents of this measure, because they admitted, and because it was admitted on all sides, that the oath of abjuration was an antiquated formula no longer necessary; and, in fact, so little faith was now placed in its utility, that the Roman Catholics, for whom it was originally expressly framed, were at present exempted from taking it. They maintained the oath, not for any value they set on the oath itself, for it was a dead letter, but for the sake of the excluding effect attached to certain words which formed part of the ceremony of the oath. He confessed, then, he could not see on what grounds they could justify the exclusion of the Jew, who professed his readiness to take the oath of allege-
1404
ance, and of supremacy—aye, and to take the oath of abjuration also, if it was permitted to him to take it under a different sanction. And he would ask, for every rational assurance of security to the established institutions of the country, what more ought to be required of any man as a qualification for the enjoyment of civil rights, than a solemn declaration of his readiness to stand by the existing order of things in Church and State? These conditions the Jew was willing to perform; but he protested against being made the victim of a fortuitous and accidental circumstance, and that through the medium of words that did not enter into the nature of an oath, but which were accidentally introduced into the external form which had been given to the oath. But it was upon the religious bearing of the question that the arguments of their opponents were found chiefly to rest, and he would now proceed to consider some of them. And here he would contend for a principle that was to be collected from our existing institutions, and which he thought ought to be as unrestricted in its application as it was unqualified in its terms; the principle was that of perfect religious equality before the law—the principle that a difference of religious persuasion ought not to constitute aground for civil disqualification. That it should do so could only find support upon the supposition of the closest alliance between the Church and the State, or rather, perhaps, he should say, upon those two expressions "Church" and "State" being convertible or identical terms, denoting the same community according to the temporal or spiritual nature of its concerns. It was on some theory of this kind that the State was once made subservient to the Church, and that the religion of the State was forced upon the people through the medium of incapacities and disabilities, which were at variance with the rights of the people under their civil or secular constitution. But dissent had grown up all the faster and stronger, and that theory was not now at least wrought in the practice of the State. Upon full consideration they had surrendered the principle that the communion of the Church of England ought to constitute the basis of their political organisation. They did so in a formal manner when they passed the Sacramental Test Repeal Act in 1828, and when they passed the Roman Catholic

1405
Emancipation Act in 1829. In such a case as this he could only reason on the data of the constitution, as he found them; and in giving his support to this measure he was guiding his conduct by the conciliatory precedents of recent times. He was acting in the spirit of that constitution, and carrying out its distinguishing principle—a principle replete with good sense, with constitutional law, and with the mild spirit of Christian charity, namely, that all our privileges were to be enjoyed without reference to religious belief. That was the principle which he now advocated, and on which he would support the measure before the House. But the principal strength of the argument on the religious bearing of the question, lay in dwelling upon the practical results that it was alleged would follow from the admission of the Jews to Parliament. And, first, the opponents of the measure represented it as another step taken towards overturning the Established Church. It had always been predicted, that every concession made to the Jews and other classes, would be attended with such consequences. Slow and progressive experience had taught them, however, that the evils anticipated had not come to pass. And he might reasonably assume that the apprehensions which were now entertained, relative to the consequences of this measure, would eventually prove to be equally imaginary and unreal. He would take, for example, the strength of this new element in the personal constitution of Parliament that was to work so much mischief. It was calculated that at the utmost not more than a limited number of Jews would be admitted to Parliament; and never, from that quarter, could anything threatening to our ecclesiastical establishment arise. The constituencies that returned them—a great majority of whom must ever remain Christians—would alone prevent it. Another argument of a religious expediency was, that the new influence which this Bill would introduce into the composition of Parliament, would unfit it for the discharge of that branch of its functions which concerned the interests of the Church. It could not be denied, he thought, that there was some incongruity in Parliament, constituted as it now is, dealing with the affairs of the Church. It should be borne in mind, however, at the same time, that Parliament dealt only with the temporal interests of the Church, and the relations of the ministers and mem-
1406
bers of the Church to themselves and the rest of the community in civil society. But the short answer to this objection appeared to him to be, that the incongruity already existed, and had existed ever since Parliament ceased to be composed entirely of members who were conformists to the Established Church. He would pass from this argument of religious expediency to one which was represented as involving a great principle. He referred to the value set upon the nominal profession of Christianity on the part of every Member of the Legislature. That outward profession was represented as part of the law and practice of Parliament and the constitution. But when was it that the oath of abjuration had been a guarantee for the Christianity of the Legislature? For a certain period Anglican Protestantism alone found admission to that House. Parliament was then Protestant in a different and limited sense of the term; all its Members were conformists to the National Church. When Dissent found a voice there, Parliament became Protestant without any qualification of the term. Upon the relief given to the Roman Catholics, Parliament became Christian in a comprehensive sense—in the sense that all denominations of Christians were eligible to a seat in it; and it was his firm conviction, that though they parted with the title to be exclusively Christian in profession, Parliament would still continue Christian in this sense, that the great and overwhelming majority of its Members would be Christian, and that their laws would still continue to breathe the spirit of Christian morality. But he should better understand the importance that Gentlemen attached to the retention of this oath, and their objection to its being repealed, if it could be shown that it operated as an impassable barrier against some sects whose characteristic dogmas were at variance with what they believed to be the essential and distinctive truths of Christianity. But such was not the case, because they had already admitted, for instance, persons professing Unitarian principles. He would ask, then, what value this nominal profession of Christianity could be, if it did not unite them also in the profession of what they held to be the true fundamentals of Christianity? But it might be said, that whatever may be the laxity of construction allowed in reference to the term "Christian," they had, at all events, the security of every Member before taking his seat in that House professing himself

1407
a Christian. But even that was not the case. He found that Roman Catholics, Quakers, and Moravians, were admitted without taking any oath or signing any declaration on the true faith of a Christian. Nor was it a sufficient answer to say that these were classes of religionists whom all admitted to be within the pale of Christianity, because that did not affect the argument as to their having a security in all cases that the Member, before taking his seat, should declare himself a Christian. It would be unbecoming in him, considering the forbearance with which the House had listened to him, to trespass at greater length upon their time. He would only say, that being unable to see any force or conclusiveness in the arguments that had been urged against the progress of the measure, he should follow in that direction which constitutional principle and precedent, precepts of Christianity, and considerations of public policy, invited him to take, and he should give his hearty and willing vote in support of the second reading of the Bill. Perhaps, however, he might be allowed to say one or two words with reference to the warning which the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), with great force of language, and with all the weight which attached to whatever fell from him, had addressed to Gentlemen who, like himself, supported the measure before the House, to beware how they shocked the religions sentiments of the people, and induced them to believe that, as political men, they were apt to overlook practical Christianity. He admitted freely that the religious sentiments of the people were entitled to the fullest consideration, and he should deeply regret an impression, even though an erroneous one, that they, as legislators, disregarded in the treatment of political questions the influence and the injunctions of Christianity. But they were bound, at the same time, to give due weight to the dictates of their own consciences; and if they honestly believed that special and exceptional exclusion from benefits that ought to be common to all, could not be justified on any grounds of public policy or public necessity; if, wanting that justification, it was irreconcileable with the principle of the existing constitution; if, above all, they believed that a mild and conciliatory course was more in harmony with the genius of Christianity than a harsh and exclusive one, then, however painful it might be to incur misconstruction, and the displeasure of
1408
those they respected, they must persist in the discharge of what they considered a great public duty. [Cheers.]
MR. TURNERsaid, he felt that he laboured under a great disadvantage in having to address the House after the very able and eloquent speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—a disadvantage which he felt more strongly, as he had the misfortune to differ from that hon. Gentleman in the arguments he had advanced on the present occasion. He (Mr. Turner) had given this question the most calm and dispassionate consideration. He had weighed it over and over again without any feeling of prejudice towards the Jews, and he must confess that he was quite unable to arrive at the conclusion at which the hon. Gentleman had arrived. As far as possible he should endeavour to avoid repeating the arguments which had already been laid before the House against the measure under discussion, though he by no means wished it to be understood that he dissented from those arguments; on the contrary, with the great majority of them he entirely concurred. The question had hitherto been considered simply as a question of the exclusion of the Jews; but they ought not to forget that the admission of one Member implied the exclusion of another—that the admission of a Jew was equivalent to the exclusion of a Christian. The question, therefore, was not one of exclusion, but of preference; and the true question was, whether they ought to vest in the constituencies of the country the power of excluding Christians, for the purpose of admitting Jews? The claims of the Jews had been urged on the ground of their contributions to the State. He would call upon those who advanced their claims upon that ground to account for the exclusion of aliens by birth. Aliens by birth contributed to the wants of the State. Alien merchants were capable of giving the best information on the trade of the country with the States to which they belonged; and yet they were excluded from Parliament—and why? Because questions might arise in which their feelings and their interests would be adverse to the interests of the country. The same principle applied to the Jews, who were aliens in religion. What was the first duty which Members of this House had to perform? Was it not to provide for the religious instruction of the people, and to extend and promote Christianity amongst them? Could the Jew participate in such a measure?

1409
Could he take any part in extending a religion which he believed to be a fable, and worse than a fable—to be founded on imposture and fraud? In proportion as the spiritual interests of the people were of infinitely greater importance than their temporal interests, in the same degree would a measure to admit aliens in religion to Parliament be an infinitely more prejudicial measure than to admit aliens by birth? He would try the measure by another test, and see how the admission of the Jews to Parliament would affect the people of this country. Suppose the case of a contested election, where a Jew was one of the candidates. He would not speak of the manner in which the two candidates might talk of each other, but he would ask what would be the language which the supporters of the candidate in opposition to the Jew would employ. Hon. Members must remember that they were not dealing with the language—the natural and proper language which was used with respect to Jews in this House, but they were dealing with the language and feeling of the common people of England; and he had no hesitation in expressing his conviction that if a Jew were a candidate in a contested election, the religion of the Jews would be the common taunt of the supporters of his opponent. He might be told that that would only affect the Jews themselves, but he had to consider what would be the consequences of these taunts. Would they not be met by counter taunts, impeaching the knowledge of Christianity on the part of those who reviled the Jews? And would not the truths of Christianity thus become the subject of discussion and dissension in places where such subjects ought never to be entered upon. What greater mischief could ensue? Whether, therefore, he looked to the direct or indirect consequences of this measure, he thought they would be equally prejudicial. There was another view of the question. However the feelings of parties might have varied in this country, it was still a fact that a Jew never did possess a seat in Parliament; and he was warranted, therefore, in saying that Christianity had hitherto been considered as a part of the qualification for a Member of this House. He would ask whether they would venture to disregard the religious qualification for Membership, and yet attempt to preserve the pecuniary one. Another view of the question, which de-
1410
served consideration was, how far the admission of Jews to the House would affect the freedom of debate. He did not mean to say one word disrespectful to the members of that body, and still loss to the Gentleman who had received the suffrages of the city of London; but the House must recollect that they were legislating for all future time, and that, if the Jews were admitted, there might hereafter be individuals who would speak in this House of Christianity and of Christians in terms of abuse. It was an offence against the law to publish any speech reviling Christianity. Was the House to be placed in such a position that newspapers would be obliged to report, on the subject of their debates, that the language used was such that they dared not put it forth. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke had referred to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, as analogous to the present measure; but with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, he thought that argument involved a fallacy. The Roman Catholic Relief Bill only restored a privilege which had existed antecedent to the penal laws—which had been taken away for the temporary purpose of maintaining the Protestant faith—and which was necessarily restored when the Protestant faith was once firmly established. But they were not now called upon to restore a privilege which had ever existed, but rather to create a right which had never before been in being. He would only, in conclusion, call attention to the words of the provision by which it was proposed to admit the Jews to Parliament. It was proposed to omit from the oath which the Jew was to take the words "on the true faith of a Christian." He might misunderstand the effect of that omission, but it appeared to him that if they omitted these words, and retained the clause, "So help me God," the God who was appealed to was not the God of the Christians, but the God of the Jew. And on what principle could they stop there; how could they refuse to extend the same privilege to other subjects of the empire who believed in other gods? On these grounds—and believing the measure to be prejudicial to the best interests of Christianity—he should not hesitate to vote against it.
MR. H. WILLYAMSwould be sorry to have such a weak opinion of the Christian religion as to suppose for a single moment that the introduction of the Jews into Parliament would weaken or affect it. It appeared to him that the fears for Chris-

1411
tianity expressed by the opponents of this measure from the introduction of Jews into the House was altogether groundless. It was clear that the Jews were not a proseltising race, and in confirmation of this he might mention the well-known historical anecdote, that when Lord George Gordon, the leader of the famous "No Popery" riots, wished afterwards to become a Jew, the Jews would not admit him among them. Besides, it was well known that there was a firm belief among the Jews, that it was by Christians they were to be restored at last to their own land. All classes in the country except Jews were now admissible to Parliament; and he hoped, by the second reading of the Bill to-night, the Jews also would be admitted.
MR. TRELAWNYremarked, that the term "alien" had been applied to the Jews by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, and it was contended that because they were aliens they were not entitled to the same rights and privileges as other classes of our fellow-subjects. He denied that a Jew living in England was an alien. An alien, although residing in England, owed allegiance to a foreign Sovereign: an English Jew owed and rendered allegiance to our Queen. The foolish assertion that Jews were incapacitated by the nature of their religion from discharging the duties and obligations of legislators and governors was completely exploded in France, where, after a complete investigation of the whole matter, it was declared that there was nothing in the religion of a Jew which incapacitated or disqualified him from discharging all the duties of citizenship. Again, it was said that this was a Christian Legislature, and that we ought not to destroy its characteristic. But was it a Christian Legislature? Were they all Christians? Were Unitarians Christians? What did they mean by the term Christians? Did it not imply a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, which Unitarians disbelieved? As far as the strict meaning of the word Christian was concerned, it was plain they might as well exclude unitarians as Jews. Well, but it was said, once admit the Jews, and you cannot refuse admission to the members of any persuasion. His opinion was that they ought not, and, as far as he was concerned, he would not exclude Mahometans or Hindoos. If a Mahometan or a Hindoo were to obtain the confidence of a British constituency, he certainly would
1412
not exclude him on account of his religion. There was no political reason why Jews should not be admitted. They were orderly, obedient to the laws, and always ready to give their aid in supporting authority. On the 10th of April last year, did not the Jew show just as much desire to preserve the peace as the Christian? [Cheers.] He confessed he could not see the force of that cheer. It was also objected that Jews were devoted to the acquisition of gain. He thought that an advantage, and, looking at the matter in a political view, he could see nothing more desirable than encouraging habits of thrift and prudence, and inducing men of capital to reside in this country, for abundant capital caused a low rate of interest and the increased employment of the labouring population. By excluding the Jews from the enjoyment of the highly and valued privilege which they now sought, they would make 40,000 of their fellow-subjects discontented and unhappy. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to call upon them to throw out the Bill, unless they could show that it would weaken the securities or diminish the resources of the empire; but as, in his opinion, it would have the effect of attaching a class of our fellow-subjects still more strongly to our institutions, and binding them by the ties of gratitude, he would support the second reading of the Bill.
MR. A. B. HOPEwished to explain the vote which he was about to give on this Bill. If the subject-matter of this Bill related only, as its title implied, to the revision of the oath of supremacy, he should have had no hesitation in supporting it. But it appeared that the revision of the oath was only a mask to cover the admission of the Jews into Parliament—a subject which was brought openly before them last year—which was then rejected—and which had now come before them again in the shape of an Oaths Alteration Bill; which, when it came to be debated, turned out to he the mere Jews Bill of last Session; for, except by the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment, the subject of oaths had not been referred to by any hon. Member who took part in the debate. He would not oppose the alteration of the oaths; but, both as protesting against the emancipation of the Jews, to which he was strongly opposed, and against a course of legislation which was unworthy of the Government of a great country, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.
MR. ROBARTESsupported the second reading. He did not think that the existence of Christianity in this country depended upon the exclusion of the Jews. On the contrary, he thought that their emancipation would conduce to its more perfect establishment. Believing that it was wrong to deprive any class of Her Majesty's subjects of their civil rights, he should support the measure.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that no one could accuse the hon. Member for Tavistock of religious bigotry, since he would admit not only Jews, but Hindoos and Mahometans to Parliament. The hon. Member might be a bigot to his opinions on political economy, but not on religion certainly: he seemed to agree with Voltaire, who urged, that because Jews and Christians made money together on the Exchange, therefore that there ought to be no restriction upon the admission of Jews into the Legislature. But was there no difference between the House of Commons and the Exchange? if the House of Commons and the Exchange were the same, there certainly would be no justice in the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament; but he had been brought up in a different school of belief. He had been taught to consider the House of Commons as the representatives of a great Christian country, assisting a Christian Sovereign in the discharge of her Christian duties; and he could not therefore look to this as the denial of a right of the Jews to sit in a Christian Parliament. The right to a seat in the Legislature was spoken of as a privilege; but he (Mr. Newdegate) considered a seat in that House not as a right or a privilege, but simply as a trust vested in the person elected by the public for the public good. He was of opinion, that no constituency, however large, had a right to force their views upon the other constituencies of the empire, by changing the nature of the assembly common to the representatives of all constituencies according to their fancy, in the election of their own representative. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel)—a speech which gave promise of high talent—if the arguments of that hon. Gentleman were pursued to their legitimate conclusion, they would lead to far other results than he had predicated. The hon. Gentleman had cited the period when the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were added to the oath taken by Members of Parliament, the period of
1414
the gunpowder plot, and the accession of William III.—as periods of unusual distrust. But did not that prove, that when the nation was considered to be in danger, it was felt that these words were the best test that could be framed for the religious and Christian conduct and good faith of the representatives of the people? It was said, that the State and the community were one; and that as the Jews formed a portion of the community, they were also entitled to form a portion of the State. But he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped this country still claimed to be a Christian community: 30,000 or 40,000 Jews, among 30,000,000 of Christians did not make it otherwise, or deprive it of its title to Christianity; and he (Mr. Newdegate) maintained, that it was true according to the actual condition of this country, that the community which formed the State in its political aspect, formed likewise the Church when viewed in its religious aspect, for the vast majority of the community were Christians, and the majority had a right to stamp the community with its religious as well as with its political character. Therefore, those who supported the measure should be prepared to deny the right of this country to be considered as a Christian community. The hon. Member said, the words in question were used as a sanction only, and to impress the sense of a deep responsibility in respect of religious duties upon Members of Parliament; but was it desired to remove that sense, or was it wished to revive the old law which had been annulled by the Christian dispensation; was it believed that the country would be happier if it were governed by the Jewish ritual than by the law of Christianity? If men believed that God judged men according to their acts hereafter, then there was clearer evidence to prove his visiting upon a nation the consequences of their misdeeds. That was the case with the Jews; and he who scoffed at this doctrine scoffed at the whole history of Scripture. A clause declaratory of the Queen's ecclesiastical supremacy, was introduced into the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill last year by the Duke of Wellington, and was supported by the Government. This clause passed the House of Lords without a dissentient voice, and was in the House of Commons supported by a majority of 77, against a minority of only 4, who voted against the declaration of Her Majesty's supremacy. Now, what had occurred since that event to induce the noble Lord to think that it was wise

1415
and necessary to remove the oath by which we bound ourselves to observe the declaration of the supremacy of Her Majesty? Last year it was notorious that the bull of the Pope In Cœna Domini, which absolved Roman Catholics from their allegiance to a Protestant Sovereign, and which excluded all from salvation who were not Roman Catholics, was read in this country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government knew that doubts existed in some quarters, whether the ecclesiastical supremacy which the Pope claimed in this country was not in force, and whether persons were not stating more than they ought to state when they asserted that the Pope had no jurisdiction here. Did the noble Lord wish to restore the Pope's jurisdiction? If he did not, it was a marvellous inconsistency to find a Minister in one Session voting for the passing of a law declaratory of the Queen's supremacy, and in another removing those oaths by which that supremacy was maintained. If Her Majesty's supremacy was to be maintained, why not continue to take the oath—if there was any virtue in an oath of allegiance or supremacy? It was only fair, before the House proceeded to remove those securities which guarded the supremacy of the Crown, that the great opponent of that supremacy should withdraw those edicts by which he claims the right to dictate to all other ecclesiastical powers. But, on the contrary, the Pope had authoritatively declared his adherence to those claims, for his allocution pronounced in the Consistory of December 17, 1847, expressly declared that he reserved and claimed for the See of Rome all that his predecessors claimed, and that he abandoned no whit of those pretensions. He would call attention to the exact words used by the Pope, because it had been professed and urged by Roman Catholics, and particularly by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, that the non-publication of the bull In Cœna Domini rendered it invalid, and a mere brutum fulmen. This might be the belief of that noble Lord, but not that of other Roman Catholics. His Holiness the Pope, however, had set the matter at rest by declaring that neither the non-publication of the bull, nor the prevalence of any contrary custom, could in any way annul its effect. The Pope says—
"Meanwhile, venerable brethren, we wish to communicate to you the extreme surprise with which we were affected at receiving a document, written and published by a certain individual in
1416
vested with the ecclesiastical dignity; for this personage, treating in this document of certain doctrines, which he calls the traditions of the churches of his country, and which tend to restrict the rights of this Apostolic See, has not blushed to affirm that these traditions are held in estimation by us. Far be it from us, indeed, venerable brethren, the suspicion that we ever had the intention, or the least idea, to fall away from the institutions of our ancestors, or neglect to preserve and defend in all its integrity the authority of this holy see."
Reiffenstuel, one of the highest authorities on the Roman Catholic law, had declared that the rights of the Roman See were properly enunciated in the bull In Cœna Domini, and that this bull was the chief pillar of the Roman See. This was what Reiffenstuel said—
"In the first place, because a custom against the liberty and immunity of the Church, even though it be an immemorial custom, is at all times invalid and inadmissible, as we have proved at largo from one and the other (canon and civil) law, lib. 1, tit. iv. De Consuetud., No. 61. But a custom against the bull Cœnœ would be exceedingly adverse to the liberty and immunity of the Church, forasmuch as it is for this object chiefly that the bull has been set forth, and as in fact it is the firmest and almost only pillar of it."
No doubt the Pope's claims to supremacy remained unaltered, whether the bull was read here or not; and, after such a declaration, he would ask whether this was the time to remove the safeguards we possessed? There was another reason for viewing this Bill with deep distrust, the omission of that part of the present oath which abjured the Pope's ecclesiastical supremacy, and denied his power to absolve subjects from their allegiance, and to depose sovereigns, from the oath proposed for Protestants by the noble Lord. This rendered the proposed oath unobjectionable to Roman Catholics, who, by not avowing their religion, might take it instead of the oath prescribed for them by the Relief Act of 1829, which bound them not to attack or attempt to weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government, as by law established in these realms; which would both thereby be deprived of their present security. He would come back to the great question: would they, for the sake of admitting a Jew into that House, unchristianise the Legislature? In whose favour were we to depart from the Christian law? In favour of those who denied the divinity of Him in whom all the hopes of Christians centered. The Jews were not ignorant of the circumstances connected with the Christian religion—they had not that excuse to

1417
be alleged in their behalf; and they were to be admitted who, with the fullest knowledge and with the amplest information, refused to acknowledge the truth of the Christian religion. On the same plea it would be utter injustice to deny admission to any infidel. It was true that Her Majesty's Government still proposed to exact a profession of Christianity from the Christian Members; but then in their character of legislators they proposed to put them on the same level with infidels.
An HON. MEMBERhere moved that the House be counted.
The gallery was cleared, but there being more than forty Members present,
MR. NEWDEGATEresumed: He was not surprised, considering what was passing in another place, that many of his hon. Friends had been listening to what was then passing in the House of Lords, for it was currently believed that the fate of the Ministry hung in the balance of that discussion. This might account for the thinness of the House. But it was something singular to notice that Her Majesty's Ministers had selected the same night for attempting to reverse the decision of the House of Lords against the Jew Bill, on which they were attempting to drive the House of Lords from deciding according to the dictates of their cooler judgment in the discussion then proceeding in the Upper House. The meaning of the present discussion on the Jews' Disabilities Bill, in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers, was doubtless this: "You (the House of Lords) last year refused to pass this measure. You protected the Christian character of the Legislature, and you were responded to by the feeling of the country, but no matter, we have a tyrant majority in this House, and if you deal with the matter in question—if you differ from us, we will test your strength and endurance—we will render the House of Lords the mere record-office of the will of the House of Commons." But to return to the question: if they admitted the Jews, who denied Christianity on principle, they could not refuse admittance to the infidel. If they admitted the infidel to the same privileges and power as Christian Members, then it was an insult to those Christian Members to exact from them a profession of their faith. There was another view of the question: the Jews were a separate people by race and by religion. The religion of the Jews taught them to consider themselves as a separate people; they considered them-
1418
selves a standing memorial of the judgment of God. Rabbi Crool, Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, one of the ablest of the Jewish professors, had expressed his astonishment at seeing how little the word of God was regarded in this House. The country was Christian: but if Baron Rothschild's claim was admitted, it was equal to a declaration that this country was no longer a Christian country. The admission of the Jews could only be granted on those terms, and therefore if the admission were resolved upon, he repeated, it was an insult to the Christian Members to retain the profession of Christianity on their part. He had already stated that the Jews were a separate people. The Mishna was written after the Jews were driven from Jerusalem, for the purpose of continuing the Jews as a separate people. It was found, as Rabbi Raphael had declared, that Christians observed many of the formulae of the Jewish laws, and could not be distinguished from Jews. The Mishna was, therefore, written to make the separation clear and complete. But the Jew was not only an alien by race and custom, but he was still more an alien by religion. The hon. Member for Leominster felt the force of this, for he said he regretted we must give up our Christian character if we admitted Jews. If the Jews were admitted, the Christian character of the country would be invalidated: they would thereby render it impossible for this country, as a Christian State, to adopt measures for spreading Christianity among other nations. If he were asked whether the country or the State would not be safe when the Legislature abandoned its religious functions, he would say—look at France—the French had admitted Jews to their Assembly in 1831; the Church of France shrank from contact with the State, which had repudiated its Christianity; gradually abandoned the Gallican principles it had maintained, and bound itself closer to Rome. He (Mr. Newdegate) had mentioned this on the second reading of the Jew Bill in December of last year, as an instance of the danger of alienating the religion of a people from the State, which the admission of Jews into the Legislature of France had entailed; and, strange to say, before the Jew Bill was read a third time in that House last May, the monarchy of France was rolling in the dust. He said this, that if the State of England repudiated its religious character, it ceased to secure to itself the sincere allegiance of its subjects. The true allegiance of the

1419
subject was this, that he obeyed, because to obey was right. He believed that as long as the authority of the Crown rested upon religion, as long as the Administration were Christian, as long as the Legislature was Christian, the security of the State rested on the Rock of Ages. He would therefore resist to the uttermost every attempt to deprive the State of its religious character.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYimagined that the hon. Member for Warwickshire was speaking on the subject of diplomatic relations with Rome, rather than on the question of admitting Jews to a seat in the Legislature, for he had dwelt so much on matters connected with the Roman Catholic religion. Last year he (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey) had written a pamphlet to prove that the bull of the Pope In Cœna Domini, was obsolete. The hon. Member had said that it contained provisions for its continuance and annual publication, but he was of opinion that it was out of use. With regard to the allocution, many intricate questions were connected with the subject, and it could hardly he expected that he could without preparation deal with them, while it would be hardly safe to hazard an opinion on them. With regard to the present Bill, he had last year been strongly in favour of it, for he considered then, as he did now, that it was unjust to prevent any one being admitted into an assembly composed of so many mixed elements as that House presented. There was at least one consolation which he as a Catholic derived from the debates on the question. Before their admission to seats in the House they had been always called "idolaters," but now on every occasion they were regarded as forming a portion of the Christian community.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that his faith was, that national sins had ever met, and ever would meet, with national punishment; and though the noble Lord the Member for Arundel had said that Roman Catholics had been before their admission into that House described as idolaters, and had argued from thence that the opinions of Protestants were changed, he would state that his opinion was that the Roman Catholic had ever been an idolatrous Church—his opinion was that it still was an idolatrous Church—and his opinion had not altered in the slightest degree because Roman Catholics had been admitted into that House. He did not think the ques-
1420
tion had been argued on its proper bearings. The Jews were not excluded as citizens, but they were excluded from taking part in the counsels of that House, because the Sovereign and Parliament were bound to uphold the Christian religion. The question was, were they to be guided by Christian principles? If they admitted to their counsels a people not actuated by Christian principles, they gave up the Christian character of the great council of the nation, and must, if consistent, open their doors to persons of all creeds. If they opened their doors to the Jew, how could they stop the entrance of the professed infidel? He knew and regretted that there were many holding seats in that House who did not believe what he and others believed, and what their Sovereign was bound not only to believe but to maintain. That was their responsibility; but the House was only responsible that the representative assembly of a Christain country should profess to be guided by Christian principles. The hon. Member for Leominster had said that the Jews were not by the constitution excluded from Parliament; that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were inserted in the oath for quite a different purpose than for the exclusion of Jews. If that hon. Member would refer to the speech delivered in that House by one whose authority the hon. Member would not impugn (the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in the year 1830), he would find the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament argued upon strictly constitutional grounds. He (Mr. Spooner) wished the right hon. Baronet had been in his place, that the House might have had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Baronet state his present views upon that point. He would not dwell at any great length on the question as to the admission of the Jews, for it had often been before them, and he should only be repeating arguments which had been frequently used in former debates. He wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to one or two of the provisions of the new Bill. This did not, like the Bill of last year, expressly admit the Jews. By this Bill the Jews were to be admitted by accident—as it was said they had been excluded by accident. As to the oaths proposed to be taken by other Members, he strongly objected to the alteration of them. The oath at present contained a declaration that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate had, or ought

1421
to have, any jurisdiction or power, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms; and they were now called upon to leave that out. What would be the effect? Why, any man of common sense would say that they had altered their opinions, and that they no longer held that no foreign prince had any jurisdiction, power, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: by omitting the words, the principle was abandoned. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said it was not his intention to alter the Roman Catholic oath; but hon. Members were not asked whether they were Protestants or Roman Catholics, and any hon. Member, unless he chose to profess himself a Roman Catholic, might take the oath now proposed to be administered to Protestants; and if any hon. Member did so, it would be very difficult to bring him within the penalties supposed to apply to such a case. The question had already been so fully discussed that he would not trespass further upon the attention of the House: but he felt, as a Christian Member of that House, that he dared not give his consent to the passing of this Bill. He knew he should be charged with bigotry for the course he had taken; but every man was responsible to God for his conduct, and he believed that if he did anything to lower the character of that House as a Christian assembly, he should be guilty of a heinous sin. It was a great national sin to encourage idolatry on the one hand, or degrade Christianity on the other; and when he recollected that the Jew dealt with the Saviour of mankind as an impostor, and regarded the New Testament as a fraud, be could not give a silent vote on that question, for he was convinced that the time would come when they would all be obliged to confess that He whom the Jew regarded as an impostor was "King of kings, and Lord of lords. "
Mr. SERJEANT TALFOURDsaid, that there was something so inviting in the present state of the House, that he could not help saying a word or two on that question, in which he felt the deepest interest. There was something inviting in the present appearance of the House in another respect, because, giving full weight to the fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that that House and the country were about to be unchristianised, he could not help thinking that a great number of those who imagined that they were on the verge of that great calamity must have deceived themselves greatly as to the real state of
1422
their feelings, when fifteen or sixteen Members were all that felt it necessary to sanction by their presence these solemn warnings. He would address to the House, therefore, a few remarks upon the speeches of the two hon. Members for Warwickshire; and as to the fear just expressed by the hon. Member who had last spoken, lest Roman Catholics should come in the guise of Protestants, and take the Protestant oath, he thought that that was carrying one step further the absurdity which he had thought had been long ago abandoned. It was a fear so chimerical that it was hardly worth a reply. These oaths, however, were said to be the great barriers of Christianity in that House; but if so, the Christianity of that House must be of very modern date, for certainly they were not required to take oaths by the common law of the land: they dated only, at the earliest, from the time of the Reformation, and there was a much later period when the Christianity of that House had been suspended; for during the reign of William III., the words, "on the true faith of a Christian" were not used. But it had been said by the hon. Member for Warwickshire that the Jew, on purpose and with full knowledge, rejected the Saviour; but surely the Jew was merely presented to them in a relation, not less the subject of sorrow, but of far more respectful consideration, than he who, educated in Christianity, voluntarily abandoned that faith. The cradle of the Jew was surrounded by solemnities peculiar to his ancient race; wholly without the wish of proselyting he simply remained in the faith delivered to him from his fathers. The religion of the Jew was not antagonistic to that of the Christian; the Jew was only an imperfect Christian; his religion was only Christianity in its cradle; if at any time he should become a Christian, he had nothing to unlearn; he was only awakened to a sense which gave a noble significance to the symbols which belonged to him, and to that divine book of which he was the appointed guardian. The hon. Member for Warwickshire had described the Jew as an alien in religion, but he was not more an alien than the Samaritan was to the Jew; and yet our Lord was pleased to select a Samaritan as the one who should give to the Priest and the Levite an everlasting lesson of universal brotherhood, and had, by selecting that example, taught them that differences of religious opinion ought never to be an obstacle to the interchange of civil rights and brotherly affections. When it was

1423
said that it would be an insult to the Christian to require him to make a profession of his faith, which was not required of the Jew, he answered, that there was no pretence for saying that the oath was intended at all as a profession of faith. He denied that it was a test of faith; they went to the table to declare their allegiance to the Queen, and to swear that which the oath required; and to that declaration they added that which was the most solemn obligation known to them—that it was made on the true faith of a Christian; but that was a test of sincerity to be asked of a Christian, but not of a Jew. In the oaths themselves there was nothing which the Jew was not as ready to swear as the Christian; he was equally prepared to declare his allegiance to the Queen, for the Queen had no better subject; he was ready to abjure all foreign Powers, though perhaps he might think that unnecessary, as being involved in the former part of the oath; he was quite prepared to declare that he abhorred and detested as impious and heretical the damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated by the Pope might be dethroned or murdered by their subjects; although a smile might cross his face at being required to abjure a doctrine which no human being now held, and which no human being thought that any other human being held—nor would he object to the sort of galvanic existence given by the oath to that respected lady the Princess Sophia of Hanover. He was prepared to take that oath as it was, for the whole of it was involved in the simple oath of allegiance; but, of course, he could not be asked to attest his sincerity by an appeal to the true faith of a Christian. If they could restore the time when the Jew was an object of the most bitter cruelty and persecution—if they could bring back the days of Richard I., when the streets of York ran with the blood of Jews self-immolated to escape the horrors of a more dreaded persecution—if they could make the Jew again the wretched outcast that he had been—then indeed they might talk of the great change which was now proposed; but when all those persecutions and disabilities had been gradually removed—when the Jews could inherit land, and the land was not cursed—when the Jews were admitted into our corporations—and he did not know whether the hon. Member would say that our corporations had ceased to be Christian—when the Jews were permitted to choose Christian representatives—when that which remained of persecu-
1424
tion was powerless, or only powerful in its rust and decay to eat into the souls of a peaceful and unoffending race—when they were now about to crown a long succession of peaceful victories over oppression—now at last it was said that they were giving up their Christianity; that they were Christians to-day; but if they passed that Bill, to-morrow they would be Christians no longer. But was there not danger lest, in the warmth of their zeal, hon. Members should be led into mistake as to that course which was really and truly Christian? For his part, he believed that to be really and truly Christian was to do that which they on his side of the House desired to do; but which hon. Gentlemen opposed—to remove the last remnant of intolerance from their Statute-book and their forms; for by so doing they would be merely complying with the dictates of One who forgave them, and for the same reason—because, educated as they were, they really knew not what they did. By following that course, so far from calling down upon themselves the dispensations of Heaven, with which they had been threatened, they would be embodying its dearest precepts, and copying its holiest examples.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, that the declaration made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in introducing this measure, had been lost sight of by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel. The noble Lord the Prime Minister, when he moved for the introduction of a measure similar to the present, last year, had declared, with perfect frankness and candour, that the question now was not merely whether they should free from the religious test one sect small in number, and respectable in character, but whether hereafter they should have any religious test at all. That noble Lord, and another Member of the Government, now the Earl of Carlisle, had both acknowledged that if this Bill passed, it would no longer be possible to shut the door of the House against Mahometans, Hindoos, or professed unbelievers; the question, therefore, was much wider than it appeared at first sight, and the noble Lord the Member for Arundel was not justified in confining his argument to the Jews alone. But he (Lord Mahon) would pass from the observations of the Member for Arundel to those which the Member for Leominster had with so much ability brought forward that night in his first address. He (Lord Mahon) trusted that the great and well-merited success

1425
which had attended that first effort, would encourage his hon. Friend to take a frequent, and he was sure a conspicuous, part in their debates. But, now, as to the argument. The hon. Member for Leominster had given a narrative of the laws as affecting this question in the reign of James I. But when that hon. Member said that it was not intended to exclude the Jews, he surely did not mean to say that it was intended to admit them; the truth was, that the idea of excluding them was not entertained, only because the possibility of their being admitted was not at that time conceived. In early times, no doubt the constitutional idea was, that the Church and the State were coextensive, and that no man should hold office in the State who was not a member of the Church; but a long series of years had passed since that doctrine had been held by any individual. It had long since been departed from in practice with respect to the Protestant Dissenters. More recently it was abandoned with respect to the Roman Catholics. Now, since the admission of the Roman Catholics, our religious tests had been reduced to the simple declaration of the true faith of a Christian. In that declaration a great principle was involved, and to that principle he, for one, was determined to adhere. There was one argument in favour of the Bill which had been frequently urged, and had been put with great point by the hon. Member for Leominster. It was, that while an individual fulfilled all the obligations required of him by the State, it was unjust to shut him out from taking part in legislating for that State. Now, it seemed to him that those who used that argument took it for granted that the primary object of admitting any person to that House was the satisfaction and gratification of the person himself. He conceived, however, that we should look to higher grounds, and that the benefits to be conferred by the Legislature ought to be preferred to the gratification of the legislator. The real question was, how to render the representative body as good and as popular as possible, and the pleasure which individuals might feel from sitting in it was by no means to be held as of the same account. Though the point to which he had alluded had been urged with great eloquence by the hon. Member for Leominster, he thought that they had a higher duty to perform to the State, and that they had no right to violate a
1426
great principle, the maintenance of which was due to all, for the sake of removing any supposed grievance from a few. It was said that the number of Jews who could avail themselves of the privilege sought to be conferred upon them would be small—that they would be very few indeed in numbers; but it should be recollected that the question at issue was strictly one of principle, and he, for one, would take his stand against it. It was not a valid argument to say that the number of the violators of the principle would be but small, since by those who acknowledged and felt it as a principle, it should, at all hazards, be upheld. Now, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what would be the effect of that Bill beyond the mere admission of the few persons it was said might obtain seats in that House? What, for instance, would be its effect in foreign climes, upon men who were labouring with all their heart and strength, and striving to extend the blessings of the Christian faith? Could it be doubted for one moment that one of its effects must be a heavy blow and great discouragement to the laborious and zealous efforts of our missionaries in foreign climes? How would it depress and grieve that noble army of missionaries which had succeeded the noble army of martyrs? What could be a greater grief and loss than to have it said amongst the unbelieving inhabitants of distant lands, that such were the opinions entertained in England respecting the doctrines of Christianity, that the British Parliament had solemnly declared that the test of the Christian faith might be dispensed with—altogether done away with, so far as admission into their Legislature was concerned? The construction which would inevitably be put upon such an enactment would be, that the British people themselves undervalued the doctrines they professed. It might be said that Parliament did not really mean what would thus be imputed to them—that they had no intention of undervaluing the Christian faith; but nothing would remove the impression, especially in foreign countries, that the adoption of the measure was a proof of the practical disregard of the Christian religion in this country. Even if benefit could be proved to accrue in particular instances, no such benefit could justify the violation of a general principle. Were there not also other instances in which individuals were excluded from sitting in that House

1427
for the sake of a general principle? He would take the case of a person in holy orders. Suppose, then, a man having entered holy orders, but having no cure of souls, were, on the death of an elder brother to come into possession of a large landed estate, from which he would derive great influence, and that his feelings were closely concurred in by his neighbours, that he resembled them in his principles and tastes, in his habits and pursuits—
"He's Knight o' the Shire, and represents them all!"
It might be expected that they should be glad to see him thus "Knight o' the Shire" indeed. It might appear natural that they should wish to return him to the Legislature, and, there being no cure of souls or benefice to claim his attention elsewhere, there would apparently be no disadvantage in his entering that House. Yet the rules of that House would exclude him, because, as a general principle, it was not thought desirable that clergymen should sit in the House, and they could not make exceptions in favour of especial eases. How, then, could they reconcile that case with the general principle so strenuously urged by the Member for Leominster, that if a man performed his duty to the State, he had a right to a share in the legislation for the State? By this case he had shown, that if that was a general principle by which admission to the House was to be guided, still it had exceptions. Now, he would take another case—one that had been before the House that Session, and in which they appeared to think that the parties in question ought to be excluded from the House—he alluded to insolvent Members of Parliament. Now, a man might not have failed in the performance of any of his obligations to the State, though he might have failed in meeting his private obligations. Nay more, there were many instances, as that of Sheridan for example, when the presence amongst them of a Member in such a situation as to his private affairs, might yet be an ornament to the House, and an advantage to the country. Here, then, by the votes of the present Session, the House appeared desirous of declaring that parties might be excluded from the House, although their presence would be honourable and advantageous, and although they had fulfilled all their duties to the State. It was plain, therefore, from these exceptions, that the general rule which had been
1428
laid down, and the arguments which had been founded upon it, of those who performed their duty to the State being entitled to be admitted to the Legislature, could not be held to be decisive. He considered, above all, that they had higher duties to perform than the fulfilment of that rule. For his own part he was disposed to place great value on a test of Christianity in which all classes of Christians could combine. He recollected that last Session they had been met by the Premier with a taunt, how little union or cordiality there now prevailed between the different classes of Christians in this country. He acknowledged the grounds for that taunt; but he trusted such grounds were not always to continue, and he looked forward with hope to the time when all classes of Christians, while still on all proper occasions pressing those points on which they differed, would yet take a pride in those points on which they concurred, so that the great principles of Christianity might be defended against the heathen and the sceptic. In that point of view—not looking at the present angry feelings which existed between them—but looking at the time when all classes of Christianity might be united for the promotion of its principles, he considered the possession of a common test of Christianity as a matter of no slight importance. For his part he conceived the resistance which he was disposed to give to this Bill, to be quite consistent with the support which in former years he had been disposed to give to the claims of the Roman Catholics. He thought that his resistance to the removal of a test of Christianity from the oath, ought not to be judged of as enforcing penalties against the Jews in consequence of their religion. He was sure that the resistance given by himself and his friends to the claims of the Jews to be admitted to the Legislature, was founded on upright motives, without the smallest taint of either personal rancour or religious intolerance.
The MARQUESS of GRANBY: Sir, I am anxious to state to the House the grounds upon which I shall give my vote against this Bill. The alteration of the oath taken by the Members of this House has little to do with the important point now under discussion, the alteration only being the means to an end of introducing the Jews into this House. I think it will be generally admitted by the Members of this House, though not perhaps by every one, that it is impossible to separate that

1429
subject from the discussion; and I think, also, that it will be admitted by a large portion of the House that it will be positively most injurious to admit the Jews into it. It is mainly on that ground, and having been taught from my earliest childhood that this is a Christian country, that I think it will not be right or prudent to pass this Bill. Sir, those with whom I act feel it their duty to oppose this measure on these grounds, and nothing that has been asserted by the hon. Members who support it has shaken their opinion, I think, as a constitutional question, the House ought to oppose the measure, and that it will be unwise and unbecoming in us to allow Jews to legislate for a Christian country and a Christian community. Now, Sir, I am aware that in resisting this Bill I shall lay myself open to the charge of persecuting the Jews, and visiting them with punishment for the sins of their forefathers. But, Sir, I think they have little right to make such a charge against my hon. Friends and myself because we oppose this measure. Sir, when I remember that the Jews, as a nation, have based their faith on the acts of their forefathers—when I remember that they refused to acknowledge the Founder of our faith—and when I remember that by the very enormity of the crime they committed they succeeded in fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament, it becomes with me a matter of principle to oppose their admission to the Legislature. But, Sir, in saying this, I must be also allowed to say that do not think that there is any man in this House, or any large body of Christians, animated by hostile feelings towards, or a resolve to persecute, the Jews. On the contrary, it is perfectly competent to us in the fullest manner to acknowledge the benefits which the Jews have conferred on the country—to acknowledge the individual worth of many Jews—to acknowledge the example which they have set by their conduct as citizens—to acknowledge their loyalty and their intelligence. It is perfectly competent to the House in the fullest manner to acknowledge all these qualifications as possessed by the Jews; and we have done so by admitting them to the enjoyment of every civil, municipal, and military appointment. And, Sir, while we have admitted them to all these employments, we have allowed them the freedom of worshipping God in their synagogues in their own fashion. Sir, while we have done all this we ought not
1430
to be exposed to the taunt of wishing to persecute the Jews if we say we can go no further. I consider we have a perfect right—nay, a duty to perform in saying so; and I believe that we dare not admit a Jew to legislate for this country. Now, Sir, it has been asserted that, as we have done so much for the Jews, we ought to go the whole length and admit them to the Legislature. That was asserted by the hon. and learned Member for Reading, and the hon. Member for Leominster, who made a very able speech on the question before us. I the more regret that that hon. Member should have made such an assertion, because, from the talent he has shown this evening, I think he is likely very frequently to address the House. I regret that the assertion should have been made, because if it is to be laid down as a principle that, because we proceed certain lengths, we are to go further; that because, hereafter, according to the varying circumstances of a case, it is rendered necessary to make certain alterations in our laws and institutions—if it is to be laid down as a principle that because we make certain reforms, we are therefore called upon, without reason, argument, or show of justice, as we have gone certain lengths, to go still further—it will make persons cautious how they take even the necessary stops on the way of those reforms which are required by the changing circumstances of the times. But, Sir, I think that while you are doing great injury to yourselves by this Bill, you are also doing great injury to the Jews themselves. I think, if the Jews are conscientious and honest in their religion—I think that the Jews, whose every principle of faith, instinct of mind, and peculiarity of race is opposed to the Christian religion—cannot, if they act up to their principles, enter the Legislature. And I think it is not fair to place them in that position that their principles may be in opposition to their duties to the State. Sir, there is another argument which I will now briefly touch upon—I allude to the argument, that because the number of the Jews is so small it is not of much consequence whether they are allowed to enter the House or not. Sir, in my opinion that argument has but little to do with the question; large or small, the principle is just the same. The great objection I have to the measure is not to the amount of mischief which it may inflict upon the House, but the effect which the acknowledgment of the principle may have

1431
upon the country—the danger which may result from its corroding influence on the constitution—and the disruption which will take place in society if the faith and confidence of the people in this House is shaken—since the want of confidence must lead to restlessness and change. Sir, looking at the question merely by the effect which the introduction of a small number of Jews into this House will produce, I think the danger is much underrated, and I will show that it will be very great. Sir, in order to do so, I will remind you of another argument which has been used on this question—that, do as we will, legislate as we may, impose what oaths we can, there will always he a certain number of professing Christians enter the House who are, in fact, infidels, and that no legislation can prevent it. Now, Sir, I answer to that, in the first place, if it is true there are such parties in this House—if it is true we cannot so legislate as to exclude infidels from the Legislature—that is no reason why we should admit those we are now able by the laws to exclude. While on this point I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact, that if the men who are admitted now to the House of Commons are not united, the greater will be the danger of admitting the Jews, and the greater their power according to their number. In conclusion, Sir, I have only to add my hope that, whilst we bestow on the Jews all respect, all kindness, and all sincerity, we shall take care that, in the sacred name of charity, we do not break through those barriers which have been wisely raised in former times to defend the Christian faith—a faith on which not only our hopes of salvation depend, but in the invaluable blessings of which we are led to hope even the Jew himself will eventually participate.
MR. FAGAN, as a Roman Catholic who had formerly been excluded from the House by the state of the law, must vote for this Bill on the principle of doing unto others that which he should wish them to do unto him. He thanked the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown for having brought in the Bill, which would be the crowning cap to the many triumphs which he had already achieved in the cause of civil and religious liberty. He was also pleased to find the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who had also done good service to that cause, support the Bill; and he begged to congratulate the
1432
right hon. Baronet on the impression made upon the House by the hon. Member for Leominster, by his masterly speech. The Jews had always shown themselves a loyal and faithful people in every country in which they had been established, and the more so in those countries where the greatest liberties had been accorded them, and therefore they ought to be admitted to that House. He considered that the conduct of the Roman Catholics since their admission to that House was highly praiseworthy; for when a division was taken upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bodmin, relative to the discipline of the Protestant Church, they had to a man absented themselves. H the Roman Catholics, against whom such prophecies had been denounced, had acted thus, might they not expect similar conduct upon the part of the Jews? The Jews were perfectly willing to take the oath of allegiance, if the words "upon the faith of a Christian "were omitted. The Jews had no desire for proselytism, and their admission to that House would not, therefore, be dangerous. The Protestant Members who took the oath that the Pope of Rome had no spiritual power in that realm, were guilty of loose swearing, for it was a patent fact that he had spiritual power. He further contended, since the passing of the Colleges and the Catholic Bequests Bill, that the Pope of Rome had temporal power also. He desired very much to see the form of the Catholic oath altered to a form which would be more congenial to the feelings of every conscientious man. The hon. Member for Warwickshire characterised the Roman Catholic religion as idolatrous, and was always accusing the 30 or 40 Roman Catholic Members of that House with a want of respect for an oath, though it was their respect for an oath which excluded them so long. The Jew elected a Member of that House must be so by a Christian or Protestant constituency, who would not return any one to injure their religion. Those useless forms which impeded the admission of representatives to that House ought to be abolished as speedily as possible.
MR. PLUMPTREcould say, from the bottom of his heart, that he was not actuated by any bitter, hostile, or persecuting spirit towards the Jews, in giving the Bill his most strenuous opposition; and he believed he might say the same for those who acted with him. For his own part, he had anything but such a feeling;

1433
for he looked back to the past history of the Jews, and onward to their future history, with the greatest respect; he might add, with a feeling akin to veneration. The hon. and learned Member for Reading had stated that the Jew was not placed in antagonism to the Christian; and he (Mr. Plumptre) agreed with him, supposing the Jew were brought to receive the Christian religion, and to stand in the same relation to the Head of the Church that Christians occupied; but he must contend that the Jew was an antagonist to the Christian as long as he rejected Him after whom Christians were called. He (Mr. Plumptre) was opposed to the further progress of the present measure, because the Jew, as a Jew, rejected the only Saviour. That was the reason why he would not consent to admit the Jew, as a Jew, to take part in legislating for this Christian country; and from no bitter, no hostile, and no persecuting spirit. He believed that, as a Christian community, this country was bound to do all that in it lay to promote the honour and glory of the Saviour; and because the Jew refused to own Him as his Saviour, he did not think the Jew to be a fit person to take part in the deliberations and proceedings of a Christian Legislature.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESdeprecated the strain of argument in which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had indulged. The question was not whether a man should be admitted into that House who should be chosen by any chance constituency, but whether a man of the highest station and character who had been elected to a seat in that House some two years ago by one of the most powerful and intelligent constituencies in the country, was, by the regulations of the House, to be debarred from taking his seat and joining in their deliberations—whether, in fact, that election was to be declared null and void? They could not come to a decision of that kind without declaring that the constituency of the metropolis had violated its electoral character. He was surprised that that view of the matter had not been more regarded in the course of the discussion. Following out the train of reasoning which it suggested, they would come to a sound and practical conclusion. He would recall to their consideration a matter which had not been sufficiently pressed upon their attention, namely, the end and object of the Bill before them, which was, that there should cease to be within the realm of Great Britain any one
1434
body of men excluded from participation in their legislation. They had passed upward step by step until they had included within admissibility to their Legislature every man whose education and pecuniary means offered no obstacle to his becoming a member of that body; and now they were about to complete that course of just policy. By widening the basis of the constitution, they were adopting the best means for its real security; for in these convulsed and difficult times there should be no body, however small its numbers, who should have reason to entertain feelings other than those of loyalty to the constitution. Let the present Bill pass, and there would not be within Britain one man who had a right to complain of exclusion from the full enjoyment of their institutions. It should be remembered that wherever the Jews were long established, they had gone along with the nation in which they dwelt—they never conspired against it—they became identified with it; and, when fairly treated, ended by becoming its most faithful citizens. The opponents of the measure, in order to justify their opposition, must show that the Jews could not become true Englishmen. He should certainly give his most cordial assent to the Bill.
MR. BANKESadmitted that the speech in the present debate which had produced the greatest effect was that of the hon. Member for Leominster. That speech was a condensation of all the arguments which had been used in favour of the measure. But he could not help thinking that it was not the weight of argument so much as the fervour with which it was delivered, that produced so strong an impression upon the House. It was said that the exclusion of Jews from the House was only a recent act of legislation, but that was a mere evasion of the fact. There was no need of passing an Act of Parliament to exclude Jews from a seat in the House, when they were denied those civil rights and privileges the concession of which had taken place at a comparatively recent date. In those times there was not only no probability of a Jew taking his seat in the Legislature, but there was no possibility of it, because a Jew was not naturalised. To propose, therefore, in the period to which he referred, that a Jew should not be allowed to sit in Parliament, would be as wanton, as useless, as absurd, and as superfluous a piece of legislation as could well be imagined. In the reign of

1435
William III. no Jew was allowed to hold freehold property in this realm—he had not the necessary qualification, and, therefore, what was the use of making an Act of Parliament to state that a disqualified person could not be a Member of that House? What was the use of the oath? Was it not a test of the fitness of men to sit in Parliament—was it not a guarantee of their having the proper dispositions and opinions for legislators? If not, why did they place a clause in the oath that men should not disturb the settlement of property? He did not dispute the utility of that test. He thought it was a useful provision. He thought it was right that the men who took a seat in that House should give some guarantee that they were disposed to maintain the settlement of property. Hon. Gentlemen opposite valued that qualification; but they were anxious to abolish a still more sacred and important one—namely, that which regarded the maintenance and security of the established religion of this country. He could very well understand Chartists and Socialists objecting to the oath, because they objected to all qualification whatever, pecuniary or religious; but he could not appreciate the objections of men who said you must have a property qualification—you must swear to maintain the settlement of property, but regarding religion we will have no test or qualification whatever. He disliked this Bill much more than the Bill of last Session; and if it were not considerably altered in Committee, the effect would be, not only to admit Jews into Parliament, but to admit Roman Catholics without any check whatever in regard to hostility to the Established Church, for if they maintained a form of oath for Roman Catholics where it implied an unworthy suspicion of that sect alone, and one, perhaps, which they did not deserve, and yet to abolish the provision, would be to dispense with another of the elements of the security of our institutions. The hon. Member for Leominster triumphantly alluded to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and asked what harm had those measures done? He (Mr. Bankes) was one of the last to ask for a revocation of a great act of the Legislature; but thus much he would say, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, that he did perceive mischiefs resulting from the adoption of that policy, and that it was because he perceived those results that he now hesi-
1436
tated to persevere in it. He lamented to say that he did perceive a great change in the tone, feeling, and opinions of the Legislature since those measures had passed, and one not at all conducive to the discussion of measures of this kind in a proper spirit. He admitted that many of the Jews were highminded and honourable men, and an ornament to that high sphere of society in which they moved; but he could never think that a Jew, however high his moral qualities might be, was a fitting person to discuss matters affecting the Christian religion—matters such as were frequently discussed in that House; and he did not think it was the slightest reflection upon the Jew to say, "We do not think you a fit person to summon to our councils; and, though we admit you to be a good and loyal subject, yet, being a Jew, we cannot admit you as a member of our Legislature, because it is, and has been, a Christian assembly, and reflects the sentiments and religious opinions of a Christian community." The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying he must give his decided opposition to the second reading of the Bill.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, as the House seems to desire that the division should now take place, I am ready, not having spoken at the commencement of the debate, to offer such answers as seem to me conclusive to the objections that have been made to the second reading of this Bill. I must lament, however, that in the course of this debate I have not had the advantage, as I had last year, of the assistance of the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite to me, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who, last year, with so much eloquence and so much force, argued in favour of the measure which I then proposed. But I trust that if he has forborne any arguments to-night, it is because he thinks that the arguments urged by his hon. Friends who sit near him were so entirely devoid of force that they did not merit the reply which his powerful eloquence could have given to them. But if I have been disappointed in that respect, I have been greatly gratified at hearing a speech from a Member who has not before addressed the House—from whom the House, knowing his name and lineage, were prepared to expect close argument, force, and eloquence. The hon. Member, therefore, had much to do to fulfil the expectations of this House; but I must say those expectations were more than realised. The

1437
hon. Gentleman went completely and accurately over the historical part of the question. I should not have alluded again to any part of that question were it not that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, seems to me to have fallen into an inaccuracy, which, from him, I should not have expected. The hon. and learned Gentleman hardly attempted to deny that the exclusion of the Jews was not direct, and the result of purpose; that it was an effect of the intention to impose the sanction of an oath, without any direct intention of exclusion. And alluding to that part of our history in the reign of William III., when these words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," were not contained in the oath, he said it seemed to be forgotten by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster that the Jews being at that time excluded from holding land, were excluded by the want of a freehold qualification, which Members were obliged to possess. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his knowledge of the constitution, ought to have recollected it was not till the 9th of Anne that the property qualification was imposed.
MR. BANKES: I said, the Jews could not sit because they were not naturalised.
LORD J. RUSSELL: That is another part of the question. The objection which the hon. and learned Gentleman put, that they were obliged to hold freehold lands, was not a valid objection, because it was not until the 9th of Anne that that Bill passed—a proof of the jealousy, as I think, of the landed interest against the commercial interest, and a provision which, as far as regarded the cities and boroughs of this country, was totally opposed to the spirit of the constitution. This, therefore, is not a point in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, as far as relates to the constitutional argument. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who commenced this debate, discussed the proposal which I have made with reference to one alteration of the oath; and he insisted that it was desirable still to keep that part of the oath by which the Protestant Members of this House deny that the Pope has any ecclesiastical or spiritual authority in this country. In bringing forward this question, I argued that that denial was intended as a security against the Roman Catholic, and that no Protestant was likely to promote the ecclesiastical and spiritual authority of the Pope, but that you had parted with that
1438
security as regarded the Roman Catholics, and as you did not require it against the Roman Catholics, of whom you might have some reason to be jealous, it was absurd to keep it with regard to those of whom you could have no complaint whatever. But my hon. Friend seemed to think there was some ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction given to the Pope, because the Members of this House do not deny that it exists. I cannot imagine that any of our courts of law, because a Member of this House does not deny that it exists, would be in-inclined or disposed in any way to admit such an authority, when, by law, no such authority exists. In the same way, my hon. Friend said it was a loss of security, and that in referring to the Act of Succession to the Crown, I have not mentioned that the succession is limited to certain persons being Protestants. In framing an oath which binds those who take it to maintain the succession to the Crown, it is quite unnecessary to say more, because the Act Itself gives the Crown only to those who are Protestant; but my hon. Friend is so enamoured of oaths and declarations, that he thinks, where the thing is perfectly plain and settled by the law, an oath or a declaration is useful to add to the force of the obligation. If an hon. Member, on coming into this House, were obliged to say solemnly that two and two make four, the fact of his saying that two and two make four would not make it a bit more true than it was before. There would be the same force in that obvious truth that there is now—neither a bit more nor less; but my hon. Friend seems to think if we declare that the Crown is limited in this way to Protestants, we therefore add additional obligation to the Act of Parliament. Now, the Act of Parliament being perfectly good in itself, I submit, it requires no further declaration to add to the force of its obligations. My hon. Friend, and those who came after him, have, as I think unsuccessfully, endeavoured to show that some practical evils would arise from this Bill. They said it would do some injury to Christianity. How it could be an injury to Christianity they do not tell us. They said there might be some attempt to injure Parliament if Jews were introduced here. Now, only imagine three or four Jews, trusted by their countrymen, making some Motion in this House, hostile to Christianity, or attempting to carry some measure by which Christianity would be injured? Can

1439
any man think there would be the smallest chance of success for any such measures, or that any body of constituents in this country would assist Jews who were capable of making so insane an attempt? Then it is said if they did not attempt to pass such measures, they would use expressions reviling Christianity. We have in this, which happily is not a theological assembly, some persons who are Unitarians, and others are Roman Catholics; but we do not hear the Unitarian sneering at the doctrine of the Trinity, nor the Protestant calling in question the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any part of the creed and faith of the Roman Catholic. No more would the Jew ever think of reviling that which he knew to be the faith of the great majority of this House. They have, I believe, too much temper, and too much of that forbearance which is very properly called Christian charity, to attempt to offer such gross insults to persons who differ from them. Where is it, then, that all the danger occurs? My hon. Friend says it is a proof of the jealousy of Parliament against the Jews, that by a certain Act of Parliament, with which I am not acquainted, they were not admitted into Ireland. That may be the case, but I do not think that Ireland has been the gainer by their exclusion. Had it been the case that some rich Jews had disposed of their capital there, I do not think my hon. Friend would say Ireland would have been injured. Another hon. Gentleman, the gallant Member for Essex, used, as an argument against this Bill, the fact that we were not threatened with any dangerous proceedings on the part of the Jews. The Roman Catholics, who were considerable in numbers, might have been alienated from this constitution by any longer resistance to their claims; the Protestant Dissenters were so powerful, and so discontented at being excluded from the privileges of the constitution that they might have threatened the peace and welfare of the country. But here are the Jews, few in number, and not likely to make an insurrection; they have no great influence in promoting discontent, and they do not seem disposed to do it; they behave themselves equally well under grievances and disabilities; and as there is no danger, they are just the proper objects of exclusion and persecution—therefore let us exclude and persecute them. I say that is not the way to treat this question; and that the Roman Catholics and Protestant
1440
Dissenters having been admitted to the benefits of the constitution because they were somewhat threatening you with discontent, speaks well neither for your wisdom nor your liberality. My wish upon this whole subject is, that there should be no exclusion upon account of religion. A person's religion should be no matter for punishment or penalty; and I do not think, until the Jews are admitted, that you can say the principle of religious exclusion is not maintained. One hon. Gentleman argued that Roman Catholics might take advantage of this Bill in order to get rid of part of the obligation of their present oath; but, on looking into the Act, I find that Roman Catholics are admitted to all offices without taking the oaths at all—and, therefore, I cannot imagine what possible cases of evasion the hon. Member alludes to. But persons professing the Roman Catholic religion are not in the habit of concealing that profession. They are not in the habit of professing the Roman Catholic religion one day, and the next day leaving it doubtful what their religion is. We all recollect that for more than a century they were excluded from this House in consequence of their conscientious scruples to taking the oath required of them; and I can, therefore, never suppose that, by any paltry evasion under this Bill, they would seek to take an oath less stringent than that which they now take. We have been accustomed to hear, in the course of this debate, that the House is now Christian, and that it will cease to be so if Jews became once admissible. But, as it has been already admirably argued on this subject, we have deprived our corporations of their Christian character, our various offices in the State of their Christian character, by allowing Jews to be eligible to them. But an expression which fell from the hon. Member for Warwickshire shows that this amalgamation of Christian sects, which on this Bill, and on this Bill alone, we find so much dwelt upon, is not as much valued as we might at first be disposed to imagine, as he has told us that he will always maintain the idolatrous character of the Church of Rome. If that be so, what becomes of the Christianity of the House, if part of these Christians belong to a church that others believe to be idolatrous? Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot be so anxious as he pretends to maintain that peculiar religious character of the House, of which he maintains that a portion is idolatrous. But, on that point,

1441
I have to say that I do not believe the character of the House will be altered by the admission of some three or four Jews into Parliament. One hon. Gentleman denied with indignation that the presence of 40,000 Jews prevented this from being a Christian country; and if 40,000 Jews among the population be no reason why the country should not be called Christian, we may surely be entitled to call this a Christian Legislature, even though some three or four Jews should have seats among us. I trust that the House, disregarding the arguments that have been used against this Bill, and acting on those principles of charity which I believe are truly Christian principles, will admit the Jews into the bosom of this Legislature. That not denying, as we do not deny, that they have all the character of good subjects—that they are loyal and peaceable—that they are ready to defend the Sovereign of these realms against all attacks—and that they are faithful adherents of the constitution under which we live—I hope the House will not commit the injustice of depriving them of the rights and franchises that belong to them as British subjects.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that he would not trespass many minutes on the attention of the House. He had been anxious to hear some explanation from the noble Lord at the head of the Government to enable him clearly to understand the nature of the proposal; for this Bill was entirely different from that of last year; and he thought the House had a right to inquire upon what grounds the noble Lord, professing the same object, proposed an alteration which appeared to be as much misunderstood by the supporters as by the opponents of the Bill. Some hon. Gentlemen who were advocates of the Bill, spoke of it as the keystone of the arch, as the removal of all remaining disabilities and exclusions; that was very poetically stated by the hon. and learned Member for Reading, and perhaps it was the better poetry because it was quite inconsistent with the fact. This Bill got rid of no exclusion but one; it altered the oaths to be taken by Members of that House, which in their present state had been characterised as irrelevant and absurd; but if the Jew came into that House, and by his talent and ability proved himself qualified to fill high offices of the State, he must then take those very oaths which they said were so absurd. Why had the noble Lord continued that exclusion? The House also had a right to know why the
1442
noble Lord had made an alteration in the obligation under which last year he proposed that the Jews should be admitted; why he no longer required them to swear, as the Roman Catholics were required, that they would do nothing to the prejudice of the Established Church, or to disturb the settlement of property in the kingdom? And when the noble Lord talked of the absurdity of the oaths as they stood at present, he had not, apparently, read his own Bill with sufficient accuracy, for by that Bill he called upon the Protestant Members of Parliament to swear that they did not believe that any foreign Prince had any civil authority in this realm. To require the Protestant Members of that House to swear that they did not believe that the Emperor of Austria or the King of Prussia had any civil jurisdiction in this country, was, of all propositions, the most unnecessary. The one main object of the Bill was to introduce the Jews into Parliament, limiting the Bill to that; and if the noble Lord had called them persecutors for opposing this measure, he might in his turn, when the Jews had once been admitted, call upon them to say who were the persecutors then, and point to the noble Lord. The opinions on this subject which he had formerly expressed remained unchanged; and in coming to that opinion he was not actuated by the consideration that the Jews were wanting in personal qualifications, or that they would in any very considerable numbers obtain seats in that House; but so long as the House was called upon to deal with matters deeply affecting the Christian faith—so long as they had to enforce Christian obligations and duties, it was, in his opinion, essential, as far at all events as the public impression was concerned, that the Legislature should not declare it to be a matter of indifference whether its Members were or were not Christians. He trusted that at a future time they would have an explanation upon all these points. He could not allow an opportunity to pass without bringing them under the notice of the House.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would not trouble the House long. He hoped the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, would be a lesson to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as he had told them that, if the noble Lord had brought in a Bill to admit everybody, he should have no objection to urge against it. ["Hear!"] That, at

1443
least, was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I will show you that you are inconsistent with yourselves." But, unfortunately, they all knew that the House was obliged to be inconsistent with itself, in consequence of the variety of opinion within it. If any person brought in a general measure, he was met with so much opposition that he was obliged to give way to meet this, that, and the other objection, and he necessarily fell into that sort of contradiction which the right hon. Gentleman thought he had traced to the noble Lord. But it struck him that the inconsistency which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to trace in the Bill, did not exist. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the 5th Clause, he would find every person included, with the exception of the persons called Quakers, and every person now by law permitted to make a solemn declaration or affirmation instead of an oath. The Mahomedan, the Parsee, or the Hindoo, when he came to one of our courts of justice, was allowed to take that form of oath which was binding on his own conscience; and in the present Bill the words appeared to him to be as general as they well could be, and seemed of necessity to admit everybody; and if the noble Lord had intended to exclude anybody, he had, in his (Mr. Roebuck's) opinion, failed in his purpose. He was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he objected to the system of bit-by-bit legislation, which, he was sorry to say, attached to that House. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman were quite right in censuring oaths where the matter sworn to was as clear as that two and two make four; but he would wish to know from the noble Lord what it was that he took upon himself in administering an oath to anybody? When a Gentleman came to that table to be sworn, they could desire to do only two things: first, to have the sanction of religion to enforce upon him the performance of his duty; the other thing was, that they were about to lay a trap by which they could exclude a certain number of persons from that House. Now, he would take these propositions as they came. Did any oath, he would ask, add the sanction of religion to the performance of a Member's duty in that House? He utterly denied it. Was it to be said that any human being, by refusing to take an oath when about to perform his duty, divested himself of the obligation by which he had undertaken to perform that solemn duty?
1444
And if not, then was it in his power to say that the Almighty—for he felt obliged to use that great name, from the manner in which the debate had been carried on—would excuse him from that obligation if no oath were taken, and would cease from overlooking, forbidding, and punishing his disobedience? That Power was always ruling above; but the sanction of an oath ought not to be employed on any occasion where it did not add the sanction of religion to the obligation imposed on any man who undertook a particular duty. What was the practical conclusion to which this brought him? That every man who undertook a duty was not to say within his own breast that he should not submit himself to the sanctions which that duty imposed. There were various sanctions—the sanction of law—the sanction of public opinion—the sanction of religion—and he maintained that a man could not divest himself of them. When he undertook a duty, public opinion fixed itself upon him, and so did the law, and so did religion. But, supposing that oaths were binding in an especial manner, was not that obligation as binding in the case of the Jew as of anybody else? The Jew said, "I believe at least half of what you believe. I believe in the oath, in the sanction of that oath, and I am ready to give you that oath on the obligation and sanction of my religion." What was the reply of hon. Gentlemen in that House? "Oh, no, I do not want you to take the oath in the way that you think binding, but in the way that I choose to frame it. "In the courts of law they were too wise to do this. They there bound every man according to his conscience; but in that House, because they had another object in view, they had adopted another plan, and instead of the plain commonsense course, they sought by a shift, a side-wind, a hypocrisy, and a base proceeding, to exclude a party to whom they had not the courage to say to his face, "You shall not be here." He wanted to know why the Jews were not to be there? They eat with the Jews, they drank with the Jews, they dealt with the Jews; and when the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford came to deal with the Marriage Bill, next day, they would have him citing the Jew as a lawgiver. He would cite the Jew for anything and everything that he thought he could make use of him as an authority against common sense. He was ready to admit the claims of the Jew as a legislator some thousand

1445
years gone by, but he would not allow the Jew to sit there to make laws for him at the present day. It was quite clear that that very hook which the hon. Gentleman would be ready to cite to-morrow as an authority against any one who supported the Marriage Bill, was the book which the Jews believed, which the Jews handed down to them, and which contained the very precepts of morality that they daily and hourly taught to their children. He appealed to the common sense of the House and of the country, and he asked what there was in the man or in the men who believed in the great decalogue which they taught to their children, to prevent him or them from legislating for this country? They were not, as an hon. Gentleman scoffingly said, aliens. They were Englishmen professing the duties of Englishmen. In that character they were honourable men; in that character they possessed all the morality that Christians approved of and taught. But "oh," said the hon. Gentleman, "you are going to unchristianise the House." This was one of the meshes which caught the small flies, but which the large flies broke through. He would suppose the case of a man who had no religion coming to that table, looking on the paraphernalia before him as a matter of mere indiffrence—laying his hand on the book as though it were so much waste paper, curling his lip in scorn, while he remembers the mental reservation which he makes to himself—riding through their Act of Parliament, and laughing at their precautions. Had not all that been done? Were they all Christians in that House before Gibbon took the oaths? Or did any man believe that his example was not acted upon at the present day? It was true, they made Parliament consist of professing Christians; but what he wanted was, that they should fill the House with legislators who would best perform their duty to the country, and that selection could best be made by those who sent them there. They were not a people to be caught with a general plan, but taught by experience; they took only that step which their last experience justified; and he who asked them to take that step would win their confidence; while he (Mr. Roebuck) and others who asked them to take a wide and general step were called schemers, dreamers, and a vast number of other hard words—they would not be followed—they would not be obeyed—they would not be listened to. The noble Lord who, on this occasion,
1446
seemed to have learned a lesson from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, had taken the wise course of appealing to the common sense of his countrymen, and therefore he asked the House to affirm the measure.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had so totally misunderstood what fell from him—if the hon. and learned Gentleman would listen, he thought he would himself admit he had misunderstood him—that he hoped the House would allow him, in a sentence, to restate what he did say. He stated that those hon. Members who supported the Bill did not seem to understand its purport, because they spoke of it as the crowning arch of entire freedom to all persons in the State; and he said it was no such thing, because it only relaxed those oaths which related to entrance into Parliament; but it retained, in the oaths which must be taken by persons on being admitted to office, all those phrases which the Jew rejected, and all those absurdities of which the noble Lord wished to get rid. The Bill, therefore, would not satisfy the ambition of the Jew, nor would it accomplish all that the hon. and learned Member for Reading had in such poetic language described.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 185: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Brotherton, J.

Adair, H. E.

Brown, W.

Adair, R. A. S.

Browne, R. D.

Adare, Visct.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bunbury, E. H.

Alcock, T.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Anderson, A.

Callaghan, D.

Anson, hon. Col.

Cardwell, E.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Carter, J. B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Cavendish, W. G.

Bagshaw, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Baines, M. T.

Charteris, hon. F.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Bass, M. T.

Clay, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Clay, Sir W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Clifford, H. M.

Bernal, R.

Cobden, R.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Blackall, S. W.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Blake, M. J.

Colobrooke, Sir T. E.

Blewitt, R. J.

Collins, W.

Brand, T.

Cowan, C.

Bright, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Brockman, E. D.

Craig, W. G.

1447

Crawford, W. S.

Howard, Lord E.

Crowder, R. B.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Currie, R.

Howard, Sir R.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Hutt, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Jackson, W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Jermyn, Earl

Denison, E.

Jervis, Sir J.

Denison, W. J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Devereux, J. T.

Keogh, W.

Disraeli, B.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Duff, G. S.

Kershaw, J.

Duke, Sir J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Duncan, Visct.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Duncan, G.

Langsten, J. H.

Dundas, Adm.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Dundas, Sir D.

Lawless, hon. C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ellice, E.

Lennard, T. B.

Ellis, J.

Lewis, G. C.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Evans, Sir D. L.

Loch, J.

Evans, W.

Locke, J.

Ewart, W.

Lushington, C.

Fagan, W.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Fergus, J.

M'Gregor, J.

Ferguson, Col.

Meagher, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Maitland, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Mangles, R. D.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Marshall, J. G.

Foley, J. H. H.

Marshall, W.

Fordyce, A. D.

Martin, C. W.

Forster, M.

Martin, S.

Fortescue, C.

Matheson, J.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Matheson, Col.

Fox, R. M.

Melgund, Visct.

Fox, W. J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Freestun, Col.

Milnes, R. M.

French, F.

Milton, Visct.

Gaskell, J. M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Moffatt, G.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Giyn, G. C.

Monsell, W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Morris, D.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Granger, T. C.

Mowatt, F.

Greene, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Grenfell, C. P.

Muntz, G. F.

Grenfell, C. W.

Norreys, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Grey, R. W.

Nugent, Sir P.

Guest, Sir J.

O'Brien, J.

Haggitt, F. R.

0'Connell, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

O'Connor, F.

Hanmer, Sir J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Harris, R.

Ord, W.

Hawes, B.

Oswald, A.

Hay, Lord J.

Owen, Sir J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Paget, Lord A.

Headlam, T. E.

Paget, Lord C.

Heathcoat, J.

Paget, Lord G.

Heneage, E.

Palmer, R.

Henry, A.

Palmerston, Visct.

Herbert, H. A.

Parker, J.

Heywood, J.

Pearson, C.

Heyworth, L.

Peehell, Capt.

Hindley, C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir. J.

Peel, F.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Perfect, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Pigott, F.

Hollond, R.

Pilkington, J.

Horsman, E.

Pinney, W.

1448

Power, N.

Talbot, J. H.

Powlett, Lord W.

Talfourd, Serj.

Pryse, P.

Tancred, H. W.

Pusey, P.

Tenison, E. K.

Rawdon, Col.

Tonnent, R. J.

Reynolds, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Ricardo, O.

Thompson, Col.

Rice, E. R.

Thompson, G.

Rich, H.

Thornely, T.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Towneley, J.

Romilly, Sir J.

Townley, R. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Townshend, Capt.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Traill, G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Rutherfurd, A.

Urquhart, D.

Sadleir, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Salwey, Col.

Verncy, Sir H.

Sandars, G.

Villiers, hon. C.

Scholefield, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Scully, F.

Wall, C. B.

Seymour, Sir H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Walter, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Watkins, Col. L.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Shelburne, Earl of

Westhead, J. P.

Sheridan, R. B.

Willcox, B. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Williams, J.

Smith, J. A.

Willyams, H.

Smith, J. B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Smythe, hon. G.

Wilson, J.

Somers, J. P.

Wilson, M.

Somerville, rt. hn. SirW.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wood, W. P.

Stanton, W. H.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Wrightson, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wyld, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

TELLERS.

Stuart, Lord J.

Tufnell, H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Adderley, C. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Alexander, N.

Chandes, Marq. of

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Arkwright, G.

Christopher, R. A.

Asbley, Lord

Christy, S.

Bailey, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bailey, J., jun.

Clive, H. B.

Baldock, E. H.

Cobbold, J. C.

Bankes, G.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Beckett, W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bennet, P.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Coles, H. B.

Bernard, Visct.

Compton, H. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Conolly, T.

Blandford, Marq. of

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Boldero, H. G.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Bourke, R. S.

Deedes, W.

Brackley, Visct.

Dod, J. W.

Bramston, T. W.

Douro, Marq. of

Bremridge, R.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Brisco, M.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Broadley, H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bromley, R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Brooke, Lord

Duncuft, J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Du Pre, C. G.

Bruce, C. L. C.

East, Sir J. B.

Buck, L. W.

Edwards, H.

Bunbury, W. M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Burghley, Lord

Egerton, W. T.

1449

Emlyn, Visct.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Meux, Sir H.

Euston, Earl of

Miles, P. W. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Miles, W.

Farrer, J.

Moody, C. A.

Fellowes, E.

Morgan, O.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mullings, J. R.

Floyer, J.

Napier, J.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Neeld, J.

Fox, S. W. L.

Neeld, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Newdegate, C. N.

Goddard, A. L.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Gooch, E. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Gordon, Adm.

Packe, C. W.

Gore, W. R. O.

Pakington, Sir J.

Goring, C.

Palmer, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Peel, Col.

Granby, Marq. of

Pennant, hon. Col.

Greene, T.

Pigot, Sir R.

Grogan, E.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Grosvenor, Earl

Plumptre, J. P.

Gwyn, H.

Portal, M.

Hale, R. B.

Raphael, A.

Halford, Sir H.

Reid, Col.

Hall, Col.

Repton, G. W. J.

Halsey, T. P.

Richards, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Rushout, Capt.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Sandars, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Seymer, H. K.

Henley, J. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hildyard, R. C.

Simeon, J.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Smyth, J. G.

Hodgson, W. N.

Smollett, A.

Hood, Sir A.

Somerset, Capt.

Hope, A.

Spooner, R.

Hotham, Lord

Stafford, A.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Jones, Capt.

Stephenson, R.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Stuart, J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Start, H. G.

Knox, Col.

Taylor, T. E.

Lacy, H. C.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Thompson, Ald.

Law, hon. C. E.

Thornhill, G.

Legh, G. C.

Tollemache, J.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Trollope, Sir J.

Leslie, C. P.

Turner, G. J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Lockhart, A. E.

Verner, Sir W.

Lockhart, W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Long, W.

Villiers, Visct.

Lopes, Sir R.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Lowther, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Walpole, S. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Maenaghten, Sir E.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Mahon, Visct.

Williams, T. P.

Mandeville, Visct.

Worcester, Marq. of

Manners, Lord C. S.

March, Earl of

TELLERS.

Masterman, J.

Inglis, R. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Beresford, Maj.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. F. MACKENZIEobjected on the ground of the lateness of the hour, and moved, as an Amendment, that the House should adjourn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 69: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Lockhart, W.

Arkwright, G.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Boldero, H. G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Oswald, A.

Charteris, hon. F.

Packe, C. W.

Christy, S.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Duncuft, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Farrer, J.

Stuart, H.

Floyer, J.

Sullivan, M.

Greene, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Henley, J. W.

Herbert, H. A.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, W. N.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Lockhart, A. E.

March, Earl of

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Martin, C. W.

Baines, M. T.

Matheson, Col.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Melgund, Vise.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Milner, W. M. E.

Blackall, S. W.

Moffatt, G.

Brotherton, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Brown, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Bunbury, E. H.

Mundy, W.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Nugent, Sir P.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Paget, Lord C.

Cowan, C.

Paget, Lord G.

Craig, W. G.

Pakington, Sir J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Parker, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pearson, C.

Duncan, G.

Pigott, F.

Dundas, Adm.

Pilkington, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pinney, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fordyce, A. D.

Ricardo, J. L.

Grenfell, C. P.

Rice, E. R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Grey, R. W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Haggitt, F. R.

Rutherfurd, A.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hawes, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hope, A.

Thompson, Col.

Howard, Lord E.

Townshend, Capt.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Vane, Lord H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Westhead, J. P.

Lacy, H. C.

Wilson, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Wyld, J.

Lewis, G. C.

TELLERS.

M'Gregor, J.

Tufnell, H.

Maitland, T.

Hill, Lord M.

MR. CUMMING BRUCEopposed the second reading of this Bill. He wished it to he postponed to a more fitting opportunity.
The LORD ADVOCATEdid not think that a Bill precisely on the plan of the law of England would have been opposed at all. He did not object to a postponement, if such were desirable, but he should leave it to the House to decide whether any reason had been shown for postponement.
Sir G. GREYsaid, that if any hon. Member objected to the principle of the Bill, ample time would be given before the Bill was passed on through the House.
MR. CHARTERIShoped that if the second reading was taken now, the Committee would not be hurried forward. There were nine Scotch Bills on the table, and the people of Scotland were quite alarmed at the legislative fecundity of the Lord Advocate.
The LORD ADVOCATEreminded the

COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION.

  DIVISION LIST ON MR. SCOTT'S MOTION FOR A "SELECT COMMITTEE"—see page 376.
  List of the AYES.

  Adderley, C. B.

  Kershaw, J.

  Anstey, T. C.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Masterman, J.

  Baldock, E. H.

  Molesworth, Sir W.

  Bateson, T.

  Muntz, G. F.

  Blewitt, R. J.

  O'Brien, Sir L.

  Broadwood, H.

  O'Connell, J.

  Chichester, Lord J. L.

  O'Flaherty, A.

  Christy, S.

  Pearson, C.

  Clifford, H. M.

  Salwey, Col.

  Cubitt, W.

  Sidney, Ald.

  Currie, H.

  Spooner, R.

  Devereux, J. T.

  Stuart, Lord D.

  Duncan, G.

  Thicknesse, R. A.

  Dunne, F. P.

  Thompson, Col.

  Fellowes, E.

  Greene, J.

  TELLERS.

  Harris, R.

  Hume, J.

  Hood, Sir A.

  Scott, F.

  List of the NOES.

  Abdy, T. N.

  Berkeley, hon. H. I.

  Anson, hon. Col

  Berkeley, C. L. G.

  Armstrong Sir A.

  Bernai, R.

  Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

  Blackall, S. W.

  Brotherton, J.

  Bagshaw, J.

  Bunbury, E. H.

  Baines, M. T.

  Chaplin, W. J.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Childers, J. W.

  Bellew, R. M.

  Clay, Sir W.

  Berkeley, Hon. Capt.

  Cocks, T. S.

  House that he was under a pledge from last Session to force on this Bill as fast as possible. It contained no new principle whatever, and he hoped that the House would consent to pass the measure through its present stage.
  MR. F. MACKENZIEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 63: Majority 44.
  Question again proposed. Whereupon Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 2o To-morrow.
  The House adjourned at One o'clock.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Lewis, G. C.

  Compton, H. C.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Cowper, hon. W. F.

  Mangles, R. D.

  Craig, W. G.

  Matheson, A.

  Crowder, R. B.

  Maule, rt. hon. F.

  Currie, R.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Dawson, hon. T. V.

  Morris, D.

  Dundas, Adm.

  Norreys, Lord

  Ebrington, Visct.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Ellice, rt. hon. E.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Ellice, E.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Elliot, hon. J. E.

  Rich; H.

  Evans, J.

  Romilly, Sir J.

  Evans, W.

  Russell, Lord J.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Russell, hon. E. S.

  Fordyce, A. D.

  Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

  Fortescue, hon. J. W;

  Shelburne, Earl of

  Fox, R. M.

  Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Talbot, J. H.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Talfourd, Serj.

  Grey, R. W.

  Tancred, H. W.

  Hastie, A.

  Thornely, T.

  Hawes, B.

  Ward, H. G.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Wellesley, Lord C.

  Hayter, rt. hon. W. G;

  Westhead, J. P.

  Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Williams, J.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Howard, Sir R.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Jervis, Sir J.

  Wood, W. P.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Keppel, hon. G. T.

  TELLERS.

  Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

  Hill, Lord M.

  Lascelles, hon. W. S.

  Tufnell, H.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Exchequer Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Marquess of Londonderry, and Earl Delawarr, from Mayfield, Hastings, and a Number of other Places, against the Navigation Bill.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Dundee, Southwark, and Deptford, in favour of the Navigation Bill.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Ashby-de-la-Zouch, for the Restoration of sufficient Protection to the Agricultural and Manufacturing Interests.—From Liskeard, for a Revision of the present System of Taxation.—From the Chesterton Union, for a System of uniform National Rating,—By the Earl of Harrowby, from Darlington, Liverpool, and Newcastle-under-Lyne, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—From Southwark, for the Suppression of Sunday Trading.

NAVIGATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNErose to move their Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws, or more correctly, for the repeal of such portions and fragments of the navigation laws as then existed and were in force. In making that Motion, he felt relieved in some degree from the necessity of entering into that mass of details which the subject might appear to require, by the recollection that most of their Lordships must be familiarised with it, not only by the repeated discussions which had taken place upon it elsewhere, but also by the inquiries which had been instituted by a Committee of their own body. At the same time he felt, and he felt very sensibly, that he had opposed to him, on the present occasion, feelings in which he himself participated, and prejudices, if they were prejudices, which he could not but respect, because they were feelings and prejudices connected with the

1317
attachment which every Englishman entertained for the naval service of his country, and were founded on the belief, the erroneous but perfectly sincere and honest belief, that the present Bill would be prejudical to that force on which they thought the country relied, and ought to rely, for the preservation of its rank and importance among nations. He, therefore, felt it to be incumbent upon him to disabuse, if he could do so, those who entertained such prejudices; but before he entered on that part of his subject, it would be of advantage, and would tend to shorten the discussion, if he adverted at once to some points upon which he considered that all their Lordships were to a great extent agreed. He imagined that there were few persons in that assembly prepared to dispute, that it tended to the wealth of a country, as it did to the wealth of an individual, to obtain what he desired, and to send what he was willing to part with, by the cheapest and most convenient means. That being admitted on the one hand, he was prepared on the other to admit that, although that was a maxim and a principle which it was impossible to contradict, it contained, nevertheless, a principle liable to exceptions, and that, just as their Lordships were justified in suspending the liberties of individuals under particular circumstances, for the purpose of obtaining that without which liberty could not be enjoyed—security; so were they justified, in a matter affecting the wealth of the country, in considering that that wealth could not be permanent or secure, if they were not prepared to sacrifice a portion of it to give permanence and security to the remainder. He was prepared to show that the permanence and security of the national wealth would not, according to the experience which our present knowledge of the subject afforded, and according to all sound reasoning based upon it, be subject to any danger from this Bill, or be impaired in any respect by its provisions. He was also prepared, before he stated the nature of those provisions, to state at once what the history of that law had been which their Lordships were now called upon to consider with a view to its repeal. He undertook to show that the law, whilst it acted as an impediment to commerce, had long ceased to be an assistance to the Navy of the country. He was not about to fatigue their Lordships by entering into all the changes of the navigation laws since their first enact-
1318
ment; but he would just advert for a moment to the fact that the first attempt at a navigation law in this country was so early as the reign of Richard II., and that it was then attempted to confine the commerce of the country by enactment that no subject of the King should ship any merchandise outward or homeward, "save in ships of the King's allegiance," on penalty of forfeiture of vessel and cargo. In the very next year this enactment was found to be destructive to the commerce of the country; it was, therefore, determined not to carry it further; and another Act of Parliament was introduced for the purpose of repealing that law. Why did he mention these laws? Because they appeared to be founded on the national feeling of the period; because they were but the types and foreshadowings of the policy which had since been removed from time to time; and because they originated from the feelings which still pervaded the national mind of this country, and which was natural to the mind of every people—namely, a desire to grasp at everything which could be obtained in the way of commerce—a desire, nevertheless, which had never been indulged without superinducing, again and again, its own punishment. The resurrection of that desire, at various times, and under various phases, had proved to the world how difficult it was, both for nations and for individuals, to learn that the commercial prosperity of any one country must always be built on the commercial prosperity of other countries; and, accordingly, every attempt which had been made to insure a monopoly of commerce to this country had wretchedly and totally failed. These attempts had been renewed again and again. But the first attempt to secure the exclusive possession of commerce for the subjects of this realm which he should now notice, was made in the reign of Henry VIII. That Sovereign carried the principle of protection so far, that having first enacted, for the benefit of the shipowner, that no person should buy or soil any wine of Gascony unless it were imported in an English vessel, he afterwards protected his subjects from the rapacity of the shipowner, by limiting the quantity of freight to be imported in each vessel, and thus created an immense amount of confusion, inconvenience, and loss. Edward VI., finding that that measure, instead of promoting, was restrictive of the increase of English shipping, repealed those enactments by a

1319
Statute which was characterised by a simplicity of expression indicative of the youthful innocence of the Sovereign. That statute set forth by reciting that these attempts had proved restrictive of commerce, that it had been discovered that foreign commodities, and more particularly the wines of Gascony and the south of France, had become all the dearer in consequence, and navigation never the better; and it was therefore enacted, that these laws should be repealed. He would now come to that time when the law was passed which was more usually and generally known as the navigation law. That Act, as their Lordships knew, originated in the protectorate of Cromwell. But at that time they did not originate so much in views either of a commercial or political character, as in a desire to punish the Dutch for the support—the loyal support—which they had given to Charles I. They were intended to act as a bridle on the Dutch, and to punish them for the loyalty which they had displayed to a dethroned monarch. Looking back at the history of those times, and at the peculiar circumstances in which the country was then placed, and at the effects which might have been produced by giving a stimulus to our marine force, and by enabling it to carry on the operations of war against Dutch commerce, he was not inclined to assert that there were no grounds for trying the experiment how far the national arm could be strengthened by restriction, and how far the naval force and power of the country could be increased. He was inclined to think that at that time there was good ground for trying such an experiment; for the relations of England with Holland at that time were just the very reverse of what they were at present, the very reverse of what they were now, both with regard to the extent of marine, and to the amount of commerce; for Holland at that time was a deadly and powerful rival to the power of England. He implored their Lordships not to allow themselves to he run away with by the idea that the experiment which we made in the time of Cromwell, for the purpose of breaking down the power of the Dutch, and increasing our own naval power, was an experiment entirely successful. It was quite the contrary. On that point, he was able to call into court a most unexceptionable witness, for no man was able to give better evidence upon the subject than a witness who had been for many years a Secretary to the Admiralty. What time did their
1320
Lordships consider to be sufficient for an experiment of this kind to be tried, with a view of determining upon its success? Did they think that ten years would be sufficient? If not, did they think that fifteen years would produce more conclusive results? Well, he would tell their Lordships what had been the result after the law had been fifteen years in operation. He had, in common with many of their Lordships, been delighted with reading one of the most instructive as well as one of the most amusing books ever published, he meant the Diary of Mr. Secretary Pepys, which had recently been edited by a noble Member of their own House. This was what he found that acute functionary mentioned respecting the difficulties occasioned by the operation of the navigation laws. Mr. Secretary Pepys said, he was mightily troubled to meet with any reliable person to give him information. He could find none but persons wholly unfit, although of very good fashion, which was a shame to England. "It was very pretty," he said, "to observe that the persons one met in all parts of the streets were only women," and that no man was to be found there; "for the men," added he, "find it impossible to go there without incurring the danger of being pressed." "Mr. Coventry"—who was one of the ablest men of his day—" did tell me," said Mr. Pepys, "that he intended to recommend the suspension of the navigation laws, for the benefit and advantage of commerce." So much for the operation of the navigation laws in the time of Mr. Pepys. He hurried over the reign of the Stuarts, although, during the whole of that time, those laws were enforced, and with some show of success, inasmuch as at the accession of William III. the commerce of the country had increased to a certain extent. After the accession of the House of Hanover, things took a different turn. The House of Commons then felt the inconvenience of the navigation laws, and three or four Bills called Import Bills, were introduced, to allow foreign ships to be admitted into certain of our ports. So we went on, until, at the close of the American war, Mr. Pitt came for the first time into office. Mr. Pitt—a name which he could never allude to without great respect, and for which many of their Lordships felt a superstitious reverence—Mr. Pitt, on coming into office, was convinced of the necessity of introducing fresh relaxations into the navigation laws, in consequence of the

1321
State of things then existing. When did he do that? When did he entertain that proposition? Mr. Pitt made a proposition to that effect at a moment when, beyond all others, the importance of the Navy of England to the security of England had been tried and proved. He made it at the close of a war in which the laurels of England, tarnished by the unfortunate war which she had carried on by land in America, had just been redeemed by the glorious victory of Rodney in the West Indies, and by the relief of Gibraltar by Lord Howe at the head of the Mediterranean fleet—victories which established the naval supremacy of England, rescued her honour from disgrace, and enabled her to make, after all her disasters, a satisfactory peace. Was that the moment when a wise and patriotic Minister would voluntarily lay irreligious hands on that sacred ark, as some still consider the navigation laws to be, on which the security of the Navy, and consequently the security of the country, rested? Mr. Pitt, nevertheless, in that state of things, saw the necessity of opening our colonial trade, and introduced a Bill for that purpose, which did not pass at the moment, because he went out of office; but the object of which was pursued long afterwards by successive Administrations, and was the subject of successive Acts of Parliament. He now came down a good way further, to times within his own recollection. It so happened that one of the very few measures which he had the honour of assisting to bring into the other House of Parliament, was an Act to establish in 1806–7 a free intercourse between the West Indies and America, and he had the honour of sitting in that House with one of the most able lawyers and consummate orators who ever adorned the debates of Parliament—he meant the late Sir W. Grant—whoso convincing eloquence always produced the deepest impression on his hearers, as he expressed his own convictions in the most clear and lucid terms, and whose premises, when he was right, regularly led to the most logical and irresistible conclusions. Now, Sir W. Grant had persuaded himself, or had allowed himself to be persuaded by others, that this American Intercourse Bill, because it attacked the principle of the navigation laws, must be fatal to the commerce, and, above all, to the colonial intercourse of this country; and there was no language in which any noble Lord, or even any learned Lord, could arraign the Bill of the present night,
1322
so strong as that in which Sir W. Grant, according to his (the Marquess of Lansdowne's) recollection, which he had recently refreshed by a perusal of his speech, arraigned the provisions of the Intercourse Bill of 1806. He indulged in the most, confident predictions as to the results of that measure, stating that, if it were passed into law, there would be an end to the employment of all the shipping engaged in the West Indies. He further stated that there would be such inducements to America to undertake the conveyance of sugar, that it would be very doubtful whether a single hogshead of it would ever be again imported into this country in British vessels. Remembering the predictions which he then uttered, and the powerful eloquence with which they had been delivered, he had had the curiosity to examine what had been the consequence of a Bill so denounced by the merchants of the metropolis and the outports, and by Sir W. Grant. He had made a comparison of what had occurred one year after the Bill passed, and what was the state of things at the close of the war. In the year 1807, the registered tonnage of English shipping was 2,096,000 tons; at the end of the war it was 2,247,000. Thus an increase of nearly 200,000 tons had been made in our shipping in a few years under the operation of an Act which, according to these predictions, was to prove the destruction of the British Navy.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: Yes, but at that time there was war with all foreign nations.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had now brought down his historical summary to the system of law with which their Lordships had now to deal. He requested their Lordships to look at the altered shape of the navigation laws, "if shape that could be called which shape had none," Now, although many of their Lordships believed, and many thousands who had signed the petitions on the table believed, that they were living under a complete code of navigation laws, he would undertake to show those who asserted that British commerce was now clothed in a suit of impenetrable armour, that it was only clothed in a garment of shreds and patches—a garment which, instead of being ample enough to defend it from injury, was the most imperfect for protection, if protection it could be called, of any which could be manufactured out of the fragments of the statute books. He would inform

1323
their Lordships of the protection under which commerce was now placed; and sure he was that they would be surprised at hearing that some of the most respectable witnesses summoned before their Committee had with great candour and simplicity avowed, that until they looked into the Bill they did not know how small was the protection which they legally had. They stated that it was impossible for them to have imagined that the trade of the country could have gone on, shorn as it was of that protection under which they thought they had been trading, and the absence of which they had never discovered, because they had never felt any inconvenience arising from the want of it. He held in his hand an account, with the details of which he would not trouble their Lordships—for if he did he should be addressing them till midnight, and even then would not be finished—he held in his hand, he repeated, an account of the conflicting laws and treaties by which our navigation laws were now confined and embarrassed. We had various treaties limiting and controlling those laws; we had treaties with the United States, with Mexico, with Bolivia, with Columbia, with Venezuela, with Buenos Ayres, with Russia, with Prussia, with Denmark, with Norway, with Sweden, with Hanover, with Holland, with Belgium, with France, with Portugal, with Spain, with Italy, with Greece, with Turkey, with Morocco, with the Hanse Towns, (fee, all of them more or less violating the principles of the navigation laws. Let not any of their Lordships run away with the notion that those treaties were all alike—they were no such thing—they were infinite in their variety. Of these treaties some were permanent, others terminable; some were on the principle of the "favoured-nations treaties," which was inconsistent with the reciprocity clause of the Navigation Acts. Others, not so. There were two treaties establishing equality of charges; there were four continuing an inequality of charges on British and foreign shipping. There were three treaties granting liberty to foreign vessels arriving in our ports to engage in voyages from them to other countries. All these treaties had covered the navigation laws with such a mass of confusion, difficulty, and inconvenience, as to render it not surprising that those who had an interest in rooting out their meaning, could not make out upon what principle they proceeded. That very circumstance had suspended the efficacy—if ever
1324
they had any efficacy—of the navigation laws enacted by Cromwell and by Charles II What, then, had been the general result of their legislation in doing away with protection in this piecemeal manner? It was this—that as we had concluded the treaties to which he had referred, the amount of English shipping and of English commerce had proportionally increased. It was in time of peace, too, that this result had taken place—a result which, he trusted, would be satisfactory to the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), as well as to the noble Lords around him. He would prove what he had just asserted by referring to what had occurred during the last twenty years, whilst the relaxation of the navigation laws was continually going on. In the year 1816 the registered tonnage of England was 2,783,380; in the year 1848, up to the latest time at which the accounts could be made up, it was upwards of 4,000,000. That, certainly, was not a proof that these alterations had either stopped the construction or diminished the employment of British shipping. But it might and most probably would be said, that in that interval the trade of the rest of the world had increased in the same proportion. He was glad that it had done so; he was glad that the prosperity of England was not built on the ruin and misery of other nations; he was glad that, whilst our marine had gone on rapidly accumulating, the prosperity of other nations had also been increasing; for he was well assured that such an increase would only lead to fresh exertions on the part of Englishmen to maintain their commercial, as they had hitherto maintained, and would always maintain, their maritime supremacy, and would open up fresh sources of prosperity to this country. But if he should be told in the course of this debate, as in all probability he would be told before its close, that the English shipowner and the English merchant could not continue to compete with the foreign shipbroker and the foreign merchant, and that they required this miserable remnant of protection to bolster them up in so unequal a contest, he would, in that case, call the attention of their Lordships to the way in which the British shipowner had fared in those voyages in which he was supposed to be most exposed to competition. He had now before him the relative amounts of English and of American shipping. One of the apprehensions entertained in consequence of this Bill, was stated to be the increase which it

1325
would give to the great commercial power of the United States. The Americans had greater facilities in procuring timber than we had, and that would give them greater facilities for engaging in trade; and it was predicted, that the consequence of that would be highly detrimental to English shipping and trade. For many years in the direct voyage between England and the United States, the English shipowner had gone on unprotected. What had been the issue? In the year 1836, the tonnage of England engaged in that traffic was 554,774, and of America, 1,255,384. In 1848 the amount of English tonnage was 1,177,000, and of American, 3,393,000; showing not only that the English shipping had maintained itself in competition with American shipping, but that at this moment there was a greater proportion of English shipping engaged in the trade. Then, with regard to the carrying trade, that trade was more advantageous to other countries than to the united kingdom. The goods carried were imported from other countries into the United States; goods which were not introduced into England, but which were wanted in America. Now, what was the proportion of British and foreign tonnage employed in this trade with the United States? In the year ending the 30th of June, the tonnage of British vessels entered in ports of the United States was 1,177,000, and of ships under all other flags 208,000 tons, so that, English ships were employed to nearly six times the extent of all other foreign ships, although foreign shipping was, with respect to this trade, precisely the description of shipping which it had been contended was likely to vie with the shipping of this country. He found, that of 100 ships engaged in trade to the United States, there were of United States' vessels, 63; of British vessels, 31; and of ships of other States, 6; so that the advantage British shipowers had obtained, in this unprotected trade, without any assistance from the navigation laws, had amounted to 30 per cent. He thought, then, that, looking at these facts, the British shipowners might confidently rely upon being able to maintain their ground against the competition of foreign shipping. He had received a few days since a letter from a most respectable shipowner in this country, who said, with reference to this subject, that he had owned a great number of ships which had been engaged in trade with most parts of the world, and the result of his experience was, that no ships got such
1326
good trade, or made such profitable voyages, as those which sailed between two foreign ports; as, for instance, between the Mediterranean and Brazil, or between Cuba and the Baltic. He found, also, with regard to the Hamburgh trade, that English shipping bore a very large proportion to the shipping of all European Powers carrying on trade with the Elbe. He would further ask their Lordships to look at the case of Russia and the States on the Baltic, where it was said our shipping would be exposed to peculiar danger from the competition it would have to encounter. In those countries timber was cheap and wages very low—circumstances which, it was contended, would be most fatal to the competition of English ships. He found that the total amount of British shipping engaged in trade to St. Peters-burgh was 228,000 tons, and of shipping from Prussia and all other countries besides England, 221,000 tons; so that in the very heart of the country which possessed these advantages of cheap timber and low wages, in spite of those advantages, and without any protection, British mercantile commerce had maintained such an ascendancy that he thought it would be unreasonable in them to indulge the hope that it should have a greater ascendancy. He considered that they had in these facts the most convincing proofs that there was no ground for the apprehension that the shipping of this country would be unable to compete with the shipping of other States. The advantage of the British shipowner was in the permanence of his materials—in the durability of the vessels which he built; and upon that we had hitherto relied, and might still continue to rely. But, it might be asked, why should this be chosen as the moment for introducing such a change, when they bad no complaint to make? Their Lordships must not assume that our treaties with other States were to be of perpetual duration, or that our present relations with those States must necessarily be continued, or that our colonies would be satisfied with things as they were. There were at this moment English ships to the tonnage of between 220,000 and 230,000 tons engaged in direct trade under treaties, the whole of which trade would be cut off if those treaties were not renewed. They had hitherto been compelled to go on step by stop, affording privileges to different countries, in consequence of treaties which compelled them to put those countries on

1327
the footing of the most favoured nations; and they were now engaged in discussions with Holland as to whether the license which had already been given with regard to the ports of the Elbe should be still further extended. Such discussions would not only be terminated by the measure before the House, but they would be terminated in a way satisfactory to all parties. This was the case with regard to European Powers—to Continental States; but he would ask their Lordships to look also at the colonial question. The British colonies called upon this country to confer upon them those advantages which the repeal of the remnant of the navigation laws could alone afford. The West India Islands were subjected to the greatest difficulty from the want of a measure of this nature. Canada also said that the whole trade of the St. Lawrence depended upon it; that she was at this moment engaged in a difficult competition with the United States, in consequence of canals having been opened, and means afforded, the effect of which was to draw the Canadian commerce from that province, and to carry it through the United States; and that nothing but the perfect opening of the St. Lawrence could enable her to retain her own trade. If they refused to Canada this advantage, could they expect the colonists to remain contented? He would say that they could not. He asked them then to give to Canada the free use of the greatest element of wealth that she possessed, and to enable her to carry on a valuable and important commerce, instead of refusing to admit her claim upon that broad principle which alone could cement her connexion with this country—a connexion which, he trusted, would always he maintained, but which, if it was to be maintained, required that they should consult her commercial interests, and show themselves not indifferent to her prosperity. With regard, therefore, to Europe, to the West Indies, and to Canada, he conceived that this country was bound, without further delay, to evince its disposition and intention to adopt such measures as would give full scope for the development of all their resources. In his conscience he believed they could do this with perfect safety. He believed that monopoly stood in the way of all commercial prosperity. They had had, not very long ago in the history of the world, a striking example of this truth. They had seen acting his part upon the stage of Europe the greatest mo-
1328
nopolist that ever existed. They had heard Bonaparte avow, when in possession of the enormous power which he wielded, that his objects were to obtain ships, colonies, and commerce. He conquered one-half of Europe; the other half he seduced or entrapped into negotiations; he could create monopolies everywhere, and he was unscrupulous in so creating them; but the genius of English commerce overcame all those monopolies. Ships he could not get; colonies he could not acquire; commerce he could not establish; but this was not the consequence of the British navigation laws. No; it was because British commerce and enterprise were of such a nature that wherever they found a footing—and, in spite of restrictions, in all parts of the world they would find a footing—they established themselves, even in spite of edicts enforced by a million of bayonets, and were conducted with glory and success. He, therefore, earnestly advised their Lordships to rely upon the energy of this country, and the means at their disposal. He was convinced, if they did not pass this Bill, not only that the position of this country would not be better than it was now, but that it would shortly be incalculably worse—that they would lose, and must inevitably lose, much that they had gained; while, if they did pass the measure, they had the prospect of that extension of commerce throughout the world which must immediately, or at all events ultimately, follow the removal of the restriction which fettered the intercourse of nations. He now asked their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill; and, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated plainly and manfully that he was prepared for the consequences of its rejection, he hoped that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) might be permitted to state for himself and his Colleagues that they also were prepared for the consequences of a hostile vote upon that question.
LORD BROUGHAM:* My Lords, I rise under feelings of great anxiety to address your Lordships this day, although with the conscientious and deliberate conviction that in the course which I am about to adopt, I consult the best interests of the country. But when I express how anxious I am, let me exclude at once from what may be fancied to form any ground of this feeling, the supposition that I can regard my former conduct upon questions
* From a report published by Ridgway.

1329
of commercial policy either before I entered Parliament, or while I had a seat in the Lower House, or since I ascended to the high honour of a place among your Lordships, as in any degree whatever at variance with the course which I intend now to pursue. I have, indeed, not many hours ago, been thus taunted, in quarters from which such a taunt did come upon me somewhat unexpectedly—used, as I have been, to strange political evolutions—accustomed, as a long Parliamentary experience has made mo, to extraordinary feats of agility among statesmen and their followers; yet I own, with all this experience, the taunt did come with the attribute of novelty, and the zest of surpassing all expectation, when in such quarters, of all others, it was wondered at, that I, of all men—I, who had ever been the advocate of free trade, the friend of unrestricted intercourse among nations; I who had lately signalised myself (for a sneer is generally wrapt up in a compliment, the one often as worthless, because as groundless, as the other)—who had signalised myself by joining in a great victory over the exploded policy of unenlightened times, did not join now in placing the crown upon the column of liberal policy, which I had helped to rear—that I, the apostle of free trade, should, in the eleventh hour, and on the eve of its final accomplishment, turn round against it. I will not retaliate, and dilate upon inconsistencies; the temptation is strong, but I will resist it. [Cheers from the Protection party.] I perceive, my noble Friends who differ with me on this subject would urge me on to yield, difficult as I find it to resist; but resist it I will. I will only say, that I glory in what forms the subject-matter of the taunt; I glory in having obtained those immortal victories over antiquated error; in having made to triumph the soundest principles of political philosophy, sweeping away the groundless prejudices by which its progress was obstructed heretofore. But, if there is any one passage of my political life dearer than another to my remembrance—any one drop in the cup of exultation more peculiarly sweet to my palate—it is the recollection of those worthy, able, eminent persons, leaders of the revilers, the distinguished statesmen whoso support I enjoyed after passing a long life in opposition to them on this very question, and who crowned themselves with honour by abandoning their own errors to join me in vindicating the truth. But, after all, it is not now
1330
with me as it was with them; I am making no change at all in my opinions; I am in no one particular swerving from the path wherein I always have walked. The present measure is one of incalculable importance, and its great magnitude alone fills me with anxiety. I feel its bearing on the best interests of the country, her defence, her very existence, to be close and clear. This it is that alone makes me anxious, when I reflect how the opposition to it may suffer in my hands. On no other score can a moment's anxiety be felt by me. I utterly deny that the question of its merits has the least connexion with the free-trade controversy. The speculation of gaining a few stray votes in favour of the Bill may have seduced some who knew better to couple the policy of the navigation laws with that of free trade, to which it bears no affinity, because it is possible that some noble Lords who have opposed the corn laws and voted for their repeal, may be drawn unthinkingly to vote for the present Bill, on the false representation that it rests on the same foundation with that repeal. But who was the first patron of the free-trade school—the apostle of that faith? Whose works formed, as it were, the scriptural volume, the text-book of authority for all the disciples of that doctrine—all political economists of that sect? Unquestionably Adam Smith, author of the Wealth of Nations; and yet he distinctly gives his testimony in favour of the navigation laws—holding defence of more importance than opulence, and therefore, while he admitted that those laws tend to abridge the accumulation of wealth, declaring that they are to be respected as "the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England." Practical statesmen of the most liberal views have adopted the same opinions. The reverend founder of the American republic held these opinions. The first speech of Washington to the Congress, in 1780, earnestly recommended to their consideration "the encouragement of American navigation, so as to render our commerce and agriculture less dependent on foreign bottoms, which may fail us at the moment most interesting to both these great objects." He adds, that "against this evil, their fisheries and the trade in their own produce, afforded abundant means of guarding." Many years later, Maddison, a zealous disciple of the liberal school, and going much further than his illustrious predecessor, for he was of the democrat and not the federal party, professed the

1331
same opinion, and gave the same advice. Admitting that commerce might suffer a temporary embarrassment from the navigation law, he yet said, that any burden "on the community, however oppressively it might weigh on some parts, was well worth bearing, as it would secure the country from burthens that were greater." And he proceeded to show the absolute necessity of acquiring a maritime strength for their defence and the protection of their commerce. Last of all comes Mr. Huskisson, whom the authors of this new policy pretend to follow. Nothing-can be more distinct than his opinion, delivered at the very moment he was propounding his free-trade measures—so different from the one before us—" Commerce and marine may be opposed to each other; and then there cannot be a doubt that trade and its interests must give way to the creation and maintenance of a mercantile navy."
Differing, however, from all their high authorities among free-traders, philosophers, and statesmen opposed to them, and opposed above all to him whose name the authors of this measure most ostentatiously put forward on every occasion, Mr. Huskisson, my noble Friend denies wholly the merits of the Navigation Act, regards it as a measure of barbarous policy, unworthy of an enlightened age, almost of a civilised State. Nay, in his unsparing animosity to that great law, he is not content with holding that we have outlived its uses, and with contending that it is no longer adapted to our times and our condition; he must needs go back to its origin, and deny that it ever deserved any of the praises which it has received from all—from philosophers as well as from statesmen. My noble Friend takes us to the reign of Charles II. and to the Diary of Pepys, by which he says, it appears that within fifteen years after the Act passed, we suffered so much from want of seamen, that men called out for its repeal. My Lords, I'll tell my noble Friend for what men called out, and what occasioned our want of seamen. They wanted wages as well as statutes to obtain sailors. Charles had other uses to make of his money than paying the men; his other expenses drained his funds, so that the sailor, receiving no pay, rendered no service; and then the "Merry Monarch" holding it dangerous to feed men highly, who had no money in their pockets to meet certain charges which a generous diet might render need-
1332
ful, while he withheld the hire, lowered the scale of living. So that voluntary entering into his navy ceased to be a usual practice, while their sovereign had dispersed his supplies among those whose company he prized more than he did the manning of his fleets. This economy was what caused the want of seamen; the relaxation of this monopoly of supplies was what the people called for, not the relaxation of the colonial monopoly.
Now, with regard to statistical arguments, some few of which the noble Marquess dealt with, I confess I have great distrust of all such reasonings on questions like the present, chiefly because in all my experience, now not of very short duration, ever since the great controvery on the Orders in Council, 1808, I have found how insecure all details of mere figures are upon which to build an argument. I well recollect the long discussions of 1808, and again of 1812, on that unhappy aberration of our mercantile and belligerent policy—I remember again the debates on commercial distress in 1817, in 1822, in 1843—and I remember those on financial difficulties in 1816 and 1842. In all these contentions it was my fortune to bear a part; but we never found any certain guide in the mere details of statistical returns; and indeed, whether it was from the reports of the Board of Trade, or from those of Mr. Irving, the inspector of the Customs, or from the tables furnished by the Treasury, the lively impression was made on all minds, which now in some survives the heats of those days, that there was hardly anything which might not he proved by such documents; that they could be used equally by both sides; that, in short, you could prove anything and everything by their assistance. Indeed, I have heard it said, "give me half an hour and the run of the multiplication table, and I'll engage to pay off the national debt." It is easy to add a little here, and subtract a little there; gently to slip in a figure, it may be a cypher, among your data; slyly to make what seems a reasonable postulate in your premises, but which turns out in the result to be a begging of the question—and behold you gain your point, and triumph, until it is found that your adversary, having access to the same stores of arithmetic, just proves his case and refutes yours with the same facility. So much for statistics in general, when severed from sound principle and plain reasoning. But how much less to be relied on as the grounds

1333
of argument are those tables, which are manufactured, not generally, not indifferently, not as the lawyers say, ante litem motam, but in the heats of a controversy, and prepared by those in the employ of one party! To trust oneself among such details as these, would truly be perilous in the extreme. My noble Friend has fared forth into the labyrinth—the pathless archipelago—with such bad success, that his fate serves to warn me how I venture to follow his perilous course. But there remains to deter me, like a beacon on the same coasts, the sad wreck of another adventurer, the good ship "Board of Trade, G. R. Porter, master," cast away on the shoals of those faithless waters. We have access to the logs of these navigators, and can judge how they miscarried. I must give your Lordships an extract or two just by way of example. My noble Friend has talked largely on the comparative progress of English and of American shipping—the former amounting to so much tonnage and men, the latter to so much less. But it so chances that he, following his predecessor, Mr. Porter, takes the whole of the one and only part of the other, and thus makes out the result which suits his argument. Upon this little circumstance being discussed in your Lordships' Committee, the noble and gallant chairman (Lord Hardwicke), whoso absence we have such reason to lament to-night, except that we know him to be well employed in his country's service, and in a way to show him a powerful negotiator with his guns as at Genoa so elsewhere; put this question to the witness, after stating the entire difference of the two returns, the difference between total in the one, and partial in the other: "Then consequently these returns are not to be taken compared together, as showing in any degree, the comparative value of British and American tonnage." Mark the deplorable answer of the hapless Mr. Porter, "Certainly not." Again, "Have you any means of making such an addition to the American tonnage as may may lead to a fair comparison?"—" I am not sure that I have; I rather think I have, but I am not certain." He is then asked as to the amount of the trade, and I believe, but cannot be quite certain, that he gives it by approximation at 215,000 tons. My noble Friend on the cross bench (Lord Wharncliffe) reminds me of the cooking of returns. But here we had called up the cook to examine him. We asked, "Is this dish pure?"—" Not at all," he an-
1334
swered. "Is it nutritive?"—"Nothing of the kind." "Is it safe and wholesome to eat"—" Certainly not." "Have you any means of correcting its poison by an antidote?"—"I am not sure; I rather think I have, but I am not certain." My noble Friend dwelt at large on the reciprocity system. Having occasion to leave the House for a moment, I found him on my return reading over with much emphasis a list of countries with which we had such arrangements; and at each name he drew forth a cheer from his supporters, men of much zeal and good voice, but small reflection—as if each treaty furnished an argument for the Bill, and against the existing system. But these treaties were all respecting differential duties; all of them were grounded on the comparatively sound principle of only relaxing your monopoly with those States who agreed to relax their restrictive laws; they were framed to obtain a quid pro quo; they measured the advantages surrendered by the correlative advantages acquired; whereas your present scheme is to give the quid without the quo; to sweep away all restriction at once with every country, before you secure an equivalent from any one; and, so far from proportioning your sacrifice to your gain, to sacrifice everything before you gain anything. This is the precise comparison, the contrast between the policy of Mr. Huskisson, which you profess to follow, and your own—the copy is the very opposite and not the imitation of the original. As to the noble Marquess's comments upon the Russian trade, of which he stated so large a share belongs to this country, though unprotected, he must have entirely forgotten that the exclusive foreign laws which restrict the intercourse of Russia with foreign States, co-operating with our own laws regarding the indirect or carrying trade, give perfect protection to our commerce with that country. Thus France and other countries cannot import Russian produce into this country; we can only take it direct in Russian or in British ships; and as Russia has few or no ships of her own, it all comes in ours.
But on the statistics of the protected or unprotected trades, it is that the greatest errors have been committed by my noble Friend's authorities. It is among these shoals that Mr. Porter has left his wreck as a beacon to warn us how we follow his course. He no doubt had steered to the best of his ability, and quite conscientiously been east away, but that he acted under

1335
the bias of a strong prejudice in favour of his ally and relative, the author of the present Bill, is very much to be suspected—for we all know that the Bill is really Mr. Ricardo's, who in 1847 moved the Committee on the Navigation Laws, the Government being afterwards pushed on by their supporters, impatient at seeing them hold their places and do nothing. Now anything equal to the errors into which they and their prompters have fallen, I never did see in all my experience of figures and returns. In the comparative table of protected and unprotected trades—framed to show how much more the former or the latter had increased—there were, first of all, placed countries with which we have the reciprocity treaties. Why, that is a species of protection by the very force of the term, though a modified protection. Next, there were placed countries with which we have no such treaties at all, and our trade with which is therefore wholly protected by the navigation laws—we there find Tuscany, the Roman States (if indeed there be any trade driven there but sedition and pillage), Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Ceylon, Java, Sumatra, the South Seas. The tonnage of these trades together amounts to no less than 350,000, or nearly one half of the lesser sum, 840,000, which the concoctors of the table are comparing with 1,600,000—so that the error committed is nearer a half than a third of the very difference in question. How can any rational man place the least reliance upon tables thus framed, and thus abounding on their face with errors the most fatal? Their great concoctor is asked about these errors, and he cannot deny them—so he says, the heading of the return is wrong, and that instead of "unprotected," it should have been "less protected." Indeed! But that is just giving up the whole value of the table, and making it utterly useless, utterly unfit to be the ground of any inference whatever, utterly foreign to the present question. For, observe, I can understand what is meant by a trade unprotected by the navigation laws, and compare it with one that is protected; but a trade less protected, how am I to define it? Less protected than what? Why, than a trade that is more protected! What does this tell me? What makes more, what less? How can we possibly compare them together? All depends upon how much more and how much less, and this Mr. Porter does not affect to show.
But this is not the worst of it by a
1336
great deal. We are told to look at the carrying trade, and to see what a mass of shipping is at the mercy of foreign Powers. Large sums are here conjured up by the enchanting wand of the Board of Trade; and when I come to sift these sums, I find a misstatement that is absolutely incredible. The amount of 215,000 tons is stated, and how is this made out? The whole ships to prove this tonnage are 47, and their actual tonnage is 7,001, and no more; but they make 31 voyages each in the year, so away go the calculators, and multiplying 7,000 by 31, give us 214,000 or 215,000 as the tonnage, instead of one thirty-first part of the sum. Nor is this the most extraordinary feat of these nimble conjurers. One vessel, bearing the most appropriate name of the Magician, is of 96 tons burden; but she makes 148 voyages in a year—so straightway the tonnage in the trade she drives is expanded from 96 to between 14,000 and 15,000, and enters into the return to that vast amount—an amount nearly 150 times greater than the truth! My Lords, I will readily give a large license for exaggerations to that lively class of persons who contribute to our amusement by their powers of imagination—drawing, as was once said of a statesman elsewhere, upon their fancy for their facts, and on their memory for their jests. To these men I render all grateful homage, as among the gayest of our sad species; and I never very narrowly inquire if they exaggerate within reasonable bounds—two or three, or even fourfold. But so far as tenfold I will not be made to extend my license. Then what shall be said of a hundred fold—nay, a hundred and fifty fold, and that not by the lively wit, but by the plodding dealer in returns and tables, and trade and shipping statistics? I must really send them away to bury themselves and their errors in the recesses of the Trade Department, and no longer hope to obtain any faith here. The noble Marquess will in vain try to prevail by their aid. What! After such things as I have shown, attempt to choke us with tables! No. I will swallow none of them. I have done with them and their returns and reports, to the great clearing of this great controversy; to the no small comfort of your Lordships, who are little patient of statistics, a dry food, even when honestly prepared and fairly served up.
I proceed, then, with your leave, to discharge the important duty which I have undertaken, of dealing with this great

1337
question upon its proper merits, and trying the proposed measure by the test of reason, only relying on those facts which are beyond all dispute, and only referring to those returns which were made long ago, in the ordinary course of the public business, and before the subject was involved in any controvery at all. My duty to your Lordships and to the country requires that I should earnestly implore you, and solemnly warn you, not to part rashly with what my noble Friend called the miserable remnants, the fragments of a worn-out system. Fragments indeed! They are of gigantic size—they are the splendid remains of a mighty system—they are the pillars of our Navy, the props of our maritime defence. Modified the system has been, but only to suit the change of circumstances, not altering it, only adapting it to the varied condition of the world. There remains the almost entire monopoly of our home trade, and the perfectly rigorous monopoly of our colonial trade, employing above a million and a half tons of shipping, and above 20,000 seamen, with a capital that gives export and import, to between 15,000,000 l. and 16,000,000 l. sterling in the year. It is said, however, that we must not maintain this system of colonial intercourse, because Canada will be discontented, and the discontent is ascribed to the Canadians not having an unrestricted intercourse with the united States, until the navigation of the St. Lawrence is left open and free. But what restrictions are there worth speaking of, that may not be removed without unsettling our whole policy, when the Canadians may now export to the United States, and receive from thence all goods in either American or British bottoms? But my noble Friend says, we should follow in Mr. Pitt's steps, who, as early as 1783, proposed a material change in the navigation laws. Certainly what he proposed was anything rather than a change in the principle of those laws; it was a mere adaptation to the altered state of North America. Surely, my noble Friend forgets what a mighty change had taken place between the reign of Charles II. and the time of Mr. Pitt. The western colonies of Great Britain had thrown off the yoke of the mother country, and become a great independent State. A still more extensive change afterwards took place, and emancipated all the colonies of Spain, Cuba and Porto Rico alone excepted, and formed their vast territories into
1338
free communities, while the House of Braganza removing to Brazil, founded there a new monarchy, which had formerly been a dependency upon Portugal. The inevitable consequence of these great revolutions of empire was to make an alteration in the letter of the navigation law necessary for the purpose of preserving its spirit; and instead of abandoning the principle of the system, Mr. Pitt, in 1783, only proposed adapting it to the altered circumstances of the New World, as did Mr. Huskisson some forty years later, when the whole of the changes in the distribution of empire had been consummated. For every one must at once perceive, that as the Navigation Act excluded all trade between foreign colonies and our European dominions, but permitted trade between foreign States and those dominions in vessels of those foreign States, when Brazil and the Spanish Main were become independent Powers, we must by the principles of the Act receive their ships as we should Spanish and Portuguese vessels; and when the American colonies became also foreign States, we must receive their ships to bring over their produce, and could no longer exclude all forcign ships from our trade with emancipated America, as we had excluded them from America while she was, like Jamaica or Canada, a dependency of our Crown. Mr. Huskisson's policy, in many other respects, affected our foreign trade, and wisely, in my opinion. But let it not be supposed that no evils were felt by our mercantile navy from those changes. If you compare the tonnage for six years ending 1822, with the same ending 1828, you will find there was a falling-oil to the extent of 150,000 tons, or above 1,300 vessels; nor did the amount ever reach what it had been before the new laws, until the year 1838, sixteen years after Mr. Wallace had propounded those measures of relaxation, which I ought perhaps rather to term of adaptation. In now referring to tables, I only resort to documents and calculations made in the regular course of business, and long before any controversy arose on the present question. They are, therefore, altogether worthy of credit.
The policy, my Lords, of the navigation laws, rests upon the position, that without such a partial monopoly as they give to British shipping, we never can maintain a sufficiently ample nursery for our Navy, an object of primary importance, as Dr. Smith maintains, to every insular empire,

1339
and therefore to be sought at a considerable sacrifice of the wealth which unfettered commerce might more rapidly accumulate. The Emperor Napoleon is cited, by my noble Friend, as having wished for "ships, colonies, and commerce." The quotation is not quite accurate. He inveighed against the "ships, colonies, and commerce," of England, and gave out these as the objects of his hostility; whence Mr. Pitt, at a Guildhall festival, gave as a retaliatory toast, "the ships, colonies, and commerce "of this country, a retort which derived its point from the edition I am now giving of the French Emperor's saying. But that great warrior might have wished long enough for ships, colonies, and commerce, and wished in vain; both because from ample trade alone could he ever hope to have a navy, and because we had created our marine, which swept from the ocean all his commerce, taken all his men-of-war, and captured all his colonies—our marine, which owed its existence entirely to the encouragement that the navigation law gave our shipbuilding and the facilities lent by the same law to manning the fleets which that encouragement built. For nearly two hundred years we have abided by that policy, and holding steadily our course, neither swerving to the right, neither to the left, never abandoning it, only adapting it to the varying events which have altered the distribution of dominion in other regions, we have upheld the system which has created and maintained this navy—the envy of our rivals, the terror of our enemies, the admiration of the world. Are you prepared to abandon a system to which you owe so precious a possession, not only the foundation of your glory, the bulwark of your strength, but the protection of your very existence as a nation?
It is not agreeable in discussing a question like this to be occupied with personal matters relating to one's own history. Yet, as I have been charged with altering my opinions on this great argument, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence if I briefly advert to the opinions which I delivered very long—I grieve to think how long ago—prepared in 1801 and 1802, published in 1803. In a work upon colonial policy, I traced at large the causes which lead to the formation of a navy by means of a mercantile marine, and explained in great detail the intimate connexion between the colonial trade and that important branch of national economy. Agreeing
1340
entirely with Dr. Smith, my illustrious master, in his opinion, that the superior importance of defence well justifies a sacrifice of wealth, by restrictions upon foreign commerce, and especially the colonial trade, I ventured to differ widely from him in his estimate of the benefits derivable from remote establishments. He maintains that the colonial trade is less advantageous than the home trade, because it replaces two capitals, the one home, the other foreign, whereas the home trade replaces two home capitals, and that the nearer foreign trade of Europe is more advantageous than the distant trade of the colonies, because its returns are much quicker. I contended that this is a very erroneous view of the subject, and explained how the colonies being in truth a portion, though remote, of the empire, the trade replaces two home capitals; while I showed that it has this advantage over the foreign European trade, which is not counterbalanced by the superior quickness of returns, inasmuch as the capitals which naturally seek the colonial trade are those larger ones which are not suited to the nearer branches of commerce, thus naturally drawing into them the smaller capitals, which must have quick though moderate returns. I also showed that the interest of the community is not always identical with that of its individual members—their advantage being consulted by larger profits, though with slower returns, while the public interest is rather consulted by moderate returns quickly yielded. But I showed how the colonies from the nature of their commerce, have given a peculiar means of creating and maintaining a mercantile navy—how as to the kind of vessels employed in that commerce, and as to the seamen, both in number and value, they are the best nursery of seamen, keeping the crews of vessels more together, in greater number, longer at sea, and less frequently in foreign ports. I further differed with Dr. Smith in his censures upon our colonial monopoly, even as to its effects upon our general economy, and the accumulation of wealth, and I proved—at least seemed to prove—that the monopoly only had the effect of accelerating a state of trade which would naturally have soon grown up, and only encouraged the employment of such capital as naturally tended towards that distant trade.
If any one doubts the soundness of my views upon the true relation between the colonies and the parent State, let him bear

1341
in mind how the accumulation of wealth in those remote settlements operates. Let him go to the valleys of Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, or to our northern counties of Westmoreland and Lancashire, and parts of Yorkshire—he need not investigate minutely the circumstances of the neigh-bourhood—he will trace the influence of colonial speculation in the very names of the villas and other country residences which have arisen in those districts, the property of men who have cleared the barren waste, planted the bare heath, and caused the desert to smile. He will find names borrowed from the Antilles, and from Trinidad, and from Demerara, and Berbice. Capital, the growth of agriculture and of commerce in those distant settlements, has performed these wonders thus near our home. The value of the colonies is thus inestimable in every way. It is not only the glory of our extended empire that we derive from them, not merely the brilliant lustre which they shed upon our national fame—they are invaluable, if only for the rich addition they make to our wealth—they are precious as a mercantile speculation—they are to be prized on the mere calculation of pounds, shillings, and pence—they are no less our wealth than our ornament—no less our strength than our wealth—no less our glory and our profit in peace than our support in war. To abandon these magnificent establishments, to neglect these noble dominions, would be the very worst and basest policy which a British statesman could recommend to a British Parliament. They are integral portions of our own empire, though remote from the seat of our central administration, as Cornwall is part of the united kingdom equally with Northumberland—Kerry with Middlesex. The bounty of Providence has cast our lot in a great island, fertile in all the elements of agricultural properity, and if not enjoying a tropical sun, yet blessed with a wholesome, if unstable climate, that ensures to patient industry the hardy race which thrives under our sky. But our territory, though rich, is limited in extent, and bounded by a coast peculiarly adapted to raise a breed of expert and gallant seamen; by their skill and enterprise, and patience, we have enlarged the natural limits of our realm, until into distant regions,
"The flag that braved a thousand years
The battle and the breeze,"
borne victorious over the obstructions of nature, and the force of man, has been
1342
planted on every various land, from the Charaibean to the Indian Sea, in the Antilles, Australia, the Pacific, China—till we have acquired an empire on which the sun never sets, and call the produce of every soil and every clime our own. Are we to abandon this glorious dominion? No, says my noble Friend. But are we to abandon the mercantile marine to which we owe the acquisition of it, and by which alone we can supply the Navy that enables us to retain it? The colonial monopoly, the real parent of that marine, and nursery of that navy, is the unavoidable fruit of our extended territory. Part of our dominions lying separated from the rest, our intercourse with them, truly a branch of our home trade, as I have proved, must be kept to ourselves, because it is our home trade, and the distance rendering it impossible to keep out foreigners as we easily do from our near home traffic, we seek, and naturally seek, to counteract by our laws the effects of that distance, in order that we may possess our remote dominions, as if they were near, and obtain from this extensive possession a return for the cost we incur in planting, and in ruling, and in defending them. Shall we abandon them? "No," says the noble Marquess, "by no means; let us keep them by all moans. But then," says he," I would lot all other nations benefit as much by them as we do ourselves. My philanthropy is so enlarged—my benevolence so universal—I am in principle so very a cosmopolite, that not only I pray for the prosperity of every people under the sun"—a prayer, my Lords, to which I heartily say Amen, because I agree with him that the prosperity of our neighbour is conducive to our own—but he goes further, and adds, "I will give up all the preference which we have in our own settlements, and share with every foreigner every advantage which the purses and the blood of Englishmen have purchased for England." Now, here I leave my noble Friend; I go not to this length—this fantastic length; for I plainly see that if I do, the result must be not only that foreigners will share with us the benefits of our colonial empire and colonial commerce, but that we shall not be able to share it with them. We shall ourselves be cut out of all fair participation. "Be liberal to others," said the noble Marquess, "and trust to their returning your liberality." I gravely doubt it; at all events, I had rather, with Mr. Huskisson, delay giving

1343
everything up to them until I saw they were disposed to make us somewhat of a like return. He expects the Americans, for instance, to reciprocate. There is another phrase familiar to them of late years, and which they are more likely to use—they will probably repudiate, not reciprocate—reject your ultra-liberal policy, and not imitate it. Have we not had repeated proofs of this? I don't moan of their dislike to pay their debts while bragging that their resources are so ample as to deprive them of the sorry excuse of insolvency; but I hope this vile course will soon be abandoned—because soon it will be found to be contrary to their interest to persist in such shameless frauds. But, wholly independent of that kind of repudiation, what disposition have they shown to adopt our liberal views? Did they meet us half way in the arrangements of our bonding warehouse plan? Quite the contrary; the moment we adopted it, they took measures in the opposite direction. Did they show a disposition to open their coasting trade to us, when we were invited to let them share freely in ours? Nothing of the sort. Their Minister here said it would be done; his Government said nothing should induce them to think of it. Then see the position to which you reduce yourself if this measure of my noble Friend is adopted. You have purchased, dearly purchased, your vast and rich colonial empire—and a great part of its profit is the trade you drive with its various portions. At once you are to let into a full share of its benefits all other nations, who never have paid one shilling, nor spilt one drop of blood to govern or to keep it, or indeed to do any thing but obstruct you in both getting it and defending it. All are to be let in—Americana, Dutch, French, Belgians, Danes, Swedes, and all at once—not those only who, like the Dutch, have colonies, and are willing to give up their own exclusive traffic; but those who, like the Americans and the Belgians, have none. And you let all equally in at once, instead of waiting till you can arrange reciprocity treaties with any one of them. But why are you to let them in, and yet continue the expense of governing and of defending these settlements? Surely we must make up our minds to save the cost of this empire, if we no longer are to have the benefit. At least, if others are to profit as much as ourselves, and not to pay at all, we shall be truly simple if we go on paying for their benefit. Now, the military
1344
establishment of this country stands us in above fifteen millions yearly charge. Of this force, full two-thirds is required by our colonies. Then, are we to reduce the Army, Navy, and Ordnance ten millions? Why this is the very proposition of a sect lately founded by the ultra free-trade men. They have been agitating the country to this effect; and I declare I can perceive in this argument the main reason why with them the present plan is in such favour. What care they for reciprocity? What care they for our departing wholly from Mr. Huskisson's prudent course, and giving up the quid without the quo—making the bargain without getting the consideration? The Americans have no colonies; they won't give us any share in the coasting trade which they drive through their boundless waters, both on the Atlantic and in the lakes; they don't even care, by such a participation, to purchase a share of our own insular coasting traffic; yet we are at once to let them share that which is in truth a branch of our coasting trade, and its most valuable branch—the home trade of our colonies. They may bring our produce from the West Indies to England, export our manufactures from England to the West Indies, and carry on the trade between island and island—but not a dollar's worth of their American trade will they suffer us to share; and the agitators for reducing our Army and Navy perhaps foresee that to keep up those costly establishments merely in order that the Americans may profit by them, cannot long be endured by our people. Hence, no doubt, one motive of the zeal shown by that sect, which, although insignificant, is very active to abolish what they term the colonial monopoly.
I have been considering this measure in its relation to our colonies and our commerce. But look at it in its bearing upon our shipping; for, after all, that is the gist of the question.
My noble Friend denies that there is any thing to fear from passing this Bill. Even were he to succeed in proving that there is no danger, I am sure he cannot deny that there is much fear. When did he ever before find such alarm in our trading community? When see such numbers rushing forward to petition Parliament, and pray for a respite? Look at the 47,000 petitioners from Liverpool!
EARL of HARROWBY: And the Corporation.
LORD BROUGHAM: Yes, the Corpo-

1345
ration; and men of all parties—Whig, Tory, Radical, free-trader, and advocate of restriction—all, including above 1,000 of the first houses in that great town, have implored your protection against a measure which they doom fatal to the shipping interest. To he sure, we are told that Liverpool cannot be against it, when the two Members are for it. But this is explained. One of them, a worthy Baronet, was the secretary of a Whig Minister, when at the head of the present Cabinet; the other was understood to have pledged himself against it, when he canvassed the electors—and neither has the least concern in either ships, colonies, or commerce. Can any man believe Liverpool to be otherwise than most hostile, and unanimously hostile, to the Bill, when its 1,000 I mercantile firms, its whole corporation, and 47,000 of its inhabitants, being almost every man capable of petitioning, has signed the petition against it?
Now, in coming to the most important part of the whole question, and which my noble Friend not only never touched, but from beginning to end of his able speech never came within sight of—its bearing on the shipping, on the navigation of the country—I must remark that the argument really lies in a very narrow compass. Who doubts that our present system has answered its purpose? Its object was to give us a great mercantile marine, in order that we might always have a powerful national or military navy. Who can affect to doubt that it has secured to us at all times this supreme advantage? Who pretends to deny that whatever else it may have done, or failed to do, it has accomplished its purpose of giving us fleets which defend our country at home, and its vast possessions abroad—carrying our flag in triumph over every sea? Then, surely the proof is on him who would have us abandon this system, and try, for the first time, some other. Yet not one tittle of an argument did my noble Friend give to persuade us that we should give up the plan we have tried for centuries, and for centuries found successful, in order to try a new and unknown scheme. I might safely rest the case against him here; but I will go into the subject a little further, on account of its vast importance, even at the risk of fatiguing your Lordships, and upon whose patience I have already trespassed so long. And to get at this cardinal point, on which the question really turns, I pass over the
1346
glaring inconsistency of my noble Friend, whose maxim being that all men should be allowed to frequent whatever markets they choose, and carry their goods by whatever ships they please, yet will not venture on applying his principle to the coasting trade—will not let the Newcastle man send his coals to London by the cheapest conveyance, or the Londoner buy them at the lowest price; but as carefully excludes all foreigners from the trade between the Tyne and the Thames, as if sensible that there is no safety in touching that system to which we owe our ships and our seamen. So the grower of corn must still suffer under what my noble Friend calls the remnant of the monopoly, and the consumer of bread pay dearer than is necessary for his food. Why? In order to keep the coasting trade in the hands of the British carrier: contrary—directly contrary to the whole principle of the Bill, and as if to show how little confidence its authors have in their own policy.
My noble Friend, without even approaching this part of the case—in truth, the whole of the matter in issue—contented himself with saying, in general terms, that England could enter into competition with the rest of the world in shipbuilding and in rearing seamen; but he carefully shunned all particulars—producing not a tittle of evidence—not even a table of Mr. Porter—to back his assertion. But I have read the evidence; and I find, that while all our naval authorities, with one solitary exception, whom they promoted and sent abroad before he was cross-examined, are clear against my noble Friend; and nearly all the English shipowners join in the same views. We have the testimony of Mr. Mitchell favourable to the Bill. But he, a Member of the other House, confesses that his information is mainly gathered from what he heard in a Committee of that House. What he says of his own mercantile knowledge, I own, surprises me not a little. Two English sailors, he says, will do the work of a dozen Russians (Lords' Evidence, 606, et seq.). But after much statement that looks unfavourable to the navigation law, out comes the avowal (p. 619), that were it repealed he should give a decided preference to foreign ships. His main reason is, that our captains are of so inferior a description: of two hundred in his employ, not above one half being able to read and write. Now, my Lords, I have conferred with merchants and shipowners, of ten times Mr. Mit-

1347
chell's experience, some of them, too, as good Whigs as my noble Friend himself, and as zealous advocates of free trade, and they assure me, that if such be the result of the hon. Member's experience, he has been the most unfortunate of men; for theirs is directly the reverse. Nor can I much approve the circular that has been sent from the Foreign Office to our own Consuls, for the purpose of gleaning information against the masters of our trading vessels and their mates and sailors. The Consul in any port is, perhaps, the most unfit judge you can resort to on the subject. He sees only the seamen who have got into some scrape with the natives and their authorities. When all goes well and smoothly, the Consul is little appealed to; but, doubtless, all these gentlemen were apprized of the kind of intelligence that would prove most acceptable. For ray own part, having known not a few captains, and sailed in several ships, I am bound in justice to say, they appeared intelligent men, and undeserving the censures cast upon them by some persons.
Let us now come closer to the question, and at once try the matter in issue by the known facts. Can the foreigner, when this ill-omened Bill becomes law, undersell us in the two great articles of building ships and navigating them? On this issue is joined, and I proceed to prove my case. The first witness I call is Mr. Mitchell, not the Member, but a shipbuilder and merchant of the first respectability, and Belgian Consul in the port of Leith (Lords' Evidence, 665). Wholly independent of all controversy on the navigation law, this gentleman built a vessel with the greatest possible attention to economy, and it cost him 20 l. a ton. Deduct 2l. for the timber duty—because that is not necessary, and may be taken off—we have 18 l. a ton for the cost; and in foreign ports, not excepting Dantzic—because they there build as well as any where in the world—the expense is 12 l., or 50 per cent less. But suppose the vessel could be built in our ports for 14 l. or 15 l., still the difference is quite enough to cast the balance against us, and give the foreign builder a preference. Such a preference is more than sufficient to ruin our whole shipbuilding trade. I do beseech your Lordships to pause and consider of what magnitude the interests are with which you are now dealing. In-Vested in this business is a capital of 16,000,000 l.; 3,000,000 l. are annually expended in building, 8000,000 l. in out-
1348
fits and repairs, while 80,000 shipwrights are employed at wages of 5,000,000 l. a year—a race of men as sober, skilful, and industrious, as any workmen the country can boast of; while in the dockyards of the Government there are not above 4,500. So much do we depend on the private yards for our men-of-war, that I heard Mr. Pitt, in 1804, state two-thirds of all our fleets to be built there, and of the 24 sail of the line built during the war that ended, or was interrupted by the Peace of Amiens, only two were built in the King's yards. Admiral B. Martin, too, states, that in the course of thirty or forty years above 90 sail of the line, and between 500 and 600 frigates, were built in the merchants' yards. But it is enough to remind your Lordships of the vast manufacture which you are cutting up by the roots, independent of other considerations. So much for shipbuilding, as regards the amount of it and the cost. But the argument rests not on calculations from figures, and from returns—the reason of the thing makes it manifest that we must be undersold. We have excellent oak, but that forms only 20 parts out of 55 in the construction of vessels; the other 35 parts, or 150 per cent, is fir, which we must fetch from a great distance. It is true we have the iron and copper near, which the Americans have to carry from a distance; but that makes only 15 parts in 100 of the cost incurred by the carriage of materials. It is true that Mr. Minturn (Lords' Evidence, 827), says, the American shipwrights receive 10 s. 6d. a day wages, at which one feels surprise; but no inference can be drawn from this; for when asked, "Then, of course, you always repair your ships in England, where the wages are so much lower," he answers, "Oh, no; I never think of such a thing." Why? "Be-cause repairing here is so much more expensive." Then, as for quality of ships in the Baltic, they build them good, though with oak inferior to ours; but in the Adriatic, the oak and the building are the very best in the world, and thither must a large portion of our shipbuilding be driven. What then are the wages of foreign seamen as compared with ours? The evidence taken by your Committee proves that the scale is this.—In the Baltic, the captain has 3l., and 5 per cent on the freight, making 5l. a month in all; the Dutch captains have 4l.; and the Belgians the same; but our English captains have 8?. 10 s.; and a re-

1349
spectable shipowner told me yesterday, that he never gave less than 10 l. Pretty well for men who (as Mr. Mitchell says) can neither read nor write, while the well-educated Prussian and Dutchman has from 4l. and 5l. only. Then the foreign seaman has 1l. 10 s. to 1l. 15 s. a month wages, and his food costs but 8d. a day; ours have 3l wages, and their foods costs 1s. 3d. In the United States the wages are much higher than in other foreign countries, quite as high as our own, and even somewhat higher. But then they sail their ships with fewer men, 3¼ to a ton, where we have 4½; and they feed their men worse, and make them work more—put less into them, and get more out of them. This difference in their habits of strict economy and hard labour is very remarkable. If any person will read one of the most entertaining books ever published since Robinson Crusoe, he will be convinced of this—I mean Two Years before the Mast. Read it with the determination to pass over the sea phrases, and never think of stopping to understand them, you will find it a book difficult to lay down when once you take it up. But one feeling is present to your mind during the whole perusal, the unceasing hard labour of the whole crew at all hours of the day, "from morn till noon, from noon till dewy eve." Nay, at most hours of the night season too, and all to accomplish the most minute savings. Whoever surveys the picture of American economy, and labour, and privation, presented by that little volume, will at once comprehend how it is that our transatlantic brethren can navigate their vessels at a cheaper rate than we can.
Now, your Lordships perceive, that in making these comparisons between our own shipbuilding and navigation and those of foreigners, I have relied on tables or returns, indeed on specific facts, much less than on general reasoning from known and admitted data—and this is always more satisfactory and less exposed to error. When the reason of the thing—the probability from admitted facts, goes along with the figures, our calculation is secure from being upset by other figures. We check and fortify the one by the other, and can safely rely on our returns when they tally with the general probability. Thus, I have taken the evidence as consistent with what we should expect from the near neighbourhood of shipbuilding materials in America and the Adriatic, from the various
1350
habits and conditions of labourers, and therefore of sailors in different countries; and my conclusion, checking and fortifying the evidence of the witnesses who speak to sums, gives the formidable result that without legal protection our shipbuilding and navigation must leave us and pass away to other nations.
And here, my Lords, I receive in the midst of my alarms and apprehensions, comfort, and indeed support, from an unexpected quarter; not from any witnesses sent by the Board of Trade—not from any blue books or tables—not from the respected authority of Mr. Huskisson, or Mr. Wallace, and his other coadjutors; but from the noble Marquess himself and his coadjutors—nay, from this very Bill to which he desires your concurrence. For what does it enact? Just as its very first provision after the general reciprocity clause, saves the whole coasting trade, keeps it as a strict monopoly, excludes from all share in it every foreign ship—so does the following clause retain by far the most oppressive portion of the Navigation Act, the rule that every British vessel shall have the master and three-fourths of the men British subjects. And this, be it observed, is not merely giving the foreigner an equal share of the trade with ourselves; it is giving them the advantage over us; nay, it is excluding ourselves and giving them a monopoly; for they may navigate between our colonics and England as they please with their own crews, whereas we must have no foreign seamen in our vessels; I say, none at all; for the permission is utterly nugatory of one-fourth, because you cannot employ foreigners with your own men on account of the language; and if you did, you would save nothing by it, because you must give them the same wages and the same food—you cannot have two rates of pay, two dietary tables. Thus no gain whatever can we make by the cheapness of foreign seamen; and while we suffer them to man as they find most profitable, the ships to which our carrying trade with our colonies, as well as with all other countries, must speedily be transferred, we impose on our own shippers the burthen of manning their vessels in the way they find of all others the most expensive. The provision alone is sufficient to complete our loss of a marine by transferring it to those who undersell us. Our commerce may continue; nay, it may be as gainful as before; it may even be

1351
somewhat more profitable; that is not the point; our navigation, our mercantile marine is gone; the nursery of our navy, the source of our maritime strength, the great pillar of our empire, is crumbled in the dust. Then why this gross anomaly, this utter inconsistency in the Bill? Why still insist upon retaining the positive rule, that three-fourths, or rather, for the reason I have given, the whole crew of every ship shall be British? Only for this reason, that the Government know how much depends on these seamen; that on them rests the whole strength of our navy; that after all we have heard preached about free: trade, by those who do not know what the question really is, and which has no connexion with free trade; after all that has been said against the navigation law from Pepys and his Diary to this day, nothing but the strict enforcement of the navigation law can preserve to us that invalua-able class of men, the sailors of England. Therefore while you confine your own ship-owners to one-fourth of foreign men, you leave foreigners to have four-fourths of their own people on board their ships; therefore you exclude your own subjects from the benefits of cheap carriage round your coasts—because you feel quite certain, that in no other way can any relics of your maritime nxirsery be preserved. You know and you feel, that talk as you may of monopolies and liberties in trade, the maintenance of a great navy is not the necessary consequence of an extensive commerce; for all your trade may be driven by foreigners. You know and you feel the necessity of that navy, and that a navy not being the natural growth of this country, how extensive soever her coasts, it must be forced to be had at all; that you can no more with your distance from stores, and your rate of wages, and your people's habits of indulgence, have a full supply of ships and men—a mercantile marine—by natural means, than you can have pineapples and other hothouse plants under your ungenial climate. The wisdom of all ages sanctions the position under which you only act by halves; and while by your exceptions to the measure you confess that its whole principle is wrong, you adopt enough of that principle to ruin your navy, while by stopping short of its full adoption, you show the sense of shame which hangs upon your conscience, and make the exception Work as great oppression to some classes as the rule works ruin to all.
Cast your eyes over the mighty fabric
1352
you are shaking, before its foundations be wholly undermined. Four millions of tons steered by 230,000 gallant men; from among whom 120,000 man your Royal Navy, and carry its banners in triumph over every sea on the globe: is this the peculiar season for placing such an institution in jeopardy? Is the existing state of the world precisely that which makes it fitting we should now, of all times, undertake the risks of a fundamental and sweeping change? The peace of Europe may at any time be broken; and war, foreseen or unforeseen by any one, break out—unforeseen through accidents that may always happen; foreseen as the natural fruit of a restless, unquiet, meddling policy—a policy which disregarding the motto of the gardener and of the island statesman, "look at everything, but touch nothing "—rather, not steadily looking at anything, touches everything without grasping it; and forgetting the rule, that he must grasp hard a nettle who would not be stung—so fingers all things as always to smart and to fail. If then war shall come, whether the result long dreaded of our impolicy, or suddenly from the fault of others, without any reproach on ourselves; then, indeed, must we feel, and bitterly feel, the want of our maritime resources which this measure is calculated to cut off. In 1792, before the brilliant succession of victories which crowned with undying renown the St. Vincents, the Nelsons, the Duncans, the Howes, we had but 16,000 seamen in the Royal Navy, and in less than three months 35,000 more were added to them. Whence were these recruited? Not from landsmen; to that course we were afterwards driven once under the pressure of the war, and to the quota-men of the parishes may be ascribed the darkest page of our naval annals, the only disgrace which ever stained them, the Mutiny at the Nore. But it was the mercantile marine that supplied those thousands of loyal, brave, victorious sailors. Now, instead of 16,000, we have 33,000 as our peace establishment. Heaven forbid that my worst fears; should be realised! But I cannot east my eyes across the Channel without trembling for the peace of Europe. In France, the nominal republic, nominal even as the; republic of Paris—suddenly risen upon the ruins of the monarchy—already betrays the love, let us only say, of military glory. What carries their troops to Civita Vecchia? I Not, believe me, any desire to relieve the Pope; not any love for Italian independ-

1353
ence; not even the wish to put down the disgraceful and despicable anarchy prevailing in the Roman States; nor any design of State policy to balance foreign influence in the Peninsula by meeting the forces which Austria is marching thitherward; but because the people—the Parisians, and that unhappily still means the French—are bent upon having some military proceeding somewhere executed; and that no French ruler, no Minister, no President dare oppose this irresistible national propensity. Therefore it is, that General Oudinot, Duke of Reggio, has landed, and has reported in his despatches that he succeeded without firing a shot, as if a man were to recount how he had effected a descent from the packet at Boulogne or from a wherry at Wapping without resistance, there being none to resist. I have learnt from eminent statesmen in the service of King Louis Philippe, statesmen in whose keeping, as in that of their Royal Master, I should have deemed the peace of Europe safe with the tranquillity of France, that had even they been still in the direction of French affairs, they might not have felt it possible to resist those national impulses, and avoid marching into Italy the army of the Alps. Then look to that Peninsula. In the north. Marshal Radetsky's brilliant and rapid progress has restored peace to Piedmont; a progress attended with but one error, as I most respectfully take leave to think it, the stopping short of Turin, from motives of ill-judged forbearance, always likely to produce mischief, as this one has in the blood shod at Genoa. Piedmont and Genoa have however happily been released from the heavy yoke of a wild populace and their unprincipled leaders. Tuscany, too, has freed herself, without foreign aid, from the most debasing and intolerable domination that was ever exercised by sordid and vulgar tyrants in a civilised country. The Roman States, I hope and trust, are soon to have the same relief from the same mob despotism; while Venice appears at length to be pacified by the tardy performance of the treaty with Sardinia; and the unconditional surrender of Palermo has terminated those sad scones in the dominions of our Sicilian ally—scenes on which, I am sure. Englishmen may well look back with a good deal of pain and something of remorse. Yet still the Italian Peninsula can only be said to enjoy a near prospect of peace, without any settlement having been generally effected, while the presence of at least two foreign
1354
armies within its boundaries, and three foreign fleets on its waters, leaves no little apprehension as to the continuance of its repose. Then crossing the Alps, and casting a glance over Germany, what meets our eye but disquiet and confusion, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, the elements of revolution everywhere, popular ferment universally at work, a general attempt to shake existing institutions and subvert ancient thrones, a wild longing after untried schemes of self-government. Though Russia has come down to aid our ancient ally, marching to save Hungary from the despotism of mob tyrants, and the anarchy of Polish agitators, who can deny that this very mode of pacification adds a new knot to the complicated position of European affairs? Who will guarantee us against the ferment of revolution, involving all Germany in confusion, and give us an assurance that among her neighbours this must lead to the bursting forth of war? A bold man he must be, who will confidently foretell that in three months time all Europe shall slumber in profound peace. Is this the time which wise statesmen would choose—this very year, 1849, next after the almost universal revolution of 1848, and before the agitated waters have subsided into anything like a calm—is this the most fitting moment we could hit on for making a great, a sweeping, a portentous alteration in our whole commercial policy, and abandoning the system by which our navy has been created, fostered, maintained? I speak not of the inevitable certain effects of war on our trade, our freights, our insurances, aggravating every one disadvantage into which we have seen this new maritime code must place our commerce. I speak not of commerce at all. I speak of defence. After all our past achievements, we have still powerful enemies to contend with. Our immortal triumphs on the ocean, almost eclipsed by the fame of our arms on shore—I speak in presence of the warriors whose illustrious valour has covered them with those laurels, therefore I may not dwell longer on the topic—yet all these mighty deeds, whether by sea or by land, have left two rival nations, America and Franco, unsubdued—"
Quos neque Tydides, nee Larissæus Achilles,
Non anni domuere decem, non mille carinæ"—
ready at any moment to take advantage of our weakness, and attempt our destruction. So much for the moment chosen to venture upon such a fearful change. But what counsels it, or what compels? Is it

1355
recommended to the Government by any one urgent consideration, or is it forced on them by any pressure from without? Do their friends in the country complain of their inaction, upbraid them with doing nothing, taunt them for not bringing forward bold measures? Boldness is an admirable quality in any Minister; especially when bounded by circumspection, and tempered by discretion; but I would, above all, commend the courage which is proof against yielding to clamour, and enables Lim to act under the inspiration of his own wisdom, consulting for the good of his country, careless what quarter he may displease or disappoint. It is a bastard sort of courage, which for fear of offending partisans, places in jeopardy the great interests of the nation—it is a vicarious valour, which only makes a Minister risk the loss of place, while he exposes the State to ruin, not rushing himself into danger, but pushing his country into peril, confronting his adversaries in debate while he exhausts all our means of defence; and, reckless of consequences, arms our enemies with unprecedented power. If all exclusive benefit from our colonies must be given up, and the fifteen millions now required for our establishment is no longer needful, but ten of these are to be saved, no doubt you execute the plan of the agitators for reducing our Army and Navy. Is that the class to court for whom this measure is framed—the sect of ultra free-traders that has lately sprung up, attempting to agitate the country for a reduction to this extent? Surely the Government must be aware that this body of politicians has sunk into utter insignificance—they hardly had their day—they are, as the Psalmist says, "gone hence like the shadow that departeth; they are driven away like the grasshopper." But, were they ever so powerful, you never can satisfy their demands. If you yield this measure, you take a step that can never be retraced; and will only be compelled to go forward. We are told that it is a crowning measure, and the last in this direction. But no one who looks at it with the slighest attention can flatter himself with any such hope. It contains within its bosom the seeds of fresh agitation and new demands. The coasting trade, the manning clauses, will excite new agitation by other Ricardos and other Cobdens. This is inevitable; and this should warn those who in voting for the Bill avow their dislike of it, but say they trust to its being the last attack on
1356
our old national policy. I, my Lords, stand on firmer and higher ground. I require the sins of that policy to be proved—that policy which has hitherto been ever successful in the accomplishment of its purpose—the defence of the country. Whoever would subvert it must show that it has failed, else no man of ordinary prudence will listen for a moment to his demand of a change.
In forming my judgment upon this great question, I have listened but to one voice, the voice of public duty; sinking all party, all personal considerations; and actuated only by my profound conviction of what my regard for the public safety enjoins, when I call upon your Lordships to reject this Bill. But one word more is demanded of me by what fell from my noble Friend when he intimated that certain consequences to himself and his colleagues would result from the loss of their measure. Now, on a question of minor importance, such a warning would upon my mind make the greatest impression. Upon any thing short of what I conscientiously believe to involve the fate, not merely of our mercantile navy, but of our national defence, the intimation of the noble Marquess would have weighed much with me; nay, would have made me listen readily, even gladly, to his suggestions; for I do not, on any account whatever, either public or private, from any feeling, whether of a general or a personal kind, desire to see a change in the Government. But the risk of any change I am prepared to meet, rather than see the highest interests of the empire exposed to ruin. Desiring the success of no one party in the State more than another, standing entirely aloof from all, my only anxiety is that the administration of public affairs should be in the hands of men who, unmoved by pressure from without, pursuing a rational and truly English course of policy, will honestly and manfully serve their king and country. But this measure I never can bear, because our national defence will not bear it. To sweeten the bitter cup which it will fill, I am told, and I firmly believe, nay I plainly perceive, that it must encourage slavery, and stimulate the infernal slave trade; since whatever cheapens navigation between this country and the marts for slave-grown sugar—whatever lets in the Americans, the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch, to bring over the sugars of Cuba and the Brazils, must of absolute necessity increase the African slave trade, by which the in-

1357
crease of those sugars is promoted. When this new ingredient is poured into the chalice commended to my lips this night, I can no longer hesitate, even if I had felt doubts before. All lesser considerations of party policy or parliamentary tactics at once give way; and I have a question before me on which I cannot pause, or falter, or treat, or compromise; and, regardless of the comfort in any quarter, careless with what arrangements of any individuals my voice may interfere, I know my duty, and I will perform it; as an honest man, an Englishman, a Peer of Parliament, I will lift that voice to resist the further progress of the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should upon no other occasion have considered himself competent to follow the noble and learned Lord; but as it appeared to him that a great part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord had been anticipated by the arguments of the noble Marquess, and that other parts of it had no reference to the present Bill, he was emboldened to ask their Lordships' attention for a short time. He certainly should not increase the difficulty of replying to that noble and learned Lord, by entering into the question whether this measure bore analogy or not to other free-trade measures that had been lately passed by Parliament, still less had he the slightest wish to go into the question how far the course the noble and learned Lord was now pursuing was consistent with his former professions of policy; but it certainly did appear to him that there was this analogy between the Bill then before their Lordships, and those measures by which the protective duties had been taken off of late years—they both tended to remove restrictions upon commerce—they both tended to allow competition, and to destroy what he must be allowed to say was a limited monopoly. In the course of his able speech the noble and learned Lord had taken occasion to allude to a noble and gallant Lord, the Chairman of the Navigation Committee of last year, and who was now absent on professional duty. He was ready to bear his testimony to the eminent qualities displayed by that noble and gallant Lord—to the zeal and energy he had so usefully exhibited in his professional services on the coast of Italy. At the same time, he might be allowed to say one word of the singular fairness and candour of another noble Lord who had been taken away from them for ever—he meant the late Earl of
1358
Auckland. Great as had been the loss of that noble Lord to the public and the Government, he thought the Government would never feel his loss more than on the present occasion, when his great knowledge on matters connected with the Navy, his anxious jealousy of anything that might affect the prosperity of the Royal Navy, would have made his earnest conviction that this measure was absolutely necessary for the future prosperity of that Navy of the greatest possible weight with their Lordships. He did not think it necessary to go into any of the details which had been so ably handled by the noble and learned Lord. Nothing could be fairer than the statement he had given of the history of the navigation laws; but he thought that one point had been entirely left out of consideration. The noble and learned Lord considered this as originally a subject exclusively between the English and Dutch; but what were the facts of the case? He was sure the noble and learned Lord would remember that about the same time Louis XIV. passed a law for a very high differential duty on Dutch shipping. That law began the system of restriction which had since prevailed in France; and he thought that when they considered the insignificant amount of the mercantile marine in France compared with her extent, her wealth, and geographical position, they would be right in saying that our prosperity in shipping was owing to our increased colonial trade, and, still more, to our foreign trade, and the aptitude of the inhabitants of this island to mercantile pursuits, rather than to the restrictions which had so entirely failed in a neighbouring country. The noble and learned Lord had alluded to what happened immediately after the war of American Independence, and quoted the sentiments of some illustrious Americans on that occasion, that navigation laws were necessary to protect her interests. If he was not mistaken, those sentiments were uttered, not when America was free to pursue such course as she liked best, but when she was cut off, not only from intercourse with our colonies, but also from the trade of this country itself. But the noble and learned Lord had not alluded to the commercial difficulties of this question. It appeared to him (Earl Granville) that the law as it now stood required only to be read, for it to be clearly seen that there were commercial inconveniences attending it. Perhaps some noble Lords were more inclined to listen to the ship-

1359
owners and merchants, rather than to the theory of the Government on this question. Now, the shipowners were exactly the persons to whom they proposed by this Bill to apply the stimulus of competition, and although that stimulus was found in many cases to be not only useful to the community but to the class to whom it was to be applied, yet he believed it was without example that that class itself should be the first to invite that competition. He had great respect for the shipowners of this country, and it was far from his intention to believe that they were willing to deceive the public in this respect; but he could not believe they practically felt all the alarm that they expressed, for though this Bill was passed with a large majority in the House of Commons, and although there was some chance of its passing their Lordships' House, yet he was informed, on very good authority, that there were not at present more ships on sale than at any time in the last three years, and that large sums were being expended at Southampton and other places in building ships. Another class from whom petitions came were the farmers of this country. He did not think they were very well informed on the subject. He might say, without any want of respect to that body, that he should doubt whether any large body of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits knew what the provisions of the navigation laws were, or whether they ever for themselves had reflected what would be the consequence of the repeal of those laws. He must, he thought, have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but he understood him to say that by the present law French ships could not bring Russian produce from France. He (Lord Granville) was at a loss to know in what part of the Act that restriction was to be found. Then he understood that a large body of merchants apprehended great dangers from this Bill. He could not agree entirely with those who thought that, in matters of legislation, practical merchants were better informed than the Government. It had been his duty to go often to the custom-house, and he had seen there the great increase in the trade of the port of London, and the difficulty the custom-house had of meeting the increased demands of the merchants, and also he had seen the quay crowded with articles which had formed a new branch of commerce under the free-trade measures. That observation had done nothing to lessen the notion he
1360
entertained that free trade had increased the wealth of the country, and also in a great degree added to the advantages of the carrying trade. In the course of the inquiry on this subject, the Committee came to the warehousing system, and the first witness they examined said he had given some valuable information to the American Minister, who some three or four years ago came over to inquire and report on our trade. He held in his hand an American paper which contained the whole of the report made by that commissioner, in which he spoke highly of our warehousing system, and recommended the adoption of it by America. The report said—
"It is believed that there was scarcely an Act ever passed by the British Parliament that has aided more than the warehousing law to augment her manufactures, commerce, tonnage, and revenue. It is thus seen how Great Britain has made herself the centre of universal commerce and exchanges, and the storehouse of the business of the world."
No Peer in that House, no man in the kingdom, could deny the benefits that that system had conferred on the trade of this country. He would remind their Lordships that whilst the foreigner might send his produce here to be warehoused for exportation in any ships he pleased, yet if our own colonies sent their produce in a foreign ship, that produce was not allowed to be exported, but could be seized and confiscated. But who first introduced the principle of this measure? Sir R. Walpole more than a century ago. But what was the result of his doing so? Not only did he incur personal risk to a great extent, but he was obliged to postpone the measure, which was not brought forward until the beginning of this century, in consequence of the opposition of the merchants of London and Liverpool, who insisted that that measure would be the destruction of the commerce of the country. He left it to their Lordships to say whether the Ministers or the merchants of London and Liverpool were in the right. In the same way Mr. Peel, the father of Sir R. Peel, who represented the manufacturers of the country, stated to their Lordships, on the Bill for throwing open the trade between this country and Ireland, that it was impossible the English manufacturer could compete with the cheap labour of the Irishman, and that he was determined, if the Bill passed, to emigrate to Ireland. Mr. Peel was supported in that view by the merchants of Liverpool; but he would ask

1361
whether they were right in their view? He believed that the merchant of this country was pre-eminent for good sense, intelligence, skill, and enterprise, and remarkable also for that Anglo-Saxon quality which had led so much to our prosperity in every walk of life, namely, a power of concentration to the business in hand. The merchant found trade forced by the navigation laws into certain channels. In one of those he found his profit. The interest of the consumer was not his particular business; and he might feel that if the Channel were opened it might bring some competition into that trade. The view which he took of this part of the case was borne out by the answers given by some of the commercial men who were examined before their Lordships' Committee. Those gentlemen gave remarkably sensible and intelligent evidence relative to their own trade, and then declared that they experienced no inconvenience from the navigation laws, but apprehended danger from their repeal. On looking more closely to their evidence, however, it appeared that several of those witnesses said, "I have not turned my attention to the navigation laws, "or" I never considered the bearing of the navigation laws on this question;" whilst another declared that "he did not understand the navigation laws," and added, what was very likely to he true, "that very few persons did understand them." The inconvenience which these laws caused to commerce was of so marked a character, that he really felt it unnecessary to refer to particular instances, or to enter into detail with respect to this part of the subject. What could be more onerous to our merchants than to prevent them from availing themselves of a glut of an article in a foreign port to supply the demand which might exist for that article in this country? If there was one point more clearly established than another by commercial experience it was, that a merchant would always bring his goods to the best and largest market. Thus a merchant who had a cargo of sugar would bring it to London or Liverpool, though it would cost him more to do so than if he carried it to smaller ports, to which part of the produce would perhaps ultimately be sent. Should the relaxation of the navigation laws be carried further, foreigners would warehouse their goods here, because they would then have the chance of the home market, which they were deprived of at present. The fluctuation of freight was another inconvenience
1362
which the navigation laws inflicted upon merchants. It was clear that it was a disadvantage to the shipowner to have freights unreasonably low, and it was equally a disadvantage to the merchant and to the shipowner when freights were unreasonably high; for a high rate of freights invariably caused an influx of capital into the shipbuilding trade, which as certainly caused a reaction that was injurious to the shipowner. Thus they found by the evidence of one gentleman, that in 1821, when freights were low, that the percentage of foreign ships to English was 20 to 80; in 1825, when freights were high, they found the proportion of foreign ships increased to about 30 to 70; in 1828, when freights again went down, the foreign fell to 23 against 77 English; and in 1840, when freights rose again, the foreign again increased in the ratio of 32 to 68. Another inconvenience to which commerce was subjected by the navigation laws respected the manning of our vessels. A ship might be brought over from India by a crew composed chiefly of Lascars; but the merchant was prevented from working out the ship again with the same crew. He must employ three-fourths British seamen, whom he did not want. These laws also burdened the shipowner with the obligation of employing a certain number of apprentices. He was unable to understand the observations which the noble and learned Lord made relative to the advantages which the Brazils and Cuba would have over our colonies in the event of the navigation laws being repealed. At present our colonies were restricted to British vessels, whilst they had to compete with those of Spain, Cuba, and the Brazils; but the case would be different if the navigation laws were repealed; for our colonies might then avail themselves of the ships of other nations to obtain supplies of free labourers. It might be recollected that Lord Harris, in one of his despatches, stated that the colonists were obliged to pay double freights in consequence of being compelled to employ none but British ships to bring them free labourers. But he would not go into the question of the colonies, as, no doubt, his noble Friend (Earl Grey) would discuss that part of the question at length. He would merely observe, that it would not be difficult to show the injustice, the impolicy, almost the impossibility of continuing to govern their colonies unless they did away with the most restrictive part of the navi-

1363
gation laws. He now came to the foreign part of the question. Amongst foreigners, the people of the United States were those from whom it was said we had the most to fear. The noble and learned Lord stated, that he had some doubts whether the United States would reciprocate with them. He could say, that when this country had made concessions, the United States made concessions; when they imposed restrictions, the United States imposed restrictions also. And he must say, with regard to the measure which Mr. Pitt wished to introduce, that if it had been carried it would have put an end to great commercial inconvenience to both countries, and have taken away all ground for bad feeling in consequence of acts of Congress and proclamations of the President on the one side, and Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council on the other. But the law, as it stood now, was a greater inconvenience to them than to America. He apprehended that no possible injury could result from this Bill, either in respect to this country or to foreign countries; for the Bill would in effect be a self-acting law. Already they had the assurance of the American Government of the construction which they would put upon it, and that they were perfectly ready to give everything which it was proposed to ask by this Bill. Moreover, if it were supposed that there was any danger of a reactionary policy in America in favour of protection, it would be wise to strike while the iron was hot, and at once to put our relations with that country on a sound and intelligible footing. Allusion had been made to the differential duties imposed upon our goods and vessels by the German Customs Union. Undoubtedly, the Zolverein and Prussia had manifested a determination to retaliate the restriction which our navigation laws imposed upon them. From her position Prussia must always exercise great influence in the north of Germany; and although it might happen that, by imposing discriminating duties upon our goods and vessels, Prussia would injure herself more than she could hurt us, yet it would not be fitting for England, the greatest commercial country in the world, to enter into a war of hostile tariffs, particularly when that contest was founded on an unjust principle. Russia, too, had given notice, that when the existing treaty with her expired, she would impose upon us restrictions similar to those to which we subjected her. The noble
1364
and learned Lord had twitted the Government with not having repealed the provision which compelled shipowners to man their vessels with crews composed, as regarded three-fourths, of British seamen, and also with not having thrown open the coasting trade. Those were questions which might more fully be considered in Committee; but he could not avoid making a few observations on the latter point. The concurrent evidence of all the witnesses examined proved that it was a matter of indifference to foreigners whether the coasting trade were open or shut, because no foreigner would enter it. There was, he believed, no objection on the part of the Government to the opening of the coasting trade, except an apprehension of the increased facilities which would thereby be given for smuggling, and a desire to avoid increasing, for no practical object, the alarm which unnecessarily prevailed respecting the proposed change in the navigation laws. The ground upon which a great portion of the opposition to the Bill rested, was the alleged inability of the British shipbuilders to compete with foreign shipbuilders. Now, as to the comparative cost of building ships here and abroad, he was informed, by a practical man, engaged in the trade of copper sheathing, that ships could be built as cheaply in this country as in Norway or Sweden, if they were built of the same quality. An instance was given of a ship built in Norway for 9,000 l., which was afterwards sent to his (Lord Granville's) informant to be coppered, and have additional knees, &c., at a cost of 1,000 l.; making altogether 10,000 l. for a ship which would not have sold for more than 6,000 l. in this country. He found that fifteen witnesses had all given different estimates of the cost of building ships, varying from 24 l. to 6l. 16 s. a ton. Any argument advanced to show the impossibility of continuing to build ships here, on account of the greater money cost, went to prove that Mr. Green and Mr. Wigram were guilty of egregious folly when they paid 24 l. per ton for ships built on the Thames, when they could have them built for 10 l. a ton elsewhere. He believed the truth to be, that no country in the world could build ships for a smaller amount of money than our North American colonies. Russia appeared to be able to build as cheaply the inferior class of vessels; but of the best quality, no ships were cheaper than those built in this country. The fairest way of instituting a comparison

1365
was, not to compare the ships of one country with those of another, overlooking the condition and circumstances in which they were produced, but to look at the elements for shipbuilding possessed by the different countries. As regarded this country and the United States, he found that all the elements of shipbuilding, including iron, copper sheathing, copper bolts, and sails, were cheaper in this country. Some persons thought the cost of timber made an enormous difference; but he found by the evidence of Mr. G. F. Young, that the whole cost of the foreign timber employed in a ship was only 380 l. Some stress was laid upon the circumstance, that foreigners had provisions and stores cheaper than we could obtain them; but even in that respect the disadvantage to the British shipowner would amount only to the cost of freight from the port at which those articles could be obtained at the cheapest rate. As to the British sailor, he disagreed from the noble and learned Lord, and believed that our sailors had a natural instinct and aptitude for maritime pursuits, which rendered them the best sailors in the world; and the proof of this was that three-fourths of the seamen employed in the American marine were English. Nor was it to be supposed that our seamen would seek employment in American ships, if the noble and learned Lord were correct in stating that the Americans worked them harder and fed them worse. The noble and learned Lord complained of the calumny which he said had been directed against a large proportion of the captains of the English mercantile marine on account of their alleged inferiority to foreign captains; and the noble and learned Lord justified his defence of English captains by his own experience. Now, it must be observed that the captain in command of the vessel in which the noble and learned Lord was likely to be a passenger, was probably one of the best captains in the world. It was not his wish to speak disparagingly of the captains of our mercantile marine as a body, but, looking at the evidence given upon this point, it seemed impossible to deny that a considerable proportion of them were deficient in the information which was necessary for their profession. The noble and learned Lord was not entitled to throw discredit upon the testimony which our consuls had given upon this point. Lord J. Hay stated that if the inquiry had been sufficiently protracted to have permitted of
1366
his doing it, he could have produced numerous instances of the want of information exhibited by our mercantile commanders. It was in evidence that more accidents happened to vessels sailing under the English flag, than to those of any other nation, and that it was owing to the superior construction of our ships, rather than to the skill of our captains, that the loss of life and property was not much greater than actually occurred. He now came to the statistical part of the case; and he must say that he should have been surprised at hearing the noble and learned Lord inveigh against the statistical information which had been brought to bear upon this question, had he not known it was adverse to the noble and learned Lord's view of the case. Looking to the position of the noble and learned Lord, and to the high office which he had held in the State, it was to be regretted that he should have employed his giant eloquence and powerful sarcasm in attempting to crush Mr. Porter of the Board of Trade. Although Mr. Porter's position was inferior to that of their Lordships, he was actuated by as honourable feelings as appertained to any Member of that House, and it was hard that he should be exposed to an attack of this nature when he was unable to defend himself. He (Earl Granville) was inferior to Mr. Porter in ability, information, and experience; and therefore he regretted that it fell to his lot to explain that that gentleman had been the subject of great misrepresentation. Mr. Porter had been attacked with reference to a return issued from the Board of Trade, giving a comparative view of the shipping employed in the protected and unprotected trade. A great outcry was raised against the heading of this return, and it was shown that that very heading was founded in a description given by Mr. George Frederick Young himself before the Committee of the other House. It appeared from the return that whereas the protected trade had increased 94 per cent, the unprotected or rather the less protected trade, had increased 182 per cent. But it was objected that this was an unfair distribution, and that China, Russia, and the Brazils, ought to be included in the protected trade. That was done, and the effect was to lower the percentage increase of that trade to 91, and to raise the percentage of the less protected trade to above 200. It was next said that the whole of the South American trade ought to be included in the protected

1367
division. That was done; and the percentage of the protected trade reached 94, whilst that of the less protected stood at 200. The objections were not yet exhausted; it was alleged that a largo number of mercantile steamers, which were constantly sailing to and from the Continental ports, were improperly included in the less protected trade. A deduction was made on that account also; but, after all, the increased ratio of the less protected trade was too evident to admit of dispute. As far, therefore, as statistical information went, it established that the relaxations made in our commercial system in 1825 had caused a great increase in our trade. But it was not possible, by any kind of legislation, to prevent foreign nations, with their increase of civilisation and wealth, from increasing their navigation in time of peace; and, so far from effecting this object, the navigation laws protected the particular trade of each country just as much as they protected our own. It was a curious fact with respect to Denmark—one of the countries which was said to possess a great advantage over us as regarded economy in shipbuilding—that our indirect trade with that country was three times as great as our direct trade, and the former was unprotected. It was also worthy of notice that at the present moment this Denmark, so much dreaded by shipowners, was advertising for British seamen to serve in their fleet. The real question was, could other countries drive us out of the direct trade which we now enjoyed? Let their Lordships compare the progress of our mercantile marine with that of the United States, as evidenced by the ships entering the ports of that country, and consider whether we can beat the Americans without any restriction whatever. It appeared from a return of American and foreign vessels which entered the ports of America for the year ending the 30th of June, 1848, that the centesimal proportions were as follows: United States' ships, 63.00; British, 30.99; all other nations, 6.00—the latter small percentage represented the competition of all other countries of the world, from whom it was now represented we had so much to dread. Their Lordships were aware that the American shipping was divided into two parts—that employed in foreign trade, and that engaged in their immense coasting and internal navigation trade. The increase which had taken place in American shipping since 1815 was chiefly in the coast-
1368
ing trade. The foreign trade of the United States had increased only forty-five per cent since that period, whilst their coasting trade had increased 108 per cent. Taking the foreign British tonnage to have increased in thirty-two years thirty-three and a half per cent, and the American foreign tonnage forty-five per cent, yet he would ask their Lordships to consider whether there had not been at the same time a considerable difference in the increase of population. In the same number of years the population of this country had increased fifty-one per cent, while the increase in the population of the United States was about 144 per cent. Thus the increase of population in the latter case, as compared with the former, was as three to one; while the increase of tonnage was only about three to two. Our present navigation laws actually subjected us to a disadvantage as regarded the Americans. Their great shipping trade consisted in bringing over bulky articles, the produce of their own country; while the most desirable cargo that we could send out consisted in sorted articles, not only English, but foreign goods. Thus, while we could take out only part of a cargo of our own goods, a United States' ship could take a freight either composed entirely of American goods, or partly American and partly European goods. With regard to Portugal, the port wine produced in that country added considerably to the comfort and enjoyment of a large class in this country, and the commerce in this article, if carried on without injurious restrictions, would be an advantage to both countries. But Portugal, by ingenious fiscal arrangements, had contrived to impose a differential duty on the export of port wine to this country, as compared with its exports to other countries. The English importer, to avoid this differential tax, had thought of sending the port wine to the United States in the first instance. The navigation law, however, of the United States prevented English ships bringing it to America, even to be warehoused; and therefore the article was sent in American vessels to America, and came back to this country with the prejudice attaching to it of not being imported direct. Thus the fiscal restrictions on the one side, and our navigation laws on the other, occasioned the inconvenience of a voyage twice across the Atlantic, and put, at the same time, a considerable portion of the profit into the pockets of the Americans. He deplored that Por-

1369
tugal should think it necessary to impose this differential duty against one of her hest customers, but he still more deplored that this country should think it worth while to set an example of restriction which he must he allowed to say was one of a pitiful description. The noble and learned Lord had alluded in eloquent terms to the disastrous effects which would follow the destruction of the mercantile and military marine of this country. He (Earl Granville) beheved that this country, so long as it maintained its insular position, would never be found without a sufficient marine to protect it. And if he could so far extend his imagination as to fancy that the Bill now on the table could have the effect of extinguishing the fires in our steam-ships, of shutting up our shipbuilding yards, or starving the British seaman, he was ready to admit that then the mercantile marine would receive a heavy blow, and that this country would not preserve the naval supremacy she had hitherto enjoyed. But the real question was, whether this country was able or unable to compete with foreigners? He must say that he thought in listening to the noble and learned Lord's argument, to the effect that this country could not so compete, that similar arguments might have been used by any other Peer, possessing like eminent talents for debate, some seventy or eighty years ago, to show the impossibility of our competing in the manufacture of cotton goods with the cheap and skilful labour of the Indian artisan, who had the raw material under his very hand. But every one know what the progress of the cotton manufacture had been; and that we had inundated the world with the produce of our machines. To what was this owing? Whether it was owing to an accumulation of capital, and a disposition to rest satisfied with a smaller rate of interest than other people in the world—and he did not think that the events of last year were likely to diminish that disposition—whether it was owing to the ingenuity, skill, and mechanical invention of the population of this country; every one of these arguments applied equally to shipbuilding and ship navigation; and, in addition, the materials were as cheap here as in any other country. He had, therefore, no doubt but that if their Lordships passed the present Bill the shipbuilder of this country would have as great if not greater success than had attended the manufacturer engaged in any other article in this
1370
country. Before concluding, he would mention one circumstance that gave him satisfaction in supporting the present Bill. Whenever other changes had taken place in commercial legislation by the destruction of monopolies or by the introduction of machinery, for a time individuals and classes had felt a temporary inconvenience; but it was clear, whatever the result of the present proposed change might be, that no country possessed capital, ships, or sailors at once to compete with this country. Therefore the struggle, should it come, would be a gradual one; the shipowners would have time to prepare for it; and of the result of that struggle he, for one, did not entertain any doubt.
LORD COLCHESTERrose for the purpose of submitting to the House an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Marquess (the President of the Council.) The object of the original framers of the navigation laws, had been to promote the safety and strength of this nation by the encouragement of British shipping and British seamen. The noble Marquess had quoted the Acts of navigation passed between the reigns of Richard II., and that of Edward VI., but he had passed over those of Queen Elizabeth. The 5th Elizabeth, cap. 5, was the first germ of the existing system: it excluded foreigners from our coasting trade—encouraged the fisheries—and prohibited the importation of wine, and other produce of France, except in British vessels. The famous ordinance of Cromwell, in 1651, fully developed the system, which was confirmed and extended by Charles II. at his restoration. These successive enactments, passed under such different circumstances, show them to have been founded on general principles, and not to have been merely ebullitions of anger against foreign rivals. It was necessary to distinguish between commerce and navigation; a nation might possess an extensive commerce carried on by means of the shipping of other countries, as is now the case, in a great measure, with Russia and Turkey; but it is upon the extent of its own shipping and seamen that the power as well as the wealth of an insular empire like England depends. This was the object of the founders of the navigation laws; and he trusted to show that this object had been attained. The noble Marquess had quoted a passage from Pepys' Diary, to show that a scarcity of seamen prevailed fifteen years after the passing of the law; but he (Lord Colchester) believed

1371
this was at a moment when there was a hot press to man the fleet for the Dutch war, and sailors kept out of sight. Several writers of eminence spoke of the great increase of shipping and trade within the first forty years after the ordinance of 1651. Davenant states our shipping to have doubled between 1660 and 1686. Sir Josiah Child, in his Tract on Trade, says—" The Navigation Act does occasion the building and employing three times the number of ships and seamen we otherwise should do;" and Sir William Petty, in his Political Arithmetic, printed 1691, says, shipping within the last forty years had greatly increased. No regular periodical accounts of the amount of shipping appear to have been kept during the first half of the 18th century; but from the year 1760, annual returns of the shipping of England and Scotland, are given in Macpherson's Annals of Commerce. Hence there appear to have been in the years—

1760

486,740

tons of shipping.

1770

665,623

,,

1780

618,853

,,

1790

1,287,115

,,

1800

1,628,143

,,

showing that although a diminution took place between the years 1770 and 1780, owing to our struggle against the combined forces of France and Spain during the war of American independence, yet that upon the whole period of forty years our shipping had increased more than threefold; and if the period of peace between 1782 and 1792 be taken separately, it will be found that during that short period our shipping more than doubled; and while our commerce thus increased under the navigation laws, its safety and strength were maintained by the numerous body of gallant seamen obtained from this commercial navy for the service of their country. Through them Rodney was enabled to gain that victory in 1782 which restored to us an honourable peace; and by the celerity with which our fleets were manned from this source, on those successive occasions during the succeeding ten years, when differences occurred with France, Russia, and Spain, we were enabled to maintain our rights without a rupture of peace; and thus, as was observed by a distinguished Admiral before their Lordships' Committee, the blessings of peace were preserved to us, and thousands of lives and millions of money saved. It had been asserted out of their Lordships'
1372
House that now seamen could not be obtained in the same manner; but he felt assured that the great body of our seamen would be ready to come forward at the call of their Sovereign; and if any held back, a law compelling them to take their share in the defence of their country would be willingly received by the seamen generally. The shipping of Great Britain continued to increase considerably from 1810 to 1815; but the general war which raged during that period throughout Europe, and latterly extended to America, so deranged the ordinary course of commerce, that no argument as to the effectof the navigation law could be drawn from it. From 1815 to 1824 some decrease had taken place in British shipping. Mr. Huskisson, in his speech, in May, 1826, had given the four following reasons, which he considered sufficient for this decline. 1. The cession, at the peace, of valuable colonies, captured, and held, during the war. 2. The abolition of the (British) slave trade. 3. The extinction of the Barbary corsairs by Lord Exmouth's victory at Algiers, which gave to the neighbouring States a coasting trade which had previously employed from 700 to 800 British vessels. 4. Diminution of employment in the transport service, amounting to 1,226 vessels, measuring 270,382 tons. The great progressive increase of British shipping since 1824, was admitted on all hands; but while the opponents of the navigation laws attributed it to the relaxations in those laws which took place between 1822 and 1825, others considered it as only the natural result of the altered state of the commercial world, arising from the emancipation of the States of South America, the increasing population and wants of the United States, and of our own colonies; and the general prosperity arising from a long period of peace. If, under such circumstances, our shipping had not largely increased, such a result would have been, as certainly, and with more justice, attributed to the navigation laws; but he had already shown their Lordships that up to the commencement of the century the increase under those laws had been steady and considerable, and a similar result might have been now expected. In considering the details of this increase of our shipping, it was necessary to advert to those Parliamentary returns of trade and navigation, which had been so much commented upon by noble Lords who had preceded him in

1373
the debate. Without intending to dispute the accuracy of these returns for the purpose for which they were primarily intended—to show the progress of trade; yet when they were applied to that of navigation, they were utterly worthless; for as they included avowedly the repeated voyages made by each vessel within the year—an increase of entries and clearances may show increased activity of commerce, but not necessarily increase of shipping. A striking example was given of this before their Lordships' Committee, where 47 seven vessels, measuring in the aggregate, 7,101 tons, were made, owing to the counting of their repeated voyages, to represent 228,127 tons of British shipping. But it was objected that those laws were useless, because, in trades between two foreign ports, our shipping was exposed to unrestricted competition, and yet carried off the prize. This was not altogether a correct statement of the case, as this voyage between two foreign ports was not, generally, an independent transaction, but only a portion of a larger venture, commencing and terminating in England: as from London to the Brazils, thence to the Mediterranean, and so back to England; in which latter portion, at least, the British ship enjoys the protection of the navigation law, thus enabling her to take a lower freight in the intermediate portion. But even in direct trades the competition is not always favourable, at present, to England; the imports from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, are almost entirely brought in the vessels of those countries, and two-thirds of the whole imports from the united States come in American vessels. In the Brazils, the number of vessels clearing with cargoes from the port of Rio Janeiro was, in 1847—

Vessels.

Tons.

United States of America

194

63,73

British

94

31,730

Danes

44

89

28,111

Swedes

41

Norwegians

4

Thus showing the American trade doubled the British, while the two northern nations of Sweden and Denmark were nearly equal to that of England. But when, as proposed by the Bill before their Lordships, all protection should be taken from British shipping, the advantage must remain with those who could equip and navigate their ships most cheaply. There was one branch of our commerce which remarkably exemplified what might occur. This was the southern whale fishery, which was con-
1374
sidered to produce our hardiest seamen; and as every one employed in it, from the master of the vessel down to the cabin boy, was remunerated, not by fixed wages, but by a share in the produce of the fishery, there was every inducement to exertion; and those exertions do not appear to have been wanting, as it is stated, that, ship for ship, they have been as successful in catching fish as their competitors the Americans; yet this trade, which in 1821 employed 164 ships carrying about thirty men each, has decreased to twenty-one ships; and in 1848 only one ship was fitting out for the southern fishery. In the same period the Americans had increased from 130 ships to 659 ships in the same trade; and this is entirely attributed by Mr. Enderby to the superior cheapness with which the Americans were enabled to equip their ships, and to Parliamentary legislation, which, in 1821, took away the bounties previously given to ships engaged in this fishery, and to the reduction in the duties on vegetable oils. Sow, it appeared from the evidence before their Lordships' Committee, that a British ship of the best materials to stand for twelve years upon the highest class of Lloyd's Register (A 1, 12), costs, when equipped for sea, 16 l. to 22 l. per ton; best New York ships, 14 l. 10 s.; Hamburg, 11 l 11 s. to 18 l. 10 s.; Danish, 10 l.; Lubec, 10 l Wages per month—England, 45 s. to 65 s.; United States, 50 s. to 62 s.; Holland, 33 s.; Norway, 28 s. to 30 s.; Prussia, 24 s. to 30 s.; Denmark, 24 s.; Sweden, 23 s. Provisions per day—England, 10 d. to 15 d.; the nor thern nations, 8d.; this difference arising more from the superior quantity and quality of the ration of the English sailor, than from the cost of the food. Dr. Colquhoun, Consul for the Hanse Towns, when examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, put in a very detailed statement of the cost of building, and equipping, and navigating ships in those commercial cities. He there states the cost of a Lubec ship of the first quality, destined for the transatlantic trade, when equipped for sea, to be from 8l. 15 s. to 9l. 2s. per ton. Taking this as a standard, he further states, of vessels of other nations engaged in the same trades, the English are two-fifths dearer; the Dutch and Danes, somewhat dearer; the Swedish and Norwegians, three-sevenths cheaper, but not so durable; Finnish, four-sevenths cheaper—not so durable as Lubec, but better than Swedish. Provisions in Lubec ships,

1375
10 d. a day. The greater expense to the British shipowner, in wages and provisions, as well as in building and equipping his ship, is here distinctly shown. The two first items are undisputed; but with regard to building, it has been asserted, that although the first expense of the British ship is greater, it is more than compensated by her greater durability. The reply given to this argument by Mr. Wigram, the eminent shipbuilder of London, would seem conclusive. He stated to their Lordships' Committee, that—
"The difference would be so much in favour of the foreign ship, as to return the capital invested in her with interest, and all expenses of navigating her, so far as I have been able to ascertain them, in a much shorter time than the English ship; for instance, the English ship would require eight and a half years to return the capital invested, when an American ship built of materials and workmanship to be registered twelve years in Lloyd's Register, would return the capital in five years. The owner would also have the advantage of the difference of cost, as a capital which he could employ in other parts of his business."
The clause of the Navigation Act which prohibits the importation from Europe, in any ship whatever, of the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, has been complained of as absurd; but it is evident, that wherever it could be imported into the continental parts of Europe more cheaply than by British ships, it would be always brought here from those ports, as the supplies were required, thus depriving the British ship of the long voyage, and throwing the ships and men now engaged in it, out of employ; and not only that, but might interfere considerably with the coasting trade; as much tropical produce imported into London is afterwards sent coastwise to the different towns on the south and eastern coasts of England, which, if the law permitted, might be sent direct to those towns from the ports of Holland at as small a cost as from London. It was also stated to their Lordships' Committee that the British manufacturer had an advantage over his foreign competitor, from all Indian produce coming first to this country, giving him the first choice in the market of those materials required in his trade. It had next been objected to the continuance of the present laws, that foreign nations were disposed to retaliate Upon us our own prohibitory system; and that in such case, besides inconvenience in the direct trades, we should at once lose an amount of indirect trade, equal to 225,000 tons of shipping, or one-sixth of our whole European trade. He, however, considered
1376
it Very doubtful whether foreign nations would be so disposed to act, and thereby lose the advantages they possessed under the reciprocity treaties. The real tonnage of shipping employed in the indirect trade, appeared also to be exaggerated from the mode already alluded to, of including repeated voyages. From the tables placed by Mr. Porter before their Lordships' Committee, it appeared almost certain that these voyages between two foreign ports were only small portions of an entire voyage which would equally be made, though in a different course; or that they were short voyages often repeated in the course of the year, in which case the real amount of tonnage liable to be thrown out of employment must be proportionably diminished. In proof of this, he would state, that of 81,000 tons of shipping which entered the Russian ports of Odessa and Taganrog in the Black Sea, 74,000 tons entered from ports of Turkey, and above 2,000 tons from other ports of the Black Sea, leaving less than 6,000 tons from distant parts. So, of 20,500 tons entering the ports of Messina and Palermo, above 17,000 came from other ports of Sicily or of Italy. He came, now, lastly, to the question of the colonial trade, to which he would only briefly advert, having already trespassed upon their Lordships' patience. The representations of grievance came chiefly, if not entirely, from the West Indies and Canada. The complaints of Jamaica and Trinidad were, that they were restricted to British ships for the carriage of their staple produce, and the latter island further complained that the Navigation Acts prevented her from receiving many articles from France and Spain in French and Spanish vessels, and from carrying on a profitable indirect trade with Venezuela. Now with respect to the carriage of their staple produce, the only restriction was in the voyage to England; and it was shown to their Lordships' Committee, by numerous witnesses competent to speak to the fact, that there was no want of British vessels to bring home the produce at reasonable freights; and the present law permits foreign vessels to export to all parts except to England. The prohibition to import into Trinidad in French or Spanish vessels, arose from the refusal of those countries to grant corresponding privileges to England; but even under these circumstances Her Majesty had power to admit those unconditionally, by Order in Council, and also by the same

1377
authority to erect free warehousing ports in Trinidad, to which foreigners might bring articles of commerce for re-exportation, taking in return such others as they might require, and thus making the desired entrepôt. Why Her Majesty's Ministers had never advised the issue of such Orders in Council it was for them to state. Canada, from its peculiar geographical position, as well as from the loss of fixed protection to its agriculture, demanded, perhaps, the most consideration from their Lordships; and he did not believe there would be any disposition in that House to prevent the Canadian Assembly from legislating with regard to their internal matters as might seem most consistent with their prosperity. But Lord Elgin had already stated in his despatch of March, 1847, that almost all the grievances complained of regarding the lower navigation of the St. Lawrence would be removed by the creation of Montreal into a free port: this as he (Lord Colchester) had already stated in regard to Trinidad, could be effected without any fresh legislative enactment. At the same time he felt the colonies, in their present depressed state, to be deserving of whatever relief their Lordships could give, short of breaking down the principles of the navigation law. Having now, as he trusted, shown that the original intention of the navigation laws was to promote the wealth, safety, and strength of these realms, by the encouragement of British shipping and British seamen; that under this system there had been raised up a great commercial marine, the basis of a powerful Royal Navy; that this increase of British shipping had been gradual and constant, and not confined to any late period; he trusted that their Lordships would not, this night, risk the loss of that naval greatness we now enjoyed, and with it the loss of our national greatness, by agreeing to what the noble Marquess, who opened the debate, openly and candidly avowed to be a repeal of the navigation laws. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Marquess, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Original Motion and Amendment put.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, that it was with great reluctance that he trespassed upon the attention of their Lordships upon a subject as vast as it was important; and to the discussion of which, he was deeply conscious, he brought both powers and information greatly inferior to many
1378
noble Lords who had preceded him; but being locally connected with some of the most important maritime and commercial communities in this country—the western districts of Scotland—several representations had been made to him with reference to this measure, which he trusted would be an apology for his unwillingness to give a silent vote. He would not, however, do more than explain very briefly the grounds upon which his vote would be founded. There were three great general points of view in which this subject might be, and had been, discussed: first, with reference to the abstract principles of free trade; next, upon its own intrinsic merits; and, lastly, on the ground of the political situation of the country. With regard to the first of these points, he believed his own opinion would not be at variance with the general opinion of that House. He had no sympathy with those who would make the maxim of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market a dogma to be applied in every ease, and under all circumstances. A celebrated Member of the other House of Parliament had said, in the course of a debate upon this subject last year, that though he believed this country could maintain competition with foreign countries, yet if he had been unable to support that argument, he would still have voted for this Bill, because he considered that in all cases, and under all circumstances, we ought to buy in the cheapest market. He (the Duke of Argyll) could not quite concur in that proposition, neither could he agree with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), who had addressed the House in the early part of this debate, that this question had no connexion with the principles of free trade; because it appeared to him that it had precisely the same connexion with free trade that the repeal of the corn laws had. What was the ground upon which Adam Smith objected to the removal of the navigation laws? He took it for granted that they were essential to the defence of the country, and that if they were repealed, we should be unable to compete with foreigners in the matter of navigation. But he (the Duke of Argyll) apprehended that if Adam Smith had entertained the same views with regard to free trade in corn—if he had believed that the removal of restrictions upon the imports from foreign countries would have ruined the farmer—he would have opposed the repeal of those restrictions. The question turned in both cases upon whether it was

1379
probable or not that they would be able to maintain their competition with foreigners. He (the Duke of Argyll) had carefully considered the whole bearings of the subject to the best of his ability; and he would not give his vote for this Bill if he did not sincerely believe that they were able to maintain competition with foreign countries. It appeared to him that there was a primâ facie case against the probability of their being defeated in competition by the foreigner. He founded that position on the geographical situation of this country; on the capital it possessed; on the energy with which that capital was applied; above all, upon the maritime genius of the people—on everything, in short, which had made England what England was. But he founded that opinion further on the experience of the past. But then arose the question, was he to take the past as a period of protection, or as a period of relaxation? He had observed that noble Lords, and others out of doors, who argued against this Bill, were apt to treat the past alternately as a period of free trade and a period of restriction. If they wished to dwell upon the advantages of restriction, they showed the great power which this country possessed, the enormous amount of capital invested in shipping and shipbuilding, and the large number of the merchant seamen. If they wished, on the other hand, to consider the time as one of relaxation, they spoke of the great decline which had recently taken place in the profits of the shipowner. It appeared to him that this was not a satisfactory mode of argument, but that they must take the combined character of the period with the combined character of the result. Looking at the past in this point of view, it seemed to him to have been a period of progressive relaxation, and a period of progressive and enormous increase in our maritime prosperity. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had thrown overboard entirely one of the great arguments of the protectionists out of doors. They referred to the treaties of reciprocity, and asserted that the consequences of those treaties had been most "fatal to the British mercantile marine. But the noble and learned Lord announced that he had no objection to these reciprocity treaties. A right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had, in another place, spoken of treaties of this kind as a disagreeable necessity; while, on the other hand, another hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had alluded to them as
1380
beneficial in their effects. It was true, as the noble and learned Lord had remarked, that the question of reciprocity treaties was not now before the House; but if the arguments of many of the protectionists were sound, they would go to the repeal of such treaties; and if those Gentlemen did not ask for the repeal of those treaties, it was not because they believed it would be the abandonment of a sound for an unsound commercial principle—not because it would be going back to a system of commercial feudalism, in which their hand would be against every man, and every man's hand against them—but simply because they knew they could not get that repeal. If, then, it could be proved that the consequences of relaxation and of reciprocity treaties had been advantageous to the commercial marine of this country, it would be a great encouragement to them to go forward in the path of relaxation. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the effect which reciprocity treaties with foreign Powers had had upon the commercial marine engaged in direct trade with those countries. He (the Duke of Argyll) believed it to be a fact, that with regard to Denmark and other States on the Baltic, the ships of those States had engrossed the greater portion of the direct carrying trade; but he thought this might be accounted for by the circumstance, amongst others, that the Baltic trade was to be regarded more in the nature of a coasting than of a foreign trade. A protectionist gentleman who had been examined before the Committee of that House, when asked why he did not employ his ships in the Baltic trade, replied, "Because they are too good, and I find better employment for them elsewhere." He would also refer their Lordships to the effect of the reciprocity treaties upon the direct commerce between this country and the United States. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had objected to all statements of statistics; but the statistics to which he (the Duke of Argyll) was about to call their Lordships' attion had this advantage, that they did not come from Mr. Porter, but from protectionist authorities. In considering the effect of the reciprocity treaties, and the relaxations they had introduced, they must also take into account the probable, or rather the certain, effects which a contrary policy would have entailed upon this country. They could not adopt a middle course; reciprocity they must have, either in restriction or relaxation; and if they

1381
did not proceed on the principle of relaxation, but upon that of restriction, other nations would act upon the same principle. In considering, therefore, the result of the two policies, they were bound to take into consideration the effect which a retaliatory policy would have upon their own commercial marine. He would direct their Lordships' attention to the results entailed by the restrictive system upon the commercial marine of this country trading with the United States. Their Lordships were aware that a celebrated work had been published by Mr. Ricardo, a Member of the other House, entitled, An Anatomy of the Navigation Laws; and, in answer to that book, another very able work had been published, under the title of Mr. Ricardo's Anatomy Dissected. In that work he found a passage illustrating the effect which the restrictive system had had upon the direct commerce of this country with the united States. In 1789, 94,000 tons of British shipping were entered at ports of the united States; in 1790, the entries were 216,000 tons, being an increase of 120,000 tons; and that increase England maintained till 1792, when the Americans, in retaliation, imposed their navigation restrictions against England. Now, he asked their Lordships to mark that, in the next year, 1793, the tonnage of English ships entered in the ports of America fell from 216,000 tons to 100,000 tons, or less than one-half; in 1796, it had fallen to 19,000; there was afterwards some fluctuation, but in 1811, the tonnage of British ships entered in ports of the United States had fallen to 10,000 tons. In the course of eighteen years of restriction, therefore, the tonnage had fallen to less than one-twentieth of what it had been before the retaliatory law was adopted. In 1815, the reciprocity treaties were made, but it was not till 1831 that the tonnage of English ships entered in American ports reached the amount it had attained in 1790, and from which it had fallen, under a retaliatory system. It appeared to him that all these considerations were highly important in any discussion regarding the navigation laws, for a country like England was bound to look attentively at any code of laws which affected her commercial interests. Then, with regard to the carrying trade, an eminent witness before their Lordships' Committee had done him the honour to address some representations to him. He (the Duke of
1382
Argyll) put a question to him as to the ships of what nation they dreaded most in the carrying trade. He replied, they dreaded most the Baltic ships in the shorter, and the American ships in the longer voyages. It appeared to him that they might acquire some knowledge by looking to the returns of the Baltic ships that enter the ports of the United States under the existing system, because, under that system, the American navigation law was more severe against England than against the other maritime nations of Europe. This was in consequence of their restrictive system. He would refer to the evidence of Mr. Richmond, who gave an account of the tonnage of the different vessels that entered the ports of the United States. The tonnage of ships entering the ports of the United States from the united kingdom alone, in the year 1846, amounted to 255,546 tons. In the same year, what was the amount of tonnage from the Baltic Powers? The amount in that year of Prussian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish tonnage, all put together, was 11,594 tons. That is, the British exceeded the Baltic tonnage by more than twenty-two fold—and this in spite of the fact that those Powers enjoyed carrying trades with America from which we were excluded. It appeared to him that there must be a strong presumption, that when the ships of the Baltic Powers came into competition with them on equal terms, that they would not press much harder upon them. He should next refer to the third ground on which the question had been discussed—he meant that which had reference to the political situation of the country. He had already said, that did he conceive they would be unable to stand in competition with Foreign Powers, no inducement could make him vote for this measure, not even the inducement held out by the noble Marquess, that, in the event of the measure being defeated, he would retire from power; even that argument would not induce him to vote for the measure if he thought they would be surpassed by foreigners; but he did not think so. Did he entertain the belief on which the evil prophecies of noble Lords opposite were founded, he should be infinitely less proud of England—less proud of her past history—less hopeful of her future destiny. But he entertained no such opinion. They were all proud of the victories their countrymen had won on the fields, and espepecially on the seas, of battle; but he be-

1383
lieved they might be prouder still in the conviction that they could gain a victory which was nobler yet, because a victory on which all other victories must ultimately depend—that they could enter the lists and win the prize in the peaceful race of industry.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH:*My Lords, although I should be content to rest my opposition to this Bill on the speeches of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and my noble and gallant Friend behind him (Lord Colchester), to the first of which an answer has been attempted, but to the second none whatever has been given, still I trust your Lordships will permit me, deeply interested as I am in every measure which affects the Navy, shortly to express my opinion.
My Lords, I entirely concur with my noble and learned Friend in the view he has taken of the state of Europe, and of the precarious character of the peace. I am unwilling under present circumstances to diminish our marine by one ship, or our seamen by one man, and the Bill would tend to undermine the strength of our Navy both in ships and men. I concur also with my noble and learned Friend in considering the question raised by this Bill to be unconnected with the principle of free trade.
For myself, I have at all times when in this country, seen reason to support the several measures introduced by different Ministers for the relaxation of our commercial code. I have willingly acquiesced in measures having for their object the increase of the national wealth, where I thought the pursuit of that object was not accompanied by danger to the material interests of the country. I make my stand here, because I believe we cannot pursue wealth, as it is proposed that we should pursue it by this Bill, without endangering the mercantile marine, with the prosperity of which is connected the security of the country. "Security is of more importance than opulence"—such was the declared opinion of the great author of the principles of free trade. Dr. Adam Smith; and it is in the name and as the disciples of the first of free-traders that we oppose this Bill.
The noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) has spoken in disparagement of the remnant, the fragments of the navigation law, which it is the object of this Bill to repeal;
* From a report published by Ridgway.
1384
but if your Lordships will refer to the statement of the main provisions of the law as they still exist, which is contained in the circular letter addressed by Lord Palmerston to the British Ministers at foreign Courts, you will see that these fragments are great blocks of legislation affecting the whole coasting trade, the whole colonial trade, the whole trade with Asia, Africa, and America, and in a very material degree that with Europe. It is true that the original system has not been preserved in its integrity, but enough yet remains to produce great and beneficial results, and I am satisfied with the efficacy of the law as it stands. For I see by the returns, that on the average of the two last years in the account, the British tonnage employed inwards in the trade of the united kingdom, with the British North American colonies, is five times greater than the British tonnage employed inwards on the average of the same years in the trade with the United States; but the population of the United States is eight times greater than that of the British North American colonies, and the wealth of the United States is greater than that of those colonies in a yet larger proportion; but if our trade with the British North American colonies bore only the same proportion to our trade with the United States, which the population of those colonies bears to that of the United States, the British tonnage employed would not exceed 27,000 tons. It amounted on the average of those years to 1,083,000 tons, that is, it was forty times greater than it would have been without the aid of the law by which it is protected. Depressed as has been the trade with our West Indian colonies of late years, still on the average of the same two years the British tonnage employed inwards in the trade with those colonies, approached within 10,000 tons the amount of tonnage similarly employed in the trade with the United States; and it was equal to the whole tonnage employed in the same years in the trade with Mexico and the foreign West Indies and all the rest of America, exclusive of the occasional trade with Patagonia.
Again, there has been a very much larger increase in the British tonnage employed in the trade with the British North American colonies, than in that employed in the trade with all the rest of America. The former has increased 648,000 tons since 1824. The latter has increased only 336,000, so that the increase of the

1385
British tonnage employed in the trade with British North America is nearly twice as great as the increase of the British tonnage employed in the trade with the united States and all the rest of America.
I say, therefore, that fragmentary as the system may he, it produces the effect it is intended to produce—the maintenance and the increase of British navigation, and therein the security of this country. And certainly, my Lords, never has there been a period, when the maintenance in all its efficiency of our marine, with a view to the national security, has been more necessary to us. The noble Duke who spoke last (the Duke of Argyll), would infer, from the circumstance of British ships having been enabled in past times to compete with foreign ships in some ports where they meet them on equal terms, that under the system to be established by this Bill, our ships could every where do the same. But I deny that any such inference can justly be drawn from the past. During all past time there has been extensive protection given by law to British ships, and the advantage derived from this protection in the trade to which it has extended, has enabled the owners of ships to employ them in ports where there has been no protection, at lower freights than they could have afforded to take without the advantages so enjoyed elsewhere. But we have no experience to lead us to the conclusion, that without any protection in any foreign trade our ships could successfully compete with the ships of foreigners; and we are not in a position to incur any risk in a matter vitally affecting our interests. For observe, my Lords, what would be our position in the event of a war. Consider only the amount of naval force it would be necessary for us to have at sea to protect our trade, and the many exposed points of our foreign possessions. At the conclusion of the last war, when the fleets of the enemy had been swept away, and we really had the supremacy at sea, which we should now have to fight for, we had 160,000 men, and nearly 1,000 ships—and now we have more points to defend. Since 1815, our establishments in Australasia have been much extended. They are very valuable, and wholly without the means of self-defence. We now occupy a station in the Canton river, and our trade with China is carried on at three ports instead of one, and each re-
1386
quires naval protection. We have established, and I much regret it, a new colony in New Zealand, requiring naval as well as military protection; and more in the spirit of romance than of policy, we have created an establishment in Labuan. Nor would this be all. In the event of a war, it would be absolutely necessary for us to occupy at once some station for our fleet in the Pacific.
With these new demands upon our force, what is our relative position with respect to foreign Powers? Be assured, my Lords, we are no longer in the position of paramount strength in which we stood on the evening of the battle of Trafalgar. Noble Lords have spoken of the supremacy of the seas as if we still possessed it. We have no longer the supremacy of the seas. In the event of a war with France alone, we should have to contend in the first instance in equal fight with the well-appointed fleet of France. I trust there can be no doubt as to the ultimate result of the contest; but depend upon it, it would be a severe contest, in which all our energies would be required to secure success. The French have at sea as powerful a fleet as ours. They have an establishment of seamen and marines very little inferior in number to ours, and having less trade, and much fewer points to guard, they have a much larger disposable force for European service. They have, besides, a system which enables them rapidly to increase their establishment in the event of war. Our resource is in our mercantile marine which this Bill will impair.
Further, in 1814, the united States had a small, however well-appointed navy. They have largely increased that navy, while the great accessions to their mercantile marine would enable them to scud to sea a vast number of small cruisers to act against our trade, and we should be compelled to employ a number of similar cruisers for its protection. And although strong in line-of-battle ships and heavy frigates, we are not strong in smaller ships of war. Nor would our dockyards afford us the means of building a sufficient number of such ships. We must have recourse to the merchants' yards. But this Bill, enabling British merchants to use cheaper foreign-built ships in preference to ships of British build, will dimish the number and the extent, and the capabilities of the merchants' yards, and this resource would be impaired. We have in former wars largely availed ourselves of it; and even in peace,

1387
when an increase of exertion has been required in our dockyards, we have drawn the necessary number of shipwrights from the merchants' yards at once. This we shall be unable to do when this Bill has been for some years in operation.
Moreover, Russia has now a formidable fleet in the Baltic, and another in the Black Sea. She has a large military marine, although she has but few ships employed in commerce, and these fleets, regularly exercised, are fit for summer service, although unequal to a winter cruise; and it must not be forgotten that since the invention of steam vessels every State which has a port can have a steam navy, however small its mercantile marine. Even Austria and Naples have at sea no inconsiderable squadrons of steamers.
But we should do wrong if we did not consider the present state of the navies of foreign Powers in conjunction with the changes which have taken place in their military position. In former times the Continental States had peace establishments, which left few troops disposable in the event of sudden war. It was necessary to make long previous preparation for war, and thus ample notice was given for preparations of defence. Now, the peace establishments of the Continental Powers are equal to their war establishments in former times; and the substitution of railroads for the ordinary roads, by which in former times armies could only slowly move, while all had knowledge of their movements, has enabled States to bring a preponderating force suddenly from the most distant quarters to the port of embarkation; and there they find, what has not improperly been termed a steam-bridge from the Continent to these islands. It is absolutely necessary for us to command that bridge, and to be able to destroy it. For what is our military position? We stand unarmed in the midst of an armed world. While Continental States have, in addition to their regular armies, a large force of national guards, which renders their whole armies disposable beyond the frontier, we have even allowed the militia, on which we formerly placed some reliance, to fall into disuse, and we have not substituted force for it. We have adhered to the old system of a small peace establishment. In the event of war, our military means at home hardly enable us to send adequate reinforcements to our numerous garrisons and colonies. We have literally nothing
1388
to rely upon for our defence but the naval cordon, which it is the tendency of this Bill to weaken and destroy. Behind that cordon we have no force whatever; and since the application of steam to naval purposes, that naval cordon does not afford the same degree of certain protection which was derived from a decided superiority in sailing ships.
Such being our position, observe, my Lords, in how many ways the Bill will impair our naval means, upon which alone we depend for security. It first repeals the provisions whereby all British ships must have a certain number of apprentices. Since 1835 those provisions have introduced into the mercantile marine 70,000 seamen; and we have the evidence of Lieutenant Brown, the registrar of seamen, that the seamen so introduced by apprenticeship are of a superior description to those who entered the mercantile service before the Act was passed. Undoubtedly, I inclined to the opinion that the concurrent operation of the law of apprenticeship and of the measure of employing a great number of boys in the Navy, brought every year into the maritime service a larger number of persons than employment could be found for when they became men, and hence that many went into foreign service; but it is the measure of employing so many boys in the Navy which it would be desirable to abandon, not the law of apprenticeship. A man-of-war is not the best school for the education of boys for the naval service; and the efficiency of the ship's company is much impaired by having so large a proportion of its number composed of these boys. It would be far better to consider how the law of apprenticeship may be amended so as to bring the apprentices for a short period into the Navy on the expiration of their engagements; and thus to make them acquainted with the discipline of a man-of-war and with gunnery. Now, indeed, in the event of war, we may obtain from the merchant service good seamen who can go aloft; but we then want seamen who can also fight guns; and the improvement I suggest would afford us this advantage, and give a degree of efficiency hitherto unknown to the reserve we possess in our mercantile marine.
Again, the Bill permits the general employment of Lascars instead of British seamen. I have much respect for the natives of India—more, however, for those who serve ashore, than for those who

1389
serve afloat—but I entertain much apprehension of that result, which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) seems to contemplate with satisfaction, as a relief to the shipowner, namely, the employment of Lascars in the voyage out to India and China. I am unwilling that Lascars should be substituted in that trade for the finest seamen I ever saw. I have been on board of many of Her Majesty's ships considered to be well manned; but I have hardly seen in any man-of-war thirty seamen as fine as almost all the seamen are in the packet ships employed in the trade to India. I cannot boar to see such seamen give place to Lascars.
By another provision of this Bill, it is no longer to be required that British ships should be of British build. I have already observed how serious an injury would be inflicted upon our Navy, were it to be deprived of the resource it has so extensively derived in war, and even in peace, from the merchants' yards. This point was strongly pressed upon the Committee by Admiral Sir Byam Martin, and certainly there could be no one entitled to more respect, and possessed of more authority, upon this subject.
But the main feature of the Bill is the provision under which British ships are to compete on equal terms with foreign ships. There is nothing in the past which can justify our expectation that British ships can so compete with success. We may build steamers cheaper, and in short voyages made by steamers we may compete, and, considering the contradictions in the evidence, it is possible that there may be ports in which we can build an inferior class of ships as cheaply as such ships can be built in some foreign port; but we cannot sail our ships as cheaply as the foreigner. The bulk of trade must always be carried on, not by steamers, but by sailing ships; and if we are unable to sail our ships as cheaply as the foreigner, there is no limit to the reduction which may take place in our mercantile marine. Yet upon the maintenance of that marine, in all its efficiency, on its extension in due proportion to the extension of the marine of foreigners, we depend altogether for the security of the country.
My Lords, at whose instance is it that we are asked to incur this danger? We are told that it is asked by our unfortunate West Indian colonies. Their poverty, but not their will, consents. It may be, that some amongst them, in their extreme dis-
1390
tress, may have desired changes, which would afford but small relief to them, while they would impair the naval power of this country, by which alone they can be protected. But hear, my Lords, in what terms, with what evident misgivings, they in their agony ask you to relieve them from the navigation law. This is the petition of Antigua:—
"Your petitioners submit, that the carriage of the staples of the colony to market, constitutes an important item in the cost of their production—that the carriage is restricted to British shipping by the navigation laws, thereby depriving the colonists of the advantage of a cheaper foreign carriage.
"That your petitioners ever entertained a reverential regard for those laws, as the basis of the national glory and prosperity; but public opinion having uprooted convictions equally strong upon questions of equal gravity and importance, your petitioners are admonished of the possibility of their error in regard to the navigation laws, and struggling for existence against beggary and ruin are constrained, however reluctantly, to enter their protest against this restriction and protection in favour of British shipping, as entirely indefensible upon the all-powerful principles of free trade."
But Canada also desires the repeal of the navigation law in her favour. I think I observed the other day, in a petition presented from some place in Canada, by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, a disclaimer on the part of the petitioners of any intention to give an opinion as to the effect which the measure they asked for their own advantage, would have upon the general interests of the empire.
I admit that, under the circumstances stated by the petitioners, in Canada they have a strong claim to the favourable consideration of Parliament, if any measures can be devised for the accomplishment of their object, without affecting the general interests; but I must observe as to all these colonial questions, that I do not recognise in colonists a Canadian or a West Indian. I recognise only an Englishman residing in the West Indies or in Canada. The Englishman residing in the colonies possesses all the privileges, and he cannot divest himself of all the duties, of British citizenship. If he should transfer his ambition to this country, he may enter the professions of the law, or the Church, or the military professions, as many have done, or he may obtain admission to Parliament, and hold the highest place in the councils of his Sovereign. He pays no portion of the interest of our debt, although much of it has been incurred in measures for his protection. He defrays

1391
no portion of the present charge of our Army and of our Navy, although that charge is increased by the provision of force for his defence. When sudden, unforeseen calamity afflicts him, the liberal hand of the Imperial Parliament is stretched forth in his aid. When his own credit is insufficient to enable him to raise the sums required for the completion of great works, essential to his prosperity, the credit of the Imperial Parliament is substituted for that of the colonies; and it is not unreasonable and unjust that, cherished and protected as he thus is, we should ask him to endure, together with us, the burthen of the navigation law, from which alone we derive the means of extending to him that naval protection without which his connexion with this country cannot be preserved.
We have been told of approaching difficulties with foreign Powers if we should adhere to our navigation law, to which for 200 years these foreign Powers have submitted; and we have even heard of threats which have been addressed to us upon this subject. I do not understand a threat from any foreign Power being addressed to us if the affairs of this country be properly administered; but if, in whatever form, intimations have been given by foreign Powers of their desire to see effected an alteration in our law, in which they have so long acquiesced—intimations which, when we consider the language used by Her Majesty's Government, would seem rather to have been invited than deprecated—I am satisfied that the course of previous negotiation, for the purpose of obtaining advantages in their ports, corresponding with those we may be willing to concede to them in ours, would be far preferable to the course adopted in this Bill, which provides for subsequent retaliatory measures against foreign Powers, if the concessions made by us should not be altogether reciprocated by them; but I confess I had rather see a negotiation upon such a subject conducted by other Ministers than those who have evinced so strong a bias of opinion, that they might be expected to concede every thing without an equivalent.
Be assured, my Lords, that wealth is as little the sole source of good to nations as it is to individuals, and the pursuit of it, with undue and blind eagerness, is as little consistent with safety as it is with respectability. It would be indeed a fatal error were we, in the pursuit of wealth, to
1392
neglect the strength by which alone wealth can be preserved. It would be a fatal error were we to rely upon the memory of past victories for our protection from present dangers, and trust that the pacific aspirations of our wealthy and weak state will conciliate the forbearance of the poorer, but armed and powerful neighbours, whom, in the pride of our strength, we struck down. Depend upon it, my Lords, we have done that which can never be forgiven; and continued strength, and provident preparation, can alone protect us from revenge. Mere wealth will only allure the hand of the spoiler.
I know well that the several parts of this great empire, faithfully banded together, making mutual sacrifices for mutual security, may for ever stand against the world; and, under our old constitutional Government, may enjoy a larger portion of prosperity, and a larger portion of real liberty, than can be attained in any republican State; but if partial interests are allowed to outweigh the general interests of the empire—if public avarice be allowed to absorb every public virtue, and the acquisition of present temporary profit be made the sole object of our legislation, we shall fall, as others have fallen before us, by neglecting the means by which we rose to greatness, and we shall fall unmourned, unhonoured—and despised.
On Motion of the EARL of CARLISLE, debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.