Sitting of 17 June 1851

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Clackmannan and Kinross, James Johnstone, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Survey of Great Britain, &c.; Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act Amendment.

AYLESBURY ELECTION.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmoved that the Report of the Select Committee on the petition of Thomas Hugh Bradford and John Strutt, be brought up. He said, that there could not be the slightest doubt that it was a breach of the Privileges of the House, in as much as by Resolutions of the House, in 1689 and 1774, persons were forbid to sign the names of others to petitions. He should, therefore, move that the House do agree to the Report of the Committee.
Resolved—
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report."
Ordered—
"That John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, having severally been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House, be for their said offence committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."
Subsequently, the Serjeant-at-Arms reported to the House that John Strutt and Charles Cunningham were in his custody.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmoved that they be brought to the bar of the House, and after being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker; discharged. He believed that in making that Motion he spoke the sense of the Committee who had reported upon this matter. He regretted very much the absence of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene), who presided over that Committee. It was at that hon. Gentleman's request that he made the present Motion. It appeared that Cunningham had signed the petition under the impression that Strutt had authority to direct him to do so. Had that not been the case, the Committee would not have been disposed to recommend to the House so lenient a course as that which he had suggested. A very gross breach of the Privileges of that House had been committed by these gentlemen; but he believed that the House would sufficiently mark its displeasure with their proceedings by agreeing to the Motion which he had made.
MR. FRESHFIELDthought the recommendation of the Committee a merciful
886
recommendation, considering that the education of the gentlemen warranted the expectation that they would not have taken a course which clearly trenched on the rules of that House.
Ordered—
"That the said John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, be brought to the Bar of this House forthwith, in order to their being reprimanded by Mr. Speaker and discharged."
John Strutt and Charles Cunningham were accordingly brought to the Bar, where they received a Reprimand from MR. SPEAKER, and were ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying their fees.
The Reprimand was as followeth, viz.:—
"John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, a Petition was presented to this House on the 28th of April last, purporting to be signed by Thomas Bradford, against the Return of Richard Bethell, Esq., for the Borough of Aylesbury; and it appears from the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case, that you, Charles Cunningham, with the sanction and by the desire of your partner, John Strutt, did most unwarrantably affix the name of Thomas Bradford to that Petition.
"It is the bounden duty of this House, a duty which it owes to the people whom it represents, to protect the right of petitioning from abuse; and it is determined, by the just exercise of its authority, to check any practice which, by casting doubts upon the authenticity of Petitions, has a tendency to lessen their value and importance. According to the ancient Rule of this House, it is a broach of its Privileges for any person to set the name of another to a Petition: and your conduct in this instance cannot be palliated or excused on the ground that you were ignorant of this rule; because, engaged as you both are in the profession of the Law, and occasionally retained in matters connected with Election Petitions, you must necessarily be familiar with the usages and practice of Parliament. Your offence, moreover, is greatly aggravated by the fact that this Petition, which you so culpably signed, was to form the foundation of a judicial inquiry under the provisions of an; Act of Parliament.
"Such gross misconduct on your part has received, as it deserves, the condemnation of the House. But, at all times anxious to exhibit as much lenity as is consistent with its dignity, this House is willing to hope that the position in which you are now placed, so painful to any honourable mind, and so discreditable to yourselves, will carry with it a sufficient punishment. I am commanded, however, by the House, to convey to you the expression of its marked displeasure, and in obedience to its commands, I now reprimand you for the offence which you have committed. I have further to acquaint you, that you are discharged, upon the payment of your Fees."
Ordered, Nemine Contradicente—
"That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker in reprimanding the said John Strutt and Charles Cunningham, be entered in the Journal of this House."

ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. BANKESsaid, he objected to the clause, as it involved the main principle of his objection to the Bill. He regarded the Report of the Committee as utterly inconsistent. The Committee declared that the candidate against whom the petition had been presented had been duly elected, and at the same time declared that they had not been enabled to institute a full and fair inquiry, in consequence of certain material witnesses having been improperly removed and kept out of the way. He was far from objecting to further inquiry; on the contrary, he thought further inquiry was necessary in reference to the character of that House; but he was also of opinion that further inquiry should be conducted in such a manner as not additionally to compromise the character of that House. The Committee ought to have adjourned until the missing witnesses were obtained; or, if a Commission was to be appointed, that Commission should consist of Members of the House of Commons, and not of paid Commissioners, as now proposed. He objected to proceeding against the parties who had been corrupted, and granting to the party corrupting all the benefit at which he could have aimed when he resorted to improper means for the purpose of procuring his election. Who had corrupted the electors? There was but one Member, but one seat vacant, and yet the Member was seated, and the Committee proposed by this Bill to proceed, not against that Member, but against the parties who were corrupted. Was it creditable to the House, or an expedient course to pursue, to authorise the Member to be seated (when, if there had been corruption—assuming that such was the fact—he was the cause of it), and to direct all their proceedings against those who had been corrupted, with the view of punishing them by disfranchisement? The Committee having proposed this Bill, he would accept it; but he would endeavour to amend the Bill: and while he would do all which the Chairman of the Committee desired to have done, he would propose to do still more. He believed it was possible so far to amend this Bill as to ensure justice to the petitioner, and to preserve the character of that House. He hoped, above all things, that the House of Commons would not
888
part with this inquiry and transfer its functions to other hands. He wished that the Commissioners should be possessed of the most stringent powers, and he could only entrust those powers safely to a Commission exclusively composed of Members of that House. He thought that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had been greatly to blame in this matter. The Bill for the prevention of bribery, brought in in 1842, had never been put in force. The defects of that Bill had been acknowledged from the first; and, had it been effectual, it would have been properly applicable in this case. There had been a greater number of allegations of bribery and corruption since the Reform Bill had passed than ever had occurred previously; and during the last general election fourteen boroughs had been charged with bribery and corruption. The noble Lord, who was then, as now, at the head of the Government, undertook to bring in a Bill which should effectually remedy these flagrant offences; and the noble Lord did introduce such a measure, bearing the title of a Bill to provide for inquiry into corrupt practices in the election of Members of Parliament. That Bill applied particularly to the fourteen boroughs to which he had just alluded, Aylesbury being the first, and Sligo the last, and it received much praise. He (Mr. Bankes) supported the principle. But when the measure went into Committee, clauses were introduced which, from their nature, were likely to give rise to difference of opinion, and the Bill did not receive that support which it ought to have had to have rendered it effective. The Bill went to the House of Lords at a late period of the Session, and Lord Redesdale, with other Peers, took objections, not to the principle, which met with entire concurrence, but to certain details which had been pointed out in the House of Commons to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but the noble Lord resisted any alteration of the measure, preferring to pass the Bill in the shape in which it went up to the House of Lords. The measure might probably have been forced through had it not been for Lord Denman, who stated that he felt it to be his duty to come down for the sole purpose of opposing that Bill, for that it was liable to objections of every description in the details; while, at the same time, he entirely approved of the principle. It was the fact that Lord Denman, and every Peer in the House of Lords, concurred in the principle, while one and all objected to the

889
details. Since then three years had passed, and although that Bill had been lost in the Lords, solely on account of the details, and not of the principle it contained, neither the noble Lord nor his legal advisers had introduced any similar measure in principle to remedy these evils. Thus they were still without sufficient legal remedy, and were called upon, when occasion required, to legislate for that particular occasion, the present being one which actually forced them to some legislation. But any measure that passed should be consistent with the dignity of that House. It should be one likely to meet the approval of the other branch of the Legislature—one not obnoxious to the objections made by Lord Denman and the other Peers—but one that should satisfy the House of Lords that the Members of the House of Commons had exercised all their powers, made all the necessary inquiries, and used all their endeavours to accomplish their object. It should be a measure which should show that they did not call upon the other branch of the Legislature to assist them in a measure for the preservation of their privileges until they had done enough to satisfy the House of Lords that there was groundwork for their interference. With regard to the general allegations before the St. Albans Committee as to former transactions in the borough, he found that the evidence came principally from ladies, if he might so call them, and from persons certainly not entitled to praise for the manner in which they had given their testimony. Could anything be more meagre or unsatisfactory than the Minutes of Evidence laid upon the table of that House? Loose and unsatisfactory as they were, and applying very slightly indeed to former corruptions, there was a strong presumption or corruption in the present case: "bell metal" was never heard of until Mr. Bell went to St. Albans, and the street in which his committee rooms were situate, was not previously known as "Sovereign-alley;" and yet the Committee had reported against the borough, and in favour of the Member. But that evidence was wholly insufficient as regarded former transactions; and, so far as it affected the present case, it did not establish that species of corruption upon which they could easily legislate. That was the reason the sitting Members were not reported against: and, further, because the evidence, such as it was, had been collected in a manner that was utterly unjust and unworthy. There were fur-
890
ther reasons for the Amendments it was his intention to propose. The Government had put in a clause the names of three gentlemen who were to be appointed Commissioners. This was not in accordance with the Bill of Lord John Russell in 1848.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Commissioners have been sanctioned by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.
MR. BANKES: That might be or might not be.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL: But I tell you that it is so, for I have communicated with the Lord Chief Justice.
MR. BANKES: At all events it would have been more decorous to have left the appointment with the senior Judge of Assize. As a precedent the course now proposed was a bad one, and the whole Bill was a bad precedent. He (Mr. Bankes) proposed what would be a better precedent, that they should appoint three Members of that House as Commissioners. Let it not be said that it was now too late to do justice, for it was never too late to do justice, and they had now the time and the means of remedying an oversight by offering to the House of Lords a Bill which they could pass. But if they sent to the Upper House such another Bill as that sent by the noble Lord in 1848, it would meet with the same fate. He should propose, in the first place, that the clause be omitted, and that would raise the question whether the Commissioners should be paid Commissioners, nominated by the Government, and carrying on their proceedings away from the influence of that House and from the public eye; or whether they should be, as they ought to be, under the immediate supervision of that House, and under the public eye? Let them wait, if it were necessary, till those witnesses who were concealed could be produced. He cared not how long they waited rather than that the House should be set at defiance; and he was willing to wait until the pecuniary resources of these witnesses ceased to enable them to baffle the power of the House. He should, therefore, move that this clause be omitted, and if he succeeded he should then substitute another clause, which should name other Commissioners, Members of that House, and selecting those who had been Members of the late Committee, if they would accept the service. If they refused, he would engage to find five Members of that House who would accept the functions,

891
and prove that they could form a tribunal fully competent to try questions of this nature.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Bankes) had admitted the necessity of the Bill, and the necessity of the inquiry. He (Mr. Ellice) could not expect the House to listen to a statement of the case, which had been given some two or three times already; and it could have no attraction to the House whatever, for that was not what was before them. The case of the sitting Member for St. Albans was decided; he was, by Act of Parliament, the sitting Member; and hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite should just road the Act which seated the Member as soon as a decision of a Committee was given in his favour, one particular clause of that Act of Parliament saying that no after proceeding of any sort should affect the seat of the Member. So far as the sitting Member was concerned, the case was concluded, and the necessity of the Bill had been decided by a majority of that House. The only question then was, whether the Commissioners should be Members of that House or not? He (Mr. Ellice) stated on the last occasion that the Committee had come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory means of instituting an inquiry was by professional gentlemen independent of that House, as they would act not only as Commissioners of that House, but as Commissioners of the superior branch of the Legislature. If the Commissioners were Members of that House, he doubted if the House of Lords would take their report as a guide for legislation, but would rather insist either on appointing another Commission, or of examining witnesses at the bar of the House. Looking to former precedents, the examination of witnesses in that manner had been wholly inefficacious; but in the case of the Sudbury Commission, the Commissioners being independent professional men, as was now proposed, the House of Lords accepted the report of that Commission. Believing that both Houses would be prepared to legislate on the report of this Commission, being constituted of Gentlemen nominated equally by the House of Lords as by the House of Commons, he saw no earthly reason to change his views, and he should certainly persist in dividing upon the clause.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that this was a case in which as a general principle there had been no substantial decision by the Committee. In the case of Sudbury, taken
892
as a precedent, the inquiry was only whether any grounds existed for further inquiry. It had been alleged that the Houses of Lords and Commons combined in appointing this Commission; but was it so? There was nothing which could put the Commissioners in the light of being appointed by the Lords and Commons, except as a mere matter of form. Was it possible that the names of three Members of Parliament being in the Commission would be objected to by the House of Lords? If there was anything objected to by them it Would be that these three Members had not the confidence of the House of Lords. As to jealousy in the House of Lords it did not exist there, but on their own parts—a jealousy against sending up to the other House to decide upon their rights and privileges. He should vote against the clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 1 as amended stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 17: Majority 49.
MR. W. MILESsaid, if it could be shown that these three Commissioners were appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, it would be more satisfactory.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, he had consulted former precedents in which the Commissioners had been appointed by the Government, but he had referred the whole matter to the hon. and learned Attorney General.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in the case of the first Bill for inquiry, the nomination of the Commissioners was left to the then Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench; but that not proving satisfactory, the Attorney General of the time took upon himself to name three Gentlemen. So, in this case, he had been applied to as Attorney General, and he did name three Gentlemen; but after he had been told of the Sudbury case, in which the nomination had been left to the Lord Chief Justice, he communicated with the three Gentlemen he had named informing them of the facts, and also with the Lord Chief Justice, to whom he stated that he had no wish to influence his judgment, if he could find three Gentlemen of the Bar who would accept the Commission. The Lord Chief Justice answered that he had named three, but without stating who they were; but they proved to be the same that he (the Attorney General) had nominated. Two

893
out of the three were certainly of the same political sentiments as himself; but they were as competent men as any at the Bar, and the Lord Chief Justice had concurred with and confirmed his nomination.
MR. BANKESsaid, that the Sudbury case had not guided the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), for his Bill set out that no names should be inserted, but that it should be certified to the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench that Commissioners were required, and leaving it to him to name them. The same provision might be made in the present Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. BANKESwished for an explanation of the power of the Commissioners, which appeared to him to be those of both judge and prosecutor at the same time.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, that if the Government thought they were dealing properly with the rights and liberties of those of Her Majesty's subjects who were electors of the borough of St. Albans, they differed in opinion from Lord Denman, who had opposed the Bill of the noble Lord in 1848, and from the late Sir Robert Peel, who had said in the debate on the noble Lord's Bill that in all inquiries of this kind the rights of the electors should be attended to. He acquitted the Committee of all intention to do anything contrary to the rights of the subject; but now that the attention of the Attorney and Solicitor General was directed to them, he felt bound to ask by what safeguard or in what way did the Government intend by this measure to protect the rights of electors? By the Bill no elector against whose character aspersions had been launched had the light to appear before the Commissioners and defend himself. Even the petitioners had no right to appear before these Commissioners, whose functions were purely inquisitorial, to defend themselves against any accusation, or to prefer accusation against anybody else. All he asked for was fair play. He thought it was the duty of that House to inquire into the state of corruption in this borough, and to punish it; but let whatever was done be done in a fair and honourable manner. Let the Committee act upon the principle that none but guilty parties should be punished, and it would be easy to frame the Bill so as to produce that effect, for the present proceeding was neither a correct or a constitutional one, and was not
894
framed in a spirit of justice, but in that of an arbitrary spirit of punishment.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 3 and 4.
Clause 5.
MR. BANKESsaid, he wished to limit the retrospective powers of the Commissioners. St. Albans was a very ancient borough, and the Commissioners might go back to its institution, or to the period when Duke Humphrey represented it, although he was not likely to have been guilty of treating.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that probably practices at the last election might connect themselves with practices at previous elections. It was not desirable to limit the period of inquiry; but they might safely leave it in the hands of the Commissioners.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, there was a grave charge against the borough in 1842.
Clauses agreed to; as were Clauses 6 and 7.
Clause 8. Amendment proposed—
"To add, 'and no person shall be excused from answering any question put to him by the said Commissioner on the ground of any privilege, or on the ground that the answer to such question will tend to criminate such person; provided always that no statement made by any person in answer to questions put by any Commissioner shall, except upon an indictment for perjury committed in such answer, be admissible in evidence in any proceedings, civil or criminal.'"
MR. FRESHFIELDthought it would open this dangerous and most mischievous door to evading punishment—that every person, however deeply implicated, obtained entire protection by causing himself to be examined as a witness.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he considered the clause necessary, on the ground that considerable public advantage would accrue from obtaining information from those who had been guilty of corrupt practices, and they could not obtain it without holding out protection as an inducement.
Clause agreed to; as were the remainder of the clauses and the preamble.
House resumed. Bill reported as amended.

HARWICH ELECTION.
MR. BANKESmoved that the petition which he presented on Monday, complaining of the conduct of the officers of the Government at the last election for the borough of Harwich, be printed with the

895
Votes. He now gave notice that he should call the attention of the House to the petition on Friday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Petition of Electors complaining of the exercise of the Government influence at the late Election, and praying for investigation [presented 16th June], be printed."
SIR DE LACY EVANSobjected to the printing of the petition, and begged to appeal to Mr. Speaker requesting the right of hon. Gentlemen to declare whether it was proper for the House, considering that a petition complaining of the return for the borough of Harwich was under investigation, to have this petition printed. There was a similar case in 1834, when Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Scarlett opposed the reception of a petition of a like nature on the ground that it would influence the minds of the Committee appointed to try the merits of the return. He (Sir De L. Evans) thought the discussion proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) would be out of order.
MR. BANKESsaid, the petition he had presented did not respect the seat or the election petition. The allegation it contained was a direct charge against the Government. He could not say whether the allegation was true or not; but he felt justified in asking for inquiry. Should the Government or any of their friends say that they wished for delay, he should not object to give it.
MR. HAYTERsaid, the petition directly stated that there had been intimidation at the last election, and the election petition also stated that there had been intimidation; therefore the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bankes) was not correct in saying that this petition was simply against the Government; it was in fact quite germane to the petition affecting the validity of the election. Consistently with the precedent of 1834, and with common sense and reason, the House ought not to entertain a petition containing vague charges of influence and intimidation, when there was a proper tribunal for deciding the question whether the election had been properly conducted or not.
MR. BANKESsaid, the question then only was, that the petition be presented with the Votes. Should the Government object to that Motion, he would take the sense of the House on it. He thought the charge against the Government made in this petition should be tried immediately.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERdid not apprehend there would be any objection to the petition being printed, but he thought it better that some time should be given before the discussion was brought on, to ascertain whether it came within the rules that had been laid down.
MR. HERRIESthought it desirable that the discussion should be postponed.
SIR GEORGE CLERKsaid, a similar petition had been presented this Session in relation to the Falkirk district of burghs. The House had agreed to the reception of the petition; but the hon. Member who presented it (Mr. Cobden) did not raise the question on it until after the Falkirk election petition was brought to a close. In the present case Mr. Speaker had announced that the recognisances for the petition complaining of the return for Harwich had been perfected, and therefore the election petition was in train of being investigated, and this second petition ought not to be discussed.
MR. HUMEthought it would be a clear interference with the administration of justice to raise a discussion on the petition.
MR. BANKESsaid, under these circumstances he would not press further proceedings, but he thought the petition ought to be printed with the Votes.
MR. VERNON SMITHconsidered that the discretion of printing or not printing the petition should be left in the hands of the Committee on Petitions; and he considered that they would feel it their duty not to print it. If the discussion was not to come on, it would be premature to have the petition printed with the Votes, as that would, to a certain degree, interfere with the question before the Committee. It was important to adhere to the rule of taking no proceedings in that House relative to any matter which was before a Committee. He should oppose the Motion for the printing of the petition.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the object of printing petitions was to enable hon. Members to bring questions before that House; but as he understood that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bankes) did not intend in this instance to raise a discussion, he thought he ought to suspend his Motion for the printing.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if his hon. and learned Friend were prepared to bring the subject before that House, he was completely justified in moving that the petition be printed; but as his hon. and learned Friend was not so prepared, it

897
would be better to leave the responsibility of printing or not printing the petition on the Committee on Petitions.
MR. G. DUNCAN, as one of the Committee, could only say that the petition should be duly considered on the morrow.
MR. BANKESwould with that assurance withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ST. ALBANS ELECTION—IMPRISONMENT OF HENRY EDWARDS.
MR. HEADLAMpresented a petition from Richard Gresham, an elector of St. Albans, stating that he had seen from the notices in that House, that a Motion was to be made that day for the discharge from custody of Henry Edwards; that the said Edwards had been for years past actively engaged in bribing the electors and purchasing votes for money; that the petitioner believed that a full investigation of the practices in that borough could not be had without the examination of the said Edwards; and praying that he might not be discharged.
MR. SPOONERhoped the House would not be influenced by that which the petitioner said he believed. The petitioner, indeed, asked for that which could not be obtained by keeping Henry Edwards in custody; because, while in custody, be was suffering punishment, and it was unknown to the law that while a man was suffering punishment he should be called upon to give evidence as to that for which he was suffering. He knew nothing with respect to the prisoner or with reference to St. Albans, nor would he have presented any petition in favour of the man's discharge had it not been put into his hands by a solicitor of the very highest character, upon whose narration of the facts he could completely rely. Henry Edwards came before that House, offering a full and complete confession of his guilt. However right it was to vindicate the authority of that House, he thought there was a limit beyond which it ought not to be carried. If Mr. Edwards were kept in his present position the consequences might be ruinous to him, for he was a farmer. He had a wife and a large family, and he was suffering from illness, and stood in need of a change of air and removal from prison. It might be objected that there was an obstacle in the way of an inquiry into the whole state of the case, for that the witnesses were out of the way, and the petitioner had been one of those who aided
898
them in absconding. But Mr. Edwards stated that over those witnesses he had not now the power of exercising any control. It was true that the witnesses were maintained in comfort beyond the jurisdiction of that House; but Mr. Edwards referred to his solicitor to prove that he had not the means of supplying them with those comforts, and therefore that he was not the guilty person. The prisoner had now been in Newgate upwards of nine weeks, and he expressed himself willing to appear, and give a full and complete account of the whole of these transactions, so far as he was concerned in them. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that the House would take Mr. Edwards's case into their consideration.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Henry Edwards be brought to the Bar of this House To-morrow, in order to his being discharged; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."
MR. BANKESbegged to ask Mr. Speaker whether, in case the House should agree to the Motion, it would be competent for any hon. Member to question the prisoner at the bar of the House?
MR. SPEAKER, replied that no questions could be asked of the prisoner at the bar.
MR. HUMEthought it would be premature to discharge Mr. Edwards at present. All the culpable parties in this case kept out of the way; and, if the petitioner were liberated, what security had the House that he would not do the same? In his opinion they would act foolishly to let off the man who was allowed to be the chief participator, if not actor, in the matter.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that although there would be no disposition to press hardly upon any individual who had been in prison for a considerable period, it should not be forgotten that the authority of the House had been set at naught by the proceedings which had originated with Mr. Edwards, and that the witnesses who bad been removed by him were still abroad. The Serjeant-at-Arms reported that his officer declared they were living at Boulogne with a Mr. Edwards; and it was desirable to know whether that person was or was not a relative of the prisoner, for the circumstances were very suspicious. If Mr. Edwards's health were endangered, the case would be different; but his assertion to that effect was unsupported by medical testimony. He thought, under all the

899
circumstances, that the House would see reason to pause before assenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know how long it was intended to keep the prisoner in custody? It seemed hard to imprison him for an unlimited period because witnesses chose to absent themselves.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought it would be hard upon the petitioner if he were kept in prison until the witnesses returned, were it not for the fact that he had been instrumental in their removal. Mr. Edwards only referred to his solicitor to show that he had no power over the witnesses, and was not able to bring them back, but he did not state that to be the case on his own authority. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that they ought not to assent to the Motion without some better assurance on the point than that of Mr. Edwards's solicitor.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYhoped that the unknown but most important individual who had employed Mr. Edwards to keep those witnesses out of the way, and was now paying for them at Boulogne, would put Mr. Edwards in a better position to appeal to the mercy of the House by bringing back the witnesses who had absconded.
The House divided:—Aves 4; Noes 133: Majority 129.

MALT TAX.
MR. BASSsaid, that in submitting the Motion of which he had given notice, for the repeal of half the Malt Tax, after the 10th October, 1852, he would not at present enter into any elaborate consideration of the question; but he would take the earliest opportunity of assuring the House that his proposition did not, in any way, involve the revenues of the current financial year. Not desiring that his proposition should involve those revenues, he had, with that view, named a day beyond the financial year, namely, the 10th of October, 1852; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make himself easy on that point. The issue he then wished to try was, whether the House was disposed, at any period, to entertain the question of a reduction of the duty on malt. In bringing forward this Motion he wished to impress it on the House, that he had no desire whatever to embarrass Her Majesty's Government; on the contrary, he had been
900
many years an humble, but earnest, supporter of the present Ministry. The noble Lord at the head of that Ministry had lately very frankly informed the House, that in his opinion, the House, or any private Member of it, had a decided right to consider all questions of finance and taxation that might be complained of as burdensome, and that the Executive Government could, without any loss of dignity, reconsider any particular scheme of taxation they had proposed. He wished, therefore, that the noble Lord would reconsider that part of his scheme, with a view, at some future period, of extending some indulgence to the classes who were anxious for relief from this particular burden. It had lately been asserted by an hon. Member as an axiom that where the duty was reduced on articles of foreign produce, it was but just to reduce the duty on similar articles of home production. They had taken off all the duties that were protective of agricultural produce; but the duty malt was permitted to remain untouched. The right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) had complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not dealt with those taxes that were in their nature elastic, such as soap, malt, &c. To reduce a rate of taxation did not necessarily involve a reduction in the amount of revenue. In many instances the consumption had, on the contrary, been increased. He should there refer to the opinion of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) on the late occasion of the discussion on the hop duty, the repeal of half of which duty he characterised as "making two bites of a cherry." The duties, however, amounted last year to about 200,000 l., and he thought that sum was of sufficient importance to be taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman had been always an advocate for the reduction of taxation, and had been also successful in his advocacy of free trade; and he then begged to ask him if it were an inexorable law of free trade to give every possible relief to foreign articles, but, at the same time, to stubbornly resist all reduction on articles of home production? It had been asserted by the late Sir Robert Peel, that as a condition of repealing the corn laws, it would be only just that the malt tax should be removed. He (Mr. Bass) then held in his hand a very remarkable pamphlet, published in the year 1836, after the sitting of the Committee which inquired into agricultural distress in that

901
year, and from which he begged to quote a few passages. The first was to this effect:—
"The present enormous duty on malt constitutes in itself one of the great grounds on which agriculturists can establish a claim for protection against competition."
Well, that ground was now gone. Yet the malt tax remained to its full extent. But if the agricultural interest asked for the abolition of the tax when the corn law was repealed, he had no doubt they would get it. It had been objected to his proposition, that it was a brewers' and maltsters' question. He denied that. He had not been asked by any one brewer to submit the proposition, whilst the maltsters deprecated it altogether. He would read one or two other passages from the pamphlet he had previously mentioned. Quoting from the report of the Commissioners of Excise, the pamphlet states, that "with a low rate of duty, a greater quantity of malt and a greater quantity of beer and spirits would be made." In page 17, it says, "It is impossible not to admit that a reduction of the malt duty would cause an increased demand for barley, and would consequently operate beneficially on the interests of agriculture." It was impossible, he considered, to prove his case more clearly and succinctly than by the passages he had read. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on a former occasion, in reply to the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr Cayley), that a reduction of duty was not always productive of benefit to the consumer, and alleged, as the reason for the falling-off in the consumption of beer, that the taste of the people for their favourite beverage had diminished. Now, when the duty was reduced in 1836, there was an enormous increase in the consumption of beer; the consumption reached its highest point. After 1836 it declined, but that was owing to the circumstances that tea, coffee, and cocoa had been brought into greater competition with beer. People could not drink all manner of things and in the same proportion. Although in 1842 there were only 4,385,000 quarters of malt consumed, and in 1847 only 4,200,000 quarters, yet in 1850 there were 5,300,000 quarters consumed, being more than 1,000,000 quarters over the consumption of 1847. The reason undoubtedly was, that the taste of the people for intoxicating beers had diminished, and they now drank beers of a more moderate strength,
902
so that the consumption of light beers had considerably increased. He could see the difference that had taken place in that respect within his own experience. He now brewed ten barrels of light beer to one barrel of strong beer, and where he formerly brewed three barrels of strong beer, he did not now brew one. There was another reason for the consumption of beer not having been so large as might have been anticipated, which was, that it had always maintained the same price. It was a remarkable fact that beer had not changed its price for twenty-one years; all other articles had been reduced in price; but whether the price of barley was 30 s., 60 s., or the average price of 33 s. 6d., the price of beer was always the same. There was a reason for that stability of price with respect to beer which did not apply to all trades. In the spring of 1847, when the price of barley was 55 s., the brewers tried to advance the price of beer, but it did not last ten days, for the publicans came in a body to the brewers, and told them that they could not alter their retail prices; that they (the brewers) must take an average profit and loss, and set the gain of one year against the loss of another, but that they (the publicans) could not distribute occasional increase in price over the small quantities they had to sell. Now if the retail dealers, (the publicans) would not be satisfied with a change for one year, he would put it to the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen), who had an Amendment upon his (Mr. Bass') Motion, whether they would submit to a change every quarter of a year for five years, which must be the result if his proposition for "reducing the rate of duty by 1½d. per bushel every quarter of a year till the whole was repealed," was carried. Now, as the duty was at present 21 s. 8d. per quarter, it would be constantly in a state of fluctuation for five years and a half. Another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was, that, as the traders would require an allowance for the duty on the stock on hand, the stock would have to he taken every three months; and how was it possible to do that? He would now show that the revenue would not be likely to suffer from a reduction of the malt duty, from the analogous instances of coffee, sugar, and brandy. When the duty on coffee was 18 d. a lb., its consumption was less than 1,000,000 lbs.; but when it was reduced to 4d. a lb., the consumption rose to 37,000,000 lbs. The revenue

903
from a shilling duty was greater than from an 18 d. duty; it was more from 6d. than from 1s., and it would be greater from 4d. than from 6d., if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not encourage traders to sell for coffee a spurious article, which was not coffee. The revenue from sugar amounted to 5,000,000 l. Notwithstanding that they derived such a large amount of revenue from this article, they did not fear to reduce the duty on British plantation sugar by one half, whilst the duty on foreign sugar was reduced from 56 s. to a very low figure indeed; and yet they got already 4,000,000 l. of revenue, and he had no doubt they would get the whole of the 5,000,000 l. in a short time. The duty on brandy had been reduced from 22 s. to 15 s. The revenue under the former price was 1,200,000 l.; under the latter price it was 1,400,000 l. Now beer was not in less general consumption than these articles; indeed he did not hesitate to say it was in more general consumption than all the others put together; and if treated in the same way, he had no doubt it would be found to be governed by the same laws. They also abolished the duty on bread. He was not now saying whether that was right or wrong, although it was well known that he inclined to the free-trade party in that House. He certainly did not anticipate that he would have ever seen the time when there would be no duty whatever on corn. He did not say that was wrong, and he believed it would be dangerous to alter that state of things now. Since 1847 the consumption of bread was more by 10,000,000 quarters of grain than it was before. Now, beer was sustenance like bread, presented in another form and through a different medium, and if the duty upon it was reduced, he had no doubt that reduction would be followed by increased consumption. The noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord Naas) told the House the other evening that a reduction of the duty on spirits would increase the morality of his countrymen—that they would be more temperate if they got old and good whisky—for it was only the crude raw spirit which demoralised the people. He (Mr. Bass) was not going to advocate that proposition; but he would not hesitate to say, that if the people of this country could get beer of good quality and moderate strength at a moderate price, they might expect to see the morality of the country improve. The working man would not then drink to be intoxicated, but
904
refresh and relieve his spirits after the labour and exhaustion of the day. Let the House adopt his Motion, and they would assist the farmer and benefit the consumer, without injuring the revenue.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That on and after the 10th day of October, 1852, one half of the Malt Tax be repealed."
MR. CAMPBELLwould not disparage for a moment the peculiar product which the hon. Member (Mr. Bass) had very naturally eulogised, and of which he was not, in the presence of the House, a more brilliant and successful advocate, than he was in the opinion of mankind a useful and beneficent reformer. He did not wish the House to be at all biassed by two remarkable admissions which had been most candidly delivered by the hon. Member in his speech. They were, that he had no friends to-night among the maltsters or the brewers. Such a circumstance could hardly be considered as an argument in favour of the Motion. But the adverse and disinterested sentiment of both the maltsters and the brewers ought not to sway the House; unless it coincided with the public interests, he should take the liberty of glancing at. In as much as the House had settled by a large majority, not many weeks ago, that the total abrogation of the malt tax ought not to be endured or entertained: in spite of all that persevering eloquence could urge in support of so great a fiscal revolution, it would be consonant, perhaps, with the reason of the case upon the one hand, and the rules of that House upon the other, to consider upon what principles they were guided to their late conclusion, and how far those principles should guide them in their vote to-night. The principles which guided them the other night, were obviously the principles which had guided them on similar occasions for upwards of thirty years. They were in the works of our political economists. They had been embodied in debates, and had found their way into our literature. In March, 1835, the late Sir Robert Peel, in a remarkable address, had amplified, digested, and enforced them. That speech was well remembered in the House, and because it was well remembered, he (Mr. Campbell) would be very brief in his support of the conclusion which it vindicated. The principles in favour of the Malt Tax were short and easy to be stated. They were—that it was introduced in admirable times, and formed by admirable statesmen;

905
that, in 1775, Dr. Adam Smith had stamped his warmest approbation on it; that it falls on a commodity of which all classes are consumers, but of which the consumption will encounter any tax you may impose, being founded upon national ideas, and firm in national propensities; that it coincides with many canons of taxation, and particularly with the canon which explains to us that a large revenue ought to be collected at a moderate expense. This point was forcibly explained by the late Sir Robert Peel in the great harangue he had adverted to. There was one further argument in favour of the Malt Tax, which, as it was not in the books, he should be forgiven for advancing. Without encroaching much upon the profits of the farmer, it drew his capital from the production of the less necessary grains, to the production of the grains which were move essential in the hour of public want and national emergency. He should not dwell on this argument, however, because it had been estimated that a fixed duty of 1s. 6d. would indemnify the agriculturist for the inconvenience he sustained; and, in point of fact, the inconvenience was in some degree the measure of the benefit. If these views were sound, and the House had frequently assented to them, to encroach upon the Malt Tax would not be more correct or prudent than to abrogate it. Were there no other tasks to occupy them, and no other duties to engage them in the sphere of fiscal legislation, than the hardy pastime and adventurous pursuit into which the hon. Member had invited them? Had they no other outlet for the redundant cash of the Exchequer? Had they no lower classes to instruct? an end which could not be accomplished unless something like an annual million were devoted to it. Had they no tea duties to deal with—no tobacco to release? No soap, advertisements, or paper, to emancipate? Not that he intended, for a moment, in classing these articles together, to assign to them an equal claim on the financial generosity of Parliament. To place his objections to the Motion in the strongest light consistent with political discretion, he would go so far as to contend that a 2s. duty upon corn would be better than a violation of the Malt Tax; and if such a duty were imposed, the Malt Tax would be rather strengthened than enfeebled. If such a duty were imposed, it might be possible as well to extend the other sources of revenue which Dr. Smith had sanctioned
906
and immortalised—he meant the House Tax, and the Land Tax.
MR. FREWENsaid, that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) was doubtless aware that the great point which the agriculturists were anxious to obtain was the total repeal of the malt tax. Now, he wished to ask the hon. Member, whether he was to understand the present Motion for a reduction of half the duty as a stepping-stone toward its total repeal on some future occasion?
MR. BASSsaid, that having voted on two recent occasions for the total repeal of the tax, he should have supposed that the hon. Member would not have thought it necessary to make such an inquiry. He was certainly favourable to the total repeal of the malt tax, but upon the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, he would for the present be satisfied with the promise of a partial reduction.
MR. FREWENsaid, that under these circumstances he should not propose the Amendment of which he had given notice.
MR. ALCOCKthought that the country should feel deeply indebted to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bass) for bringing forward this question, As they could not get total repeal, he thought that even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that great injustice had been suffered under the malt tax, and that it was only in a financial point of view that the continuance of the tax was tolerated. He would take that opportunity of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that it was in his power this evening to propose an act of benefit to the agricultural interest, which would be attended with immense advantage. It was, namely, to threaten the imposition of a duty upon Peruvian guano. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of proposing a tax of 10 l. a ton upon that article. He confessed at once that he did not expect a large amount of revenue from this source; but he appealed to the Protectionist Members whether the threat of imposing such a tax was not more likely to benefit the agriculturist than a reduction of 50 per cent on the malt tax? The present price of Peruvian guano was between 9l. and 10 l. per ton; and he had no hesitation in saying that it could be brought to the Thames and sold at a handsome profit for 5l. 10 s. a ton. Yet the price asked for it by Gibbs and Co., the importers, was 10 l. 10 s. a ton if they purchased less than thirty tons; or

907
9l. 5s. if they purchased a larger quantity, subject to a discount of 2½ per cent. But the fact was, that the article was in the hands of the Peruvian Government alone, and that it was a monstrous case of monopoly. He would suggest, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say to the Peruvian Government, "Unless you deal more fairly and liberally with our agriculturists, in the sale of this article, we will at once put a heavy duty upon it." Thus, the Peruvian Government would be deprived of funds from this source; and the consequence would be, that the Peruvian Bonds would go down in the market. The payment of 3,700,000 l. of Peruvian bonds depended entirely on the farmers of England, and but for them not a farthing would be received upon those bonds. The English farmers now took 100,000 tons of guano yearly, and it would be better for the Peruvian Government, as well as for the English farmer, for them to sell 500,000 tons yearly, at 5l. 10 s. per ton. There were 20,000,000 acres of arable land alone in England, and taking only a single cwt. per acre, the transport of guano for that purpose would employ 1,600 ships, and put 500,000 l. yearly in the pocket of the Peruvian Government. That might appear not to have much to do with the subject of malt, but it had a great deal to do with the interests of agriculture, for which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had expressed his sympathy.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that as he was a farmer, perhaps the House would excuse him if he said one or two words on the manner in which the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had introduced the subject to which he had referred. He (Sir W. Jolliffe) should be exceedingly obliged to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he would compel the Peruvian Government to supply him with guano at 5l. per ton; but how the hon. Member for East Surrey proposed to carry out such a plan by laying upon that article an import duty of 10 l. a ton, he could not for the life of him conceive. Perhaps he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and he might have meant to say a duty of 10 s. per ton. At the same time he must remark that the speeches of the hon. Members for Derby (Mr. Bass), Cambridge, (Mr. Campbell), and East Surrey, must have convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not long go on, under the altered circumstances of the country, with the old financial sys-
908
tem. There was no doubt that agriculture bore all the old burdens now to which it was formerly subjected, while the protection they once enjoyed had been taken away. It was clear that such a state of things could not long endure. He himself should prefer a total repeal of the malt tax to the reduction of half the duty, because he was convinced there was no tax more oppressive to the interest with which he was connected, and because he believed that until they got rid of this tax, the House would never be able to deal with the question of raising a revenue by the means of beer-shops. The hon. Member for Derby was almost the only brewer, indeed the only brewer of any magnitude, who advocated the remission of the malt tax; and it was remarkable that while the agriculturists had no protection at all, brewing and distilling were protected in the most stringent manner by prohibitions, and had become complete monopolies. It was all very fine to say that protection was dead; but it must not be forgotten that it was carried to its most pernicious extent on behalf of the distillers, maltsters and brewers, and that an enormous revenue of 15,000,000 l. was raised to the Exchequer by means of this pernicious system. He believed that in the face of free trade such a system could not go on. They could not go on blowing hot and cold, raising 15,000,000 l. by a system in which monopoly and protection were combined, and at the same time applying the theory of free trade to agricultural products. The hon. Member for Cambridge said, that the Motion was a tampering with the malt tax, and that he should prefer a 2s. duty on corn to a mitigation of this tax. He (Sir W. Jolliffe) certainly did not believe that the public would be benefited by the mitigation of the tax, and he should only vote for it with a view to the total repeal of the duty. If the tax were only partially taken off, the whole expense of the machinery of collection would remain, and the malt monopoly would continue as before. Unless the House treated the remission of half the duty as an instalment merely, he did not think that it would be expedient to stir in the matter. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Derby had voted for the total repeal of the tax, and believing that he intended the present measure simply as an instalment of total repeal, he could not refuse to go into the same lobby with him; but he must add that he should do so with a conviction that the whole

909
system of taxation in this country must undergo an entire change before long.
MR. HEYWORTHperfectly agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, in thinking that it would be impossible to maintain for any length of time the tax upon malt, which, being a tax upon consumption, could not fail to press heavily upon the industry of the country. He was rejoiced to hear the arguments which had been that night employed on the other side of the House, as he was convinced that the repeal of the malt tax must lead to direct taxation, which must, after all, be the system which would prevail. He would carry down the income tax to the lowest level, even so far as to tax the wages of the labouring poor, and then the Exchequer would be rich enough to take off not only 5,000,000 l. of malt tax, but 5,000,000 l. of other taxes.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he readily admitted that, at the moment they had abolished protection and had adopted free trade, they had condemned the malt tax, and that it would be impossible to carry out the two systems together, and that sooner or later the malt tax must be repealed. But he was not prepared to vote, either immediately or gradually, for a repeal of the malt tax. It appeared to him they ought not to lose sight of that very important consideration—how the loss of the revenue derived from the malt tax could be supplied. In his opinion that was a matter of so much importance, that it was the duty of any Gentleman who proposed a repeal or a reduction of the tax, to state how he would raise an amount of revenue equal to that which he would repeal. He should further observe, that he did not think the repeal of the malt tax would afford any very general relief to the agricultural interest, although he was willing to admit that it would be productive of some partial benefit to that interest. He should also say it was a matter of the utmost importance to the agricultural interest in considering that question to know what tax they were to have as a substitute for the malt tax; for it was quite possible that the substitute might be worse than the tax itself. As an agriculturist he could gather no consolation from the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) that a duty of 10 l. should be imposed on Peruvian guano, nor did he see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to benefit by its adoption.
MR. GEORGE SANDARS: Sir, hav-
910
ing so recently expressed my opinions on this question, I should not now have troubled the House, had it not been for one or two remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion. The hon. Gentleman says, the brewers and the maltsters are opposed to it. Now, in my humble opinion, they are the very parties who would be most benefited by a repeal of this duty; it is, in fact, mainly a brewer's question; take off the duty, and you put it into the pockets of the brewers. If any one expects to see them reduce the price of beer as a consequence, they will, I believe, be greatly deceived. Has not the price of barley fallen some 20 s. per quarter in the last few years—a sum equal to the whole of the duty? yet no reduction has taken place in the brewers' prices. The hon. Gentleman admits that in 1847 his firm paid as high as 60 s. per quarter for barley, and that the brewers made an attempt to advance the price of beer; but, I ask, have they during the present year, when the best barley has been selling at 25 s. and 20 s. per quarter, made any attempt to reduce it? Nor will they if you take off the duty; half the duty is less than one halfpenny per quarter, and though you may brew excellent beer at 2d., yet the price the brewers retail theirs at, to the public, is from 4d. to 6d. per quart. Take off the duty, and you will have two great monopolies in place of one. At present a man of small means may carry on a large business as a maltster, trading on the credit he receives from the Government (say six months, on 21 s. per quarter) which is nearly 50 per cent on the cost of his article; but do away with the duty, and you throw the trade into the hands of the large maltsters and capitalists, thus raising up, in addition to the brewers', a maltsters' monopoly also. I have, Sir, another decided objection to the partial repeal of this duty: the same expenses in collection will remain, and the same vexatious restrictions and annoying penalties—some thirty-two—most of them of 100 l. and upwards, and in 1847, no less than 192 prosecutions took place under these laws. I object, too, on the grounds of revenue: we cannot spare some 2½ millions. I am aware the hon. Gentleman relies on a greatly increased consumption to restore that amount; and though the hon. Gentleman refers to sugar, coffee, tea, and spirits, I ask him to refer to the repeal of the beer tax; to former reductions in malt. When the duty was reduced from 4s. 6d., I think, in 1816, to 2s. 6d., no increased consumption took

911
place; and as I believe that no reduction would take place in the retail price of beer, I do not see that any increased consumption can be relied upon. For these reasons, Sir, and believing that the proposed reduction would be of no advantage to the agricultural interest, I shall oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) was different in form from that which the House had lately rejected, every argument which had been adduced in its favour was brought forward when the Motion for a total repeal of the malt tax was discussed. That Motion was negatived, as the House would recollect, by a majority of nearly two to one; and though his hon. Friend had not brought himself within the the rules of the House by the terms of the Motion which he had submitted to it, it was in substance and in spirit the same which had been rejected; and the hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) grounded his support of the present Motion upon the assumption that it was a stepping-stone to total repeal. The hon. Member for Petersfield had, however, given a very good reason why the House should not agree to the Motion—namely, that the expense of collection would remain the same even if half the duty were remitted. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated before, that no similar amount of taxation was raised so cheaply as the malt tax. Having so recently stated his views on the general question in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), be confessed he felt in some little difficulty, because he was unwilling to repeat to the House the arguments which he had applied to that Motion. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield) had very properly asked what was the substitute which must he adopted for the malt tax. No man could be sanguine enough to suppose that 5,000,000 l. of taxation could be dispensed with immediately, or within a year or two, without a very large amount of taxation to supply the deficiency. Hon. Members on the other side of the House had said that the first tax which ought to be repealed was the income tax, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen who expressed a wish to repeal a tax of that kind, producing 5,000,000 l. annually, could not be so inconsistent as to vote for the remission of half the duties on malt, which, instead of leading to the
912
repeal of the income tax, would very probably double it. Only last night the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), representing the great party who sat on the opposite side of the House, had announced his intention of taking the opinion of the House, whether in the present state of the revenue there should be any further reduction in the taxation. He confessed he was not quite satisfied with the substitute proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock). He very much doubted whether the agricultural interest would be much benefited by the exclusion of a rich and beneficial manure from this country: for it should be observed that his hon. Friend proposed to put on an import duty to the full extent of the present cost of the article; a proposal which, if carried out, would prohibit the introduction of Peruvian guano at all. He would only say, with reference to the total repeal of the malt tax, that the House bad already decided that question; and as to the partial remission of the duty, he thought it was not very likely to afford relief, either to the producer or to the consumer, but that it would go into the pockets of those gentlemen who intervened between the consumer and the producer, namely, maltsters and brewers. The price of malt was one-third lower than it used to be, and yet be did not find that cither pale ale or bitter beer was at all lower than it used to be. The hon. Member for Derby's beer was undoubtedly good; but somehow or other, he (Mr. Bass) continued to keep up the price of the article. He had been looking that morning at the evidence given by Mr. Baker, of Writtle, one of the most strenuous advocates for the repeal of the malt tax, before the House of Lords. He was asked, "Who got the 8,000,000 l. taken off the malt duty?" The answer was, "The manufacturers—that is, the maltsters; the price of barley did not rise, and the price of beer did not fall." Under these circumstances he did not think that it would be wise in the House to sacrifice for nothing a revenue of 2,500,000 l.
MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Derby would not divide the House. No man had voted more steadily than himself for the total repeal of the malt tax; but its partial remission would neither diminish the expense of its collection, nor remove the restrictions which it imposed upon agriculture, or on brewing at home. In short, it would afford none of those indirect advantages which the

913
agricultural community valued almost as much as the benefit which they would derive from the removal of the pecuniary burden. He should also beg the hon. Member (Mr. Bass) to recollect that those who might vote with him had no prospect of a substitute for the amount of revenue which they would sacrifice. For his part, he should much rather support the partial reduction of a custom duty, than of an excise duty, because a reduction in the former case would lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting the customs, while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial repeal of an excise tax.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, the arguments used by some hon. Gentlemen in favour of the repeal of the malt tax, were with him the strongest arguments for resisting it. He contended that beer was not a necessary of life. The hon. Member for Derby bad argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lose by the proposed remission, because the consumption of beer would be increased. Did the hon. Member mean to say that double the present quantity of beer would be drunk? If so, it would lead to extensive demoralisation. The establishment of beershops and dram shops had so perverted the minds of the people that they called evil good, and good evil. It was but the other night that he beard in that House an eulogium on whisky. It was well known that one half the crimes committed in this country and in Scotland were occasioned by the use of intoxicating liquors. He maintained that there was more nutriment in two penny worth of bread than in a shillingsworth of whisky or beer. In his opinion there was no better mode of raising a revenue than by taxing these articles, and he should be very sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer give way in any degree by reducing the duties upon them.
MR. HENRY DRUMMOND: The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not seem to know the grand difference between whisky and beer. It was the difference between whipcord and a feed of oats. Whipcord did not add to the strength of a horse, but a feed of oats did. He objected to the remission of half the malt tax, because the loss of income was a clear evil, without any corresponding benefit in the suppression of beer shops, which the repeal of the whole tax would effect. This tax, which prevented people brewing their own beer, drove them into the beer shops, and there was not a little trumpery hamlet of ten or twelve
914
houses without one. Whenever there was a cottage to be sold, the capitalists in the towns bought it up at an enormous cost, and converted it into a beer shop; and that was the way in which the morals of the people were debased. He wished to take the question entirely out of the hands of the Excise, and to allow every labourer and every other person free right to brew his own beer. That would preserve the morals of the people, and nothing else would.
MR. HUMEwas glad that the discussion had had the effect of showing that hon. Gentlemen opposite were convinced that the present system of taxation could not go on much longer. He differed from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and was of opinion that the use of beer in moderation gave more strength to our population. He hoped the hon. Mover would not press his Motion, because all the benefit would go into the pockets of the brewers. He should, however, have been ready to support the entire repeal of the tax; and he would tell the House how it could be done. Let them reduce their establishments—the soldiers from 100,000 to 60,000, and the seamen from 40,000 to 25,000, which was the number a few years ago. He believed the time was fast approaching when they must go back to that standard, for the tendency of things was every day setting more and more in that direction.
COLONEL SIBTHORPdid not agree with the hon. Member for Salford in thinking that the poor labouring man could live upon cabbage water. He considered good wholesome malt liquor was absolutely necessary for him. But he did not think this Motion would afford any essential relief to the agricultural interest, whose distress could only be effectually remedied by proper import duties on foreign articles. He believed the day was not far distant when protection would again be restored, and then all the free-traders who had forgot their duty to the people, would have to go and hide themselves.
MR. BASS, in reply, said, he believed that the adoption of his proposition would occasion no loss, but rather an increase, to the revenue, as had been the experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to all articles on which the duties had been reduced. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), he (Mr. Bass) wondered how he could venture to offer an opinion on that point, when he confessed that he

915
had never tasted beer in his life. He (Mr. Bass) was anxious to see a reduction in the malt duty, in order that the brewers might be able to reduce the price of beer. The reduction in the price of barley rendered it difficult to make an equivalent reduction in the small quantities in which beer was generally sold. If the House should reduce the duty on malt, that would reduce the price of beer, and the consumer would have far more benefit than the reduction of duty amounted to.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That on and after the 10th day of October, 1852, one half of the Malt Tax be repealed."
The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 76: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Barrow, W. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bennet, P.

Keating, R.

Cayley, E. S.

Lewisham, Visct.

Child, S.

Meagher, T.

Cobbold, J. C.

O'Connor, F.

Codrington, Sir W.

Prime, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Salwey, Col.

Cubitt, W.

Scholefield, W.

Drummond, H.

Spooner, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Stanley, E.

Forbes, W.

Urquhart, D.

Frewen, C. H.

Waddington, H. S.

Galway, Visct.

Wakley, T.

Gilpin, Col.

Williams, W.

Halford, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Hallewell, E. G.

Bass, M. T.

Halsey, T. P.

Alcock, T.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Granger, T. C.

Anson, hon. Col.

Grenfell, C. P.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Grey, R. W.

Bell, J.

Harris, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Hawes, B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Heyworth, L.

Boyd, J.

Howard, Lord E.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hume, J.

Bright, J.

Humphery, Ald.

Brotherton, J.

Kershaw, J.

Brown, W.

Lewis, G. C.

Carter, J. B.

Loveden, P.

Cobden, R.

Mackie, J.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mitchell, T. A.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Crawford, R. W.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L

Crowder, R. B.

Mowatt, F.

Dawes, E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Parker, J.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Perfect, R.

Ellis, J.

Pilkington, J.

Evans, J.

Price, Sir R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Ricardo, O.

Fox, W. J.

Rich, H.

French, F.

Richards, R.

Geach, C.

Roebuck, J. A.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Russell, F. C. H.

916

Sandars, G.

Vivian, J. E.

Smith, J. B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wilson, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stephenson, R.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Strickland, Sir G.

Young, Sir J.

Thompson, Col.

Townshend, Capt.

TELLERS.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hayter, W. G.

Verney, Sir H.

Hill, Lord M.

ARMAMENTS—INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
MR. COBDENsaid: The Resolution I have now to move is a logical sequence to the discussion in which the House has just been engaged. It has been said, in the course of that discussion, that it is impossible for certain interests to support the present amount of taxation. One of the motives that has influenced me in bringing forward this Resolution is, that I thought it was so far suited to the present circumstances of the country that it would tend to produce a diminution of burdens and a relief from taxation. I wish the real scope and purport of my Motion to be understood at the outset, so that it may not be misrepresented in the debate. I do not propose, then, to discuss or entertain the amount of the armies maintained upon the Continent. When I speak of warlike preparations I allude to naval establishments and fortifications. Our Army is maintained without reference to the armies of the Continent, and the armies of the Continent are never framed or regulated with reference to the Army of England. In speaking of standing armies, which I regard as the standing curse of the present generation, the question is usually complicated by considerations of a purely domestic character. I am told that the armies of the Continent are not kept up by the Governments for the sake of meeting foreign enemies, but for the purpose of repressing their own subjects. This being the case, I am asked how I can persuade foreign Governments to reduce their armies, seeing that they are necessary for the maintenance of internal order, as it is called. But no such argument applies to my proposition, which is confined exclusively to the maritime armaments of England and France. I will, however, say, that I believe that if I can succeed in my Motion with France, the example of the two countries will be at once followed by other countries in the reduction of their navies, and that if a reduction in the naval forces and fortifications, of England and France takes place, other countries will afterwards follow with

917
a redaction in their armies. I presume it will be admitted that the maintenance of a naval force beyond what is necessary, in the time of peace, for the protection of commerce against piracy, and in the intercourse with barbarous countries, is an evil, but I shall be told it is a necessary evil. If I ask why, it will be said, because other countries are armed as well as ourselves. Well, admitting that, and assuming that France and England maintain a certain amount of naval force, not for the purpose of protecting commerce, or acting as the police of the seas, but in order to hold themselves in a menacing attitude towards each other, that is a compound evil; it is not merely a pure waste of the amount of money which that portion of the navies of the two countries costs—there is also the sacrifice of the productive labour of the sailors, shipwrights, &c; and I am prepared to contend that it would be better and more economical to vote that money and throw it into the sea, for we should then save the labour which is employed upon ships of war, and which might be then productively occupied. Nor will the old hackneyed argument, that "to preserve peace we must be prepared for war," apply in my case. What I seek is a mutual reduction of armaments which will leave the two countries in the same relative position as at present. These two countries will be equally well prepared for warfare with each other if they reduce their force to one, as if they both maintain their force at twenty, as their relative proportions will remain the same, and no advantage can be gained in the event of hostilities by keeping up this unnecessary force. I feel bound, in the outset of my argument, to prove the truth of my assumption that England does arm herself against France, and that France returns the compliment, and that this has been for many years the systematic policy of successive Governments in the two countries. I am prepared to show that it is the avowed policy of both countries to arm themselves, so that each may be prepared to meet the armament provided by the other country. In doing so I shall be obliged, contrary to my usual practice, to trouble the House with a few quotations. In the debate in the French Chamber of Deputies in 1846, when a Motion was made for a vote of 95,000,000f. for a great augmentation of the navy, M. Thiers said—
"There is nothing offensive to England in citing her example when our Navy is under considera-
918
tion, any more than there would be in speaking of Prussia, Austria, or Russia, if we were deliberating upon the strength of our Army. We pay England the compliment of thinking only of her when determining our naval force; we never heed the ships which sally forth from Trieste or Venice—we care only for those which leave Portsmouth or Plymouth."
I am told the noble Lord below (Lord Palmerston) was in the Chamber of Deputies when the speech was made. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston), in the debate on the financial statement in 1848, only two years afterwards, said—
"So far from its affording any cause of offence to Prance that we should measure our Navy by such a standard, I am sure any one who follows the debates in the French Chambers, when their naval estimates come under discussion, must know that they follow the same course, adopting the natural and only measure in such cases, namely, the naval force which other nations may happen to have at the time."—3 Hansard, xcvi. 980.
In the same debate on the financial statement in 1848, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), after showing that the expenditure for the navy in France had increased since 1833 from 2,280,000 l. to 3,902,000 l., proceeds to observe—
"I am not alluding at all—it never has been the custom to allude, and I think we are quite right in that respect—to what may be the military force of foreign Powers. I do not, therefore, allude at all to the amount of the standing army that is kept up in France, or in Austria, or in Prussia, or in other foreign countries; but so great an increase in naval estimates, I think, does require the attention, and, at all events, should be within the knowledge of the House."—p. 912.
I can give several other extracts from the speeches of leading statesmen, and from the newspaper press, of both countries, to the same effect; but I think it will not be necessary to trouble the House with many more, for it will hardly be denied that the two Governments have been, up to the present time, running a race of warlike preparations. I have two objections to that policy: first, it is an irritating policy, having a constant tendency to increase the evil, and to which I see no limits unless it is in some way met; and, secondly, it leads each country into the error of proceeding upon exaggerated reports of the preparations of the other. No explanations are ever offered or received, and both Governments are left to act upon their erroneous impressions. I found, when these reports were afterwards examined into, that they bore the traces of great exaggeration. I will mention an instance. Our naval force was greatly increased in 1845. The French were alarmed. A Committee of the Cham-

919
ber of Peers was appointed to inquire into the state of the French navy. They made a report. In that report, drawn up by Baron Dupin, they said—
"We have now to announce the execution of a great scheme which the English Government is pursuing with its usual foresight, and which cannot fail to have a vast influence on the naval policy of other countries."
The report then went on to say—
"That under the modest guise of steam guardships, the British Admiralty had determined on building eight additional line-of-battle ships, to be fitted out for continuing fifteen days at sea, and that the number was intended to he doubled in the next year. If we compare the powers of destruction possessed by the broadsides of these floating fortresses with those of the most formidable batteries ever employed by an army upon land for the destruction of fortified places, we shall then know what to think of an armament provided under the modest and defensive guise of steam guardships. It is, then, for France an absolute necessity to prepare an armament of a similar character and of equal force, so that we may have nothing to dread in future, in case of a possible misunderstanding with England."
Now, in that report it was broadly stated that eight steam guard-ships were being prepared by the British Government against France; and there was some ground for it, inasmuch as eight large ships had been ordered by our Admiralty to be converted into screw-propellers; but when I sat on the Committee on the Navy, in 1848, I found, on examining the authorities of the Admiralty, that only four of these steam guard-ships were ever completed, and that, instead of being of the character stated in the report, they were only capable of going to sea for five days instead of fifteen, inasmuch as they were not prepared for carrying a large supply of coal. I will give another illustration of how the two countries played at seesaw in this respect. I have stated that in consequence of the increase of our Navy in 1845, France had voted a largo augmentation of her naval force in 1846. Mr. Ward, who was then Secretary of the Navy, came down to the House of Commons the following Session (of 1847), and made this a plea for a further increase of our Navy Estimates. After giving a detailed and glowing account of the augmentation of the French estimates, made in the previous year by the Chamber of Deputies, he added—
"Now, he found no fault with France for these things. France did what she thought right and necessary for the maintenance of her position. She set us, in many respects, a noble example. These facts, it appeared to him, ought to be a lesson to us. They imposed a very heavy respon-
920
sibility on those who were in power in this country."—3 Hansard, xc. 570.
But the British Government could not stop there. Our Navy was augmented until it reached upwards of 40,000 men. That produced its fruits in France. I have in my band an extract from a report of the National Assembly on the Navy in 1849. It says—
"Let us see whether foreign Powers really show us the example of a reduction of naval armaments. This very spring England has voted 40,000 men for the sea service. This vote will amount to 6,000,000 l. sterling, without including the cost of artillery, &c., which is defrayed out of the Ordnance estimates. We content ourselves with twenty-four vessels of the line afloat, and sixteen in an advanced stage upon the stocks, for our peace establishment; the English have seventy afloat, besides those in course of building. With our peace establishment, such as it was fixed in 1846, we should be one-third inferior in strength to the English Navy."
But this farce of "beggar my neighbour" will not be completely played out until I have given one more quotation from a speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, being a direct response to the last menace from the other side of the Channel. In moving the Naval Estimates for the present year, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said—and it was this remark of the right, hon. Gentleman that induced me to give notice of this Motion—
"It was impossible to fix upon what was necessary in their own establishment without looking to the establishments of foreign countries. He might, however, observe that they had had sufficient proof in the course of the last year that a gallant, active, and intelligent people, not far from themselves, had not by any means neglected their naval establishments and naval power."—3 Hansard, cxiv. 1187.
And the right hon. Gentleman went on to give a description of the naval evolutions at Cherbourg, and that great fortified place was held up to this country with a formidable account of its preparation. Now, will it be credited by the House that at almost the moment when these words were being uttered by our First Lord of the Admiralty, the French Government were quoting our example to justify an increased outlay for the improvement of this naval arsenal. I hold in my hand a report of a commission of the National Assembly recommending the outlay of 6,800,000f. to continue the defensive works at Cherbourg; and it bears date the 11th of April, 1851. It says—
"If we would be fully alive to the necessity of no longer leaving in a defenceless state a point most important and certainly the most menaced

921
upon the whole coast of the Channel, we have only to listen to the opinion entertained of Cherbourg by the English, and especially by one of their most renowned sailors, Admiral Napier, in his recent letter to the Times. We have only in fact, to cast our eye upon the map, and to observe the vast works which the British Admiralty are now executing at Jersey and Alderney for the purpose of creating a rival establishment to our own. This is the more necessary, inasmuch as the railroads and steamboats in England are every day increasing, and their powerful means of transportation give to those who possess them the facility of concentrating upon any given point a sudden expedition. We must be on our guard against so powerful an enemy, situate at so short a distance from our shores, and who by the aid of steam will be henceforth independent of wind, tides, and currents, which formerly impeded the operations of sailing vessels."
One of the best things this House has done for a long time was to suspend, the other night, the works for the fortification of Alderney. These works are a menace and an affront to France, and are meant as a rival to Cherbourg. Now, Cherbourg, as every one knows who has sailed along that coast, besides being a naval arsenal, is a most useful, valuable, and indispensable port of refuge for merchant ships; in fact, a breakwater at Cherbourg might be made by subscription from all the maritime States of Europe, so important is it to all who sail along that coast. But Alderney can mean nothing but a fortified place, within a few miles of France, to menace that country. It can never be useful as a harbour of refuge, for no merchant vessels will venture near it. These fortifications were projected during a panic in England, caused by the cry of a French invasion; and if any one could get at the professional springs set in motion to create that panic, it would be a most instructive history. In 1845 the country was led to suppose that we were to be invaded by some maritime Power. A number of engineers had a roving commission to go along the coast and point out places where money could be spent in raising fortifications, and when they had exhausted the coast of England they went over to Jersey and Alderney. I have heard the evidence of some of these gallant gentlemen before the Committee on the Navy Estimates. One of them said he went down to Plymouth—he found the people there expecting their throats would be cut the next day; and, said he, "strange as it may appear, I shared their alarm." It was whilst under the influence of that panic that we projected our harbours of refuge, as they were called, upon which it
922
was suggested between 4,000,000 l. and 5,000,000 l. should be expended. It was under the same panic that the works at Keyham, upon which 1,200,000 l. is to be wasted, and the works at Alderney, which are to cost four times as much as the fee-simple of the whole island, were projected. I do not mean to bring these facts in accusation against any particular Government or party in this country, nor do I intend to charge England with being worse than her neighbour beyond the Channel; both are equally to blame, and it is very difficult to say on which side the greater culpability is to be found. I may, in justification of these remarks, appeal to the authority of one of the most accomplished and amiable men in France, almost the only man who, in 1847 and 1848, had the moral courage to attempt to stem the torrent of prejudice and passion which was hurrying us into these warlike preparations. Monsieur Michel Chevalier, in a pamphlet which was noticed with merited commendation by the noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord John Russell), in his Budget speech of 1848, stated, that whilst we were projecting our fortifications on the British coast, France, at the same time, was projecting works to the extent of between 10,000,000 l. and 11,000,000 l. sterling, without including the fortifications of Paris, and he gave a comparative estimate of the increased expenditure both of France and England, from 1838 to 1847, showing that in that period England and France had respectively augmented their naval expenditure to the extent of between 13,000,000 l. and 14,000,000 l. sterling, and that, both going on in that neck-and-neck race of folly, the two countries had, in fact, spent nearly the same amount. Now, the practical question which I have to ask is, can any means be devised for putting an end to this foolish international rivalry? Is there a remedy for what everybody will admit to be a great evil? Is it possible to bring human reason to bear upon the mass of folly, waste, and extravagance, which I have been describing? Is diplomacy unable to bring the two nations to a better understanding of their true interests? I know that I shall be asked to quote a precedent for what I am recommending, and I think there is some force in the precedent I am about to adduce. I will not refer to the more remote examples of the last century, such as the agreement for the demolition of Dunkirk, or the treaty for mutual reduction of armaments

923
entered into between France and England in 1787, or the convention called the Armed Neutrality; nor will I allude to the treaties for suppressing the slave trade, which defined the amount of force to be maintained by the contracting parties; but I will cite a modern example, bearing, as I believe, upon the case under consideration. The case to which I shall refer is that of America and England, for limiting the force to be kept up on the lakes of America. I will give the text of the treaty:—
"Arrangements between the United States and Great Britain, between Richard Rush, Esq., acting as Secretary of the Department of State, and Charles Bagot, his Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary, &c., April 1817:—The naval force to be maintained upon the American lakes by His Majesty and the Government of the United States shall henceforth be confined to the following vessels on each side, that is—On Lake Ontario, to one vessel not exceeding 100 tons burden, and armed with one 18-pound cannon; on the upper lakes to two vessels, not exceeding like burden each, and armed with like force; on the waters of Lake Champlain, to one vessel, not exceeding like burden, and armed with like force. All other armed vessels on these lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed. If either party should hereafter be desirous of annulling this stipulation, and should give notice to that effect to the other party, it shall cease to be binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice. The naval force so to be limited shall be restricted to such services as will in no respect interfere with the proper duties of the armed vessels of the other party."
Now it will be remembered that, during our war to the United States in 1814, the greatest efforts were made on both sides to secure a naval supremacy upon the lakes, which was considered by the highest military authorities to be indispensable to the success of the land operations of the armies. Upon this subject the Duke of Wellington, who was then at Paris, thus expressed himself in a letter addressed to Sir George Murray:—
"I have told the Ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the lakes is a sine quâ non of success in war on the frontier of Canada, even if our object should be solely defensive; and I hope that when you are there they will take care to secure it for you."
So that in case of any rupture between England and America the occupation of the lakes was considered by that great authority as necessary to success; and yet, notwithstanding that, immediately after the war, the two countries had the good sense to limit the amount of force upon the lakes. And what has been the result of
924
that friendly convention? Not only has it had the effect of reducing the force, but of abolishing it altogether. When I sat on the Committee, I did not find that any vessel was left on the lakes as an armed force. From the moment that it was known that there was to be no rivalry in the armaments of the two countries, neither party cared to maintain even the moderate force which they were entitled to keep up. And this is, in my mind, the natural result of such a friendly understanding; and I believe it will be found that, in the event of England and France entering into a negotiation for a reduction of their naval forces, the effect will be that, from the moment they are satisfied of each other's sincerity, all desire for maintaining an armed force will cease on both sides. I admit that the case of England and France, and that of England and America, to which I am referring, are somewhat different; but yet I ask whether it is not possible to devise some plan, if not by actual convention, as in the case of America, yet by some communication with France, in which we may say, "We are mutually building so many vessels each year; our relative force is as three to two, and if we increase it tenfold still the relations will be the same. Will it not be possible by a friendly understanding to agree that we shall not go on in this rivalry, but that we shall put an equal check upon this mutual injury?" I may be told that to undertake a reduction of forces in every part of the aqueous globe, is a very different thing to the regulation of the naval establishments upon the lakes of Canada. But I will remind the House that our naval force is allotted to certain "stations," which are defined according to well-known geographical limits. For instance, there is the East India station, the Pacific station, the Mediterranean station. Now the force we maintain on those stations has always borne a certain relation to the force of other countries. I remember, for instance, that the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Auckland, in his evidence before the Navy Committee, stated, that our force in the Pacific was framed with reference to the amount of force kept there by France and America. Now, I ask, is it impossible to come to a friendly arrangement respecting these stations similar to that which has been so completely successful on the Canadian lakes? Why, it seems to me that the convention fixing the number of slave

925
cruisers to be kept up by the great naval Powers on the coast of Africa is very nearly a case in point, in which what I contend for is completely accomplished. But I may be told, I am dealing merely with France, and forgetting that there are other maritime States; but I contend that there are only two countries besides ourselves of any importance as first-rate naval Powers, namely, France and the United States. America has very wisely set us the example of a reduction of her navy—in fact, she has not a line-of-battle ship now in commission. The only one she had last year at sea, the Ohio, has been brought home from the Pacific and laid up in ordinary; and the works in her dockyards, so far as relate to ships of the line on the stocks, have been suspended. When California was discovered, America might have placed two or three line-of-battle ships oft" that coast; but she withdrew the only one she bad there, and turned her artisans and shipwrights to construct some of the most magnificent steam vessels that were ever seen; and her commerce is extending as fast as our own. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) may, perhaps, refer me to Russia; but all history proves, that no country that has not a mercantile marine can be a great naval country. You may build up a large navy as Mehemet Ali did, and put his fellahs on board; but if you have not a mercantile marine, you never can become a great naval Power. Russia has, no doubt, a great number of ships at Cronstadt—I have seen them all—but if Russia has power she keeps it at home, and there may be very good reasons why she does so, for I have heard remarks from American sailors lying at Cronstadt to the effect that her vessels are not much to be admired. She has about 30,000 sailors, but they are men taken from the interior, unaccustomed to sea duty, and are, of course, a complete laughing-stock to British seamen. I do not consider that any country like America or England, carrying on an enormous commerce, and possessing hundreds of thousands of experienced sailors, can ever be endangered by a country having no mercantile marine. With reference to our distant stations, at all events, America offers no objection, but rather invites us to this course by her example. France is the only country that presents herself with any force upon foreign stations; and, I ask, is it impossible to carry out the same rule in regard to France that has been agreed to
926
with the United States; or are we to go on ad infinitum wasting our resources and imposing unnecessary taxes, in order to keep up that waste? I may be told, probably, that this is not the proper moment for such resolutions as this. I think that it is the proper moment. I believe that nations are disposed for peace, and I am glad to be able to cite the opinion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that there is a great disposition on the part of the people towards maintaining national peace. I hold in my hand, also, an extract from the most powerful vehicle of public opinion—a paper which certainly everybody will admit has the best possible opportunity of knowing what is the tendency of public opinion throughout the world—I mean the Times newspaper. That journal, in a recent leading article, said—
"Wars of nation against nation are not the evil of the day, but the contests between classes in the same country. Europe is already so much governed by the representatives of taxpayers, that an European war is an affair of improbable occurrence. Even in countries where constitutional government is not understood, the ruling power would be very slow, for its own sake, to impose taxes for purposes of war. Europe has remained at peace, although European society has gone through convulsions in the course of the last five years, of which history presents no example since the breaking up of the Roman empire."
If there is not a disposition on the part of the people of the Continent to go to war, where is the use of, or the necessity for, the enormous naval force which France keeps up? Surely there must be as great a disposition on the part of that country as of this to reduce the burdens of taxation, by diminishing expenditure. I have conversed with French statesmen on this subject, and when I have put it to them, as I have to English statesmen, they have admitted that the plan which I propose would be most desirable for them. They said that they kept up their navy because England kept up hers, but that it would be the greatest possible relief to them to be able to reduce it. I believe that if our Government were to make a friendly proposal to France, it would be met in an amicable spirit. France does not pretend that she is so strong as England by sea, and she does not aim at being thought so, for it is invariably admitted in the discussions in the French Chamber that she has no pretensions to rival England in the amount of her naval force. England may, therefore, take the initiative in recom-

927
mending a reduction of armaments, without the danger of compromising her dignity, or of having her motives misrepresented; and if a friendly proposal of this sort he made to France, I fully believe it will be accepted. This leads me to another view of the subject, which illustrates the utter absurdity of the course pursued by the two countries. If England is the more powerful by sea, France is invulnerable by land, so that while the spirit of rivalry is maintained by two countries so equal in point of resources, taking the army and navy together, it is impossible one can ever gain a permanent advantage over the other. If one were exceedingly weak, and the other strong, and the strong could have some extraordinary motive to possess the weaker, I might despair to convince by argument; but the case of England and France is very different. Whenever England increases her armaments and fortifications, France does the same, and vice versâ. We are pursuing a course, therefore, which holds out to neither country a prospect of any permanent gain. We are not actuated by motives of ambition or aggression, but are simply acting for self-defence, and no rational mind in either country supposes anything else than that a war between the two countries must he injurious to both. Both nations, therefore, have an interest in putting an end to this mutual rivalry and hostility by the course which I recommend. I shall be anxious to hear the opinions of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department (Lord Palmerston) upon this subject. I do not ask him to carry out the terms of this Motion in any particular form. My Resolution merely says that a communication should be entered into in a spirit of amity with France. I do not stipulate for a diplomatic note in this form or that. I shall be perfectly satisfied if I see the attempt made, for the objection that I have to our present policy is, that there never has been an attempt made to stay the progress of that rivalry in warlike preparations of which I complain—there never has been anything done that could by possibility tend to bring the two countries to an understanding. All I stipulate for is, that diplomacy shall put itself a little more into harmony with the spirit of the age, and occupy itself in promoting the welfare of the taxpayers, and forwarding the interests of humanity at large, instead of busying itself in petty intrigues and technical formalities, which have ceased to exercise the slightest influence over the fate
928
of nations. I shall be told that the object I have in view, however good in itself, cannot be promoted by Governments; that it must be the result of the slow progress of public opinion, and of the gradual operations of individual enterprise. Why, public opinion and individual enterprise are doing much to bring England and France together? Compare the present state of things with that which existed twenty-five years ago. I remember that at that time there were but two posts a week between London and Paris for the conveyance of letters. Down to 1848, thirty-four hours were allowed for transmitting a post to Paris; we now go in eleven hours. Where there used to be thousands passing and repassing, there are now tens of thousands. Formerly no man could be heard in our smaller towns and villages speaking a foreign language, let it be what language it might, but the rude and vulgar passer-by would call him a Frenchman, and very likely insult him. We have seen a great change in all that. With the increase of intercourse, old prejudices have abated; a better knowledge of each other has produced an increase of respect and confidence; until at length, in this the first year of the second half of the nineteenth century, we have seen a most important change. We are witnessing now what a few years ago no one could have predicted as possible. We see men meeting together from all the countries in the world, more like the gatherings of nations in former times, when they came up for a great religious festival—we find men speaking different languages, and bred in different habits, associating in one common temple erected for their gratification and reception. I ask, then, that the Government of the country shall put itself in harmony with the spirit of the age, and shall endeavour at all events to follow in the wake of what private enterprise and public opinion are achieving. I have the fullest conviction that one step taken in that direction would be attended with important consequences, and would redound to the honour and credit of any Foreign Minister who, casting aside the old and musty maxims of diplomacy, should step out and take in hand the task which I have humbly submitted to the noble Lord. I beg to move—
"An Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will direct the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the Government of France and endeavour to prevent in future that rivalry of warlike preparations in time of Peace, which has,

929
hitherto been the policy of the two Governments, and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments."
MR. URQUHARTsaid, it was his intention to move, as an Amendment—
"That it is inexpedient, by Resolutions of this House, to move the Crown to originate negotiations on abstract questions."
He thought that, instead of casting aside musty diplomacy, they should cast out the newfangled diplomacy of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. The commencement of those large armaments, and their continuance and increase since, were to be traced to the policy of the noble Lord; and if the House were not prepared to sanction that policy, or to continue the present ruinous expenditure, they would but stultify themselves if they said to that noble Lord, "We beg you to take charge of this our mission; we place our power in your hands, and we beg you to negotiate towards the accomplishment of an end which is directly at variance with all your former conduct." The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) said that there was no cause for rivalry between France and England—that there was a great intercourse and interchange between the two countries—that they had material interests in common—and that war could not fail to be injurious to both. Wherever, then, there was an English subject—or, reciprocally, a French subject—injured by an act of the foreign Power, there was furnished a casus belli. In all such cases, thanks be to God, their adjustment had not been left to the management of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, but to the judicial decision of a court of law. The truth was, that much mischief had arisen from the meddling interference of this country with the affairs of other countries. Before the last war, there was a common understanding between the States of Europe, and their connection was carried on by treaties. But since then an alteration had taken place in their diplomacy, and mutual rivalry was the result of it. The repulsion of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to the Government of M. Thiers was the cause of the mutual rivalry of the two nations, and had originated their increased naval armaments; and the late Sir Robert Peel attributed the misunderstanding, in a great measure, to the policy of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) with respect to Syria. Did not the dispute of 1844 arise out of
930
an interference with a Syrian pachalie?—and that of 1846 from one respecting a missionary in Tahiti? Was not each of those a miserable interference, with which this country had no concern? What was it but an assumption of a most inordinate power, which the noble Lord and the other members of the Government did not possess over a parish or a county in England? This was the cause that had led to those late diplomatic interferences which were terrible because secret; and to that exercise of the moral influence of England abroad, which was dangerous because the House possessed over it no control. This was the cause of those asperities between us and foreign States, which had destroyed the value of peace even while it existed, and had rendered its continuance problematical. The House, however, was in great measure responsible, because it had not exercised greater vigilance over the Foreign Office, and so was the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) himself, who had threatened to take every possible means of diminishing the supplies in order to abridge the noble Lord's (Lord Palmerston's) powers of interference. With respect to the Motion before them, he accepted the hon. Member's substantive proposition; but he appealed to him whether he would confide to the noble Lord the task of negotiations so much at variance with his character, and so much in opposition to all his past antecedents?
MR. MACKINNON: Sir, I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has brought this Motion forward—a measure that does him great honour, one which, coupled with his exertions for universal peace, will entitle him to the thanks of the present and future generations. The question before us is one to which I have paid some attention, and in which I take considerable interest. I think the hon. Gentleman deserves praise for the pains he has taken and the talent he has displayed on the subject. On looking back to the history of mankind from the first ages to the present time, it is a melancholy retrospect to find that in all ages, in all countries, man has been occupied in the destruction of his species. The early wars of mankind appear to have been wars in some measure of necessity. In barbarous tribes it appears that the locality they occupy is calculated barely to support them, that is, to keep them alive; if another tribe endeavours to occupy the same spot, both would perish together:

931
hence arises a war of extermination; one must destroy the other, much in the same predicament as two men in a shipwreck, on one plank which can support but one: these wars, though not justifiable, may be styled wars of necessity. As men emerged from their barbarous state, we find them waging wars of ambition and interest: look at the wars of the Greeks, the Romans; of the middle ages, when they conquered from ambition, seized the wealth of the conquered, and made them slaves: in these wars both ambition and interest were combined. This system of warfare was of course palatable to the parties who gained so much by carrying it on. Of late years it seems that wars of ambition have continued so far down as the days of Napoleon. In the present day, however, wars are not likely to be so pleasant an amusement and agreeable a pastime as in the days of Louis XIV. The art of war is so much improved, that vast expense is incurred—probably more is lost by a nation by going to war, than can by any possibility be gained; the natural result must be, that all civilised communities who now have a share in the national counsels will pause before they load themselves with taxes for the purpose of worrying their neighbours. Burke remarks, that man, taking this globe, destroys more of his fellow-men in one year, than all the lions, tigers, wolves, and other animals of a ferocious nature, have destroyed of their own species since the creation of the world. He (Burke) calculates the destruction of human life from wars and the concomitants of wars, pestilence, famine, &c, at thirty-six millions in a century. In the present day, from the causes I have mentioned, it appears that if wars are undertaken, they will probably be wars of interest; in saying this, I allude to European wars, such as took place so frequently in the last century—not to the contests between civilised nations in their colonies, and in the extension of civilisation over barbarism. Now, in reference to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, it appears to me, that considerable difficulty may arise in carrying it out. Our colonies are essential to the prosperity of our empire; the time will come, and is not far distant, when the European States are likely to produce their own manufactured goods: look at the Crystal Palace, and see the great improvements in machinery made. Where are we to look out for a market for our immense productions but in our colonies?—if we lose them, what are we to do? Can we in our
932
present situation secure the welfare of our colonies and their commerce, without an armed force? If, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, we were to disarm in the exact proportion of France, and of other nations who have no colonies, and entertain no fear of invasion, we might reduce our Navy to one vessel of war. Would this be a satisfactory state of affairs to the people or to this House? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, who has just sat down, accuses the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of intermeddling with other nations, and often incurring the danger of leading us into a war. It is a singular fact, however, that the noble Lord, so long as he has held the Foreign seals, a longer period than any other Foreign Secretary within the last sixty years, has always kept us at peace, and has contrived to preserve us in amity and good feeling with every civilised State in this and the other hemisphere. Now, if by reducing our forces, we lost our colonies, how should we be placed? Can we at this time allow them to be without any military or naval force? yet, if an understanding was entered into with foreign Powers, to disarm in the same proportion as they did, should we not be obliged to act in such a manner? Let us look at the state of our foreign possessions. Could we spare many British troops from India? I should think not. Have we too many at Jamaica, in the Windward or Leeward Islands—in Ceylon, or at the Cape? It does not appear that any could be spared from Ireland; and considering the increasing population in Great Britain, and times of discontent or scarcity that might arise, we have not many to spare in England or Scotland. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, that economy and retrenchment are not only desirable but called for by public opinion, and I think every succeeding House of Commons will be more in its favour; but I do not exactly see where, in the armed force of this country, such a reduction can he made with safety. At the same time, I must say that I cordially approve of the hon. Gentleman's intentions and motives; they are founded on the purest philanthropy, and will, I am certain, gain the esteem of all men, to which he is so justly entitled. I think this Motion may do good; at any rate it can do no harm; it must create in the public mind a distaste for useless and expensive wars. But I hope the hon. Member for the West Riding will be satisfied to place his Motion on record, and to leave to Her Majesty's Secre-

933
tary for Foreign Affairs the hest mode of carrying it into effect, without having him hampered by a Resolution which it seems his inclination and duty to follow. This course I recommend to the hon. Member's adoption as the best he can take.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in anything I may say in opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), I will beg the House not to suppose that I wish to express, or that I am actuated by, any feelings or principles at variance with the fundamental principle upon which his proposition is founded. However I may differ from my hon. Friend, if I may so call him, with regard to many of the opinions which he from time to time expresses in this House, and however little I may think the methods by which he endeavours to give practical effect to his general principles are those best calculated to attain his end, yet in regard to those international principles and feelings which influence his political views as the advocate of peace, I am ready to do him the most ample justice, and to subscribe implicitly to the general tendency of the views which he from time to time expresses. I trust the part it has been my lot to take in administering one department of the affairs of this country has shown that there has been nothing in my conduct in any degree inconsistent with the opinions I am now professing; for, however it maybe the fashion with some persons, in that easy colloquial jaunty style in which they discuss public matters, to declaim against modern diplomacy and international intermeddling, yet at least I can appeal to facts. I can appeal to the fact that during the considerable period for which I have been responsible for the conduct of the foreign relations of this country, though events have happened in Europe of the most remarkable kind, and attended with great commotions of public feeling, and great agitation in the social and political system of the Continent—although during that period events have happened which have brought the interests of England, I will not say into conflict, but into opposition to the interests of other great and powerful nations, yet, at least, the fact is that we have been at peace, and that not only has peace been preserved between this country and other nations, but that there has been no international war of magnitude between any of the other great Powers of Europe. If then, on the one hand, we are
934
taunted with perpetual interfering and intermeddling, in the relations of other countries, at least we ought to have the credit given to us that that interference and intermeddling has been accompanied by the continuance of peace between those countries with which we have interfered. It is too bad that we should be accused, on the one hand, of interfering constantly in the transactions of other countries, and at the same time that we should be denied the credit of those results which accompanied that course of policy. I think, Sir, that in looking at any great object we should not fix our eyes entirely upon the object itself, but that due attention ought to be paid to the mode by which that object may best be accomplished, and to the fact that persons may sometimes defeat their own intentions by not choosing the most judicious means of carrying them into effect. Now, if all nations were composed of men guided by the most philosophic and philanthropic dispositions, exempt from the influence of human passions, with minds enlarged by the most extensive views of human affairs, you might perhaps think, and justly, that the best way of obtaining peace would be to state that you were perfectly unarmed and unable to defend yourselves, throwing yourselves upon the good feeling of other countries, and assuring them that you entertained nothing but the most friendly disposition towards them. But man is not of such a nature. The world has not yet arrived at that pitch of civilisation at which one country can rest for its safety upon the forbearance of its neighbours. The world has not yet arrived at such a pitch of civilisation that a country possessing a multitude of riches which its neighbours may desire to acquire—a country whose commerce has excited the jealousy of rival nations, and possessing colonics which are the objects of covetousness to other maritime States, can rest its security simply upon its good intentions and its perfect incapacity for defence. The objection I take to the means by which my hon. Friend from time endeavours to force upon this country and upon the world his most laudably pacific views is, that he aims too much at divesting this country of the means of defence, without waiting until other States have placed themselves in a similar position of want of means of offence. The hon. Gentleman began his speech by asserting that he put the comparison of military means wholly out of the question, and that he

935
confined the object of his Motion simply to a question of comparative naval resources. In accepting to a certain degree the standard of comparison which he proposed, namely, the relative powers of England and of France, I must at the same time observe that it is impossible, in taking that comparison as a standard, to throw out of the question, as my hon. Friend would do, the military force of France; because it is obvious that, in comparing the means of offence and defence of two countries so near to each other, and brought so much nearer in practice by the modern improvements of navigation, one country which possesses an army of 350,000 men, and a National Guard, of about 1,000,000, as compared with a country whose standing military force within the realm is, I think, something about 40,000 men, without any militia or National Guard at all, you cannot confine yourselves simply to the number of line-of-battle ships each may possess, but that you must also take into consideration the military means each country may have with the view of attack or defence. I think the zeal of my hon. Friend, who is in the habit of wishing to undervalue the necessity of defensive precautions, has carried him somewhat too far when he talks of Cherbourg as simply a port of refuge, and of the works at Alderney as an insult and a menace towards France. Why, as to Alderney, the whole island would hold about 1,000 people, and the harbour, if completed, would afford accommodation for a few steamers. When you talk of the works at Alderney as aggressive against France, you might as well talk of the aggression of a sentry-box against a fortified town. But what is there at Cherbourg? A harbour, it is said. Why, Cherbourg is a great naval arsenal; and in the very report from which my hon. Friend read an extract—a report presented last April to the French Assembly, explaining the grounds upon which certain sums were proposed to be voted for works therein mentioned—it is stated, I think, speaking from memory, that the works have been in progress now for nearly fifty years, that the whole amount of expense will be something between 7,000,000 l. and 8,000,000 l. sterling; and the ground upon which the works are represented as of value to France is an advanced post within some sixty miles of the English coast, incapable of being blockaded, and which would therefore afford in every war a most important point of aggression towards England in
936
case of a war. I do not wish to exaggerate the relative means of France for attack as compared with England, and still less do I wish to imply that the continuance of these or any other works of the same kind on the part of the French Government and people is to he considered by this country as an indication of any existing hostile feeling on the part of France. I entirely disclaim any such belief on my own part. I am convinced that the greater intercourse which has taken place of late years between the people of the two countries has dispelled many prejudices, and has removed many foolish hostile feelings which have long survived the causes that gave them rise. It is one of the most gratifying circumstances of the times in which we live to see two great nations, situated close to each other, each gifted by nature with various qualities entitling them to the esteem, to the friendship, and I will say to the admiration, of each other, capable of rendering each other the most important services, capable also, if actuated by fatal passions, of inflicting upon each other the greatest calamities—it is most gratifying to see that every day, every month, and every year, brings these two nations into more general and friendly contact, and that feelings of mutual friendship and esteem are rapidly succeeding those antiquated notions of national antipathy of which I trust there will very soon remain no trace except the records which former histories may contain. But if a great and rich country like England wishes to maintain peace and friendship with a powerful State, it must take care that it shall be able to defend itself. I do not ask the country to arm itself with the means of aggression. I should wish that there might not be anything in our arrangements in time of peace which would indicate any intention of aggression, or which any Frenchman could see fairly pointed to as affording the means of aggression against France. We have no feelings that could lead us to take such a course; and I am the last man who would wish that anything we did should be capable of such an interpretation. But, on the other hand, I say it is a duty we owe to ourselves—a duty we owe to those functions which I think Providence has destined this country to perform—a duty we owe to those who will succeed us—that we should place this country in a position, and keep it in a position, to be able to repel attack, if, in any unfortunate and unforeseen circum-

937
stances, such a necessity should unhappily arise. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) with that reckless feeling of condemnation which it is my misfortune to be always pursued by him, has launched out into a very eloquent condemnation of that mischievous and detestable intermeddling with the affairs of other countries which I displayed in the affairs of Tahiti, and again in 1844. If the hon. Gentleman's memory had been only equal to his eloquence, he would have recollected that those two transactions, which he laid thus heavily to my charge, took place at a time when the Government of this country was administered by that great statesman whose loss we all deplore—Sir Robert Peel—and not during the time when I was in office. The hon. Gentleman must, therefore, either retract the condemnation he has passed upon the present Government, or he must modify in some degree his panegyric on the conduct of our predecessors. My hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) saw, however, that his proposal that arrangements should be made between England and France for a reduction of their naval forces, was open to the objection that England and France are not the only naval Powers in the world, and that either England or France might naturally reply, to the other—by whichever the proposal was made—that there were other considerations besides the armaments of the other party by which their respective arrangements must be guided. It is proper to remind the House, when the hon. Member for the West Riding says that for a longtime past there has been nothing but a struggle between the two countries which should outdo the other in its naval arrangements, that the fact is not as the hon. Member supposes; for though, in 1840 and 1841, the events connected with the expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria led to an augmentation of naval force, both on the part of England and France, the Administration which succeeded that of the late Sir Robert Peel had reduced the naval force to the lowest amount at which it had been, I believe, since the peace in 1815. Therefore that struggle had then ceased; and it is well known that when the affair of Tahiti took place, one ship of the line was our whole force at Spithead, and that ship of the line—the Collingwood, I believe, was detained there on her way to one of the American stations. Surely, then, it could not have been any naval armament on the part of England at that
938
time which led to the exertions made by the French. It has been stated that in 1846 there was a debate in the French Chamber upon a great naval augmentation, founded upon an augmentation which was alleged to have taken place in the naval force of England. The great naval force which England had at that time, and which, according to my hon. Friend, was the foundation of the French armaments, consisted of one sail of the line in the Mediterranean, and one sail of the line caught and detained at Spithead, instead of proceeding to the coast of America. There was, therefore, at that time no great amount of naval force on the part of England which could lay the foundation for any great exertion on the part of France. But, the debate in the French Chamber—which it was my fortune to hear—turned, as far as I recollect, upon this point- that the Government proposed an armament of forty sail of the line, not all in commission, but that that amount of force launched or unlaunched should be permanently maintained; and M. Thiers and those who opposed the Government wanted to have forty-two sail. The difference of opinion was only about a ship or two. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart), who sees further into millstones than most people, sees in the events of that period evidence of a most treacherous and Machiavelian scheme on my part. He says—
"It is a remarkable fact that at this moment there was a reconciliation between the noble Lord and M. Thiers; at that very moment M. Thiers was recommending a great augmentation of the French navy; and, rely upon it, whenever the French augment their navy, it is because they intend to attack England. The noble Lord, therefore, chose for his reconciliation with M. Thiers the very moment when it was manifest to the world that M. Thier's entertained hostile views with regard to this country."
Now, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this reconciliation, or rather renewal of acquaintance between M. Thiers and myself, took place upon very different grounds from those which he supposes. M. Thiers was then kind enough to show me evidence that the French think that works are necessary to enable them to defend themselves, and that, even with their immense army and armed population, they did not disdain to expend very large sums in order to secure themselves against attacks from other Powers. The works to which I refer are purely defensive, for no man can say that fortifications can ever be

939
made to march to attack a foreign Power. M. Thiers took me round the fortifications of Paris—works which cost, I believe, something like 12,000,000 l. sterling; and I must say, though there are many different opinions as to the value and merit of those works, and although I am quite aware that the opinion of an unmilitary man is worth very little on such a point, that I think the balance of opinion is decidedly in favour of the value of those works, and that they do add greatly to the defensive strength of France, and by that means to the security of peace between France and neighbouring Powers. Now, the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) has stated, as an illustration of the plan he would wish to have carried out, that a convention was concluded between this country and the United States of America for regulating the amount of naval force which each nation was to maintain upon the inland lakes of North America. That certainly was a very wise and good arrangement. I agree that it has worked very advantageously for both parties; but, at the same time, I am sure the House will see that there is a great and manifest distinction between inland lakes and the seas of the world. That distinction was marked by these two Powers; because, having made the arrangement with regard to the inland lakes, they did not make any similar arrangement with respect to the seas of the world. For the reasons I have stated, it is manifestly impossible that England and France could entertain any hope or expectation of coming to an effective arrangement as to the extent of their naval forces, the amount of which depends upon a great variety of circumstances. The hon. Member for Stafford objects to my being charged with the conduct of these negotiations; but, perhaps, if the hon. Member for the West Riding would propose the hon. Member for Stafford to conduct them—I declining to serve—he would gain one vote in favour of his Motion evidently—though what might be the success I am not able to say. If the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding should be agreed to, I should certainly feel, in entering upon the negotiations which he proposes, that there could not be any possible prospect of coming to a practical result. I shall be ready to adopt the Motion and speech of the hon. Gentleman as the expression of an influential Member of this House, responded to, I hope, by the unanimous feeling of the whole House of Commons—that not only do we hope that the
940
relations between England and France will be, but that we almost think—if common sense actuates those who, on both sides, have the management of affairs—they must be, as far as human foresight can go, friendly towards each other; that those mutual suspicions and reciprocal jealousies which may from time to time have misled the calculations of those who, in each country, have had the management of affairs, will disappear; and that mutual confidence will take the place of reciprocal distrust. But at the same time my hon. Friend a little exaggerates, I think, the want of information of either party with regard to the arrangements of the other. It is not necessary that either party should send out the spies of whom the hon. Gentleman has spoken, because nothing more is necessary than to read the debates in this House, and to look at the Estimates, to know exactly what is the state of our naval arrangements; and there is no greater secrecy with regard to the naval arrangements of France. I again say, I accept with pleasure the speech and the proposal of the hon. Member—provided it is not imposed upon the Government in a way which I think would very much defeat the intentions he has in view—I accept it with pleasure as the right hand of friendship tendered by this country to our neighbours. I agree with him in thinking that there could not, perhaps, have been a more appropriate time than the present for a demonstration of this nature, because we have now converted this country, I may say, into the Temple of Peace of the whole world. We have invited the natives of every civilised and on the face of the earth to come here, not to the rivalship of physical strength or of brute force, or the arts of human destruction, but to come here to compare the progress which each nation has made in those arts which constitute the happiness 'and ornament of the human race. It is certainly a proud year for this country; and it is no less a source of satisfaction to us to see the confidence which is reposed in this nation by those who come themselves and who bring their goods to this great and mighty Exhibition. It is also a source of honest pride to us to know that nothing has more struck the foreigners who have done us the honour of visiting us on this occasion than that spirit of order which they have observed pervading every rank of society in this country. They have expressed their wonder at the respect for the laws which is the

941
spontaneous feeling of all, from the highest to the lowest in the land, and which arises, perhaps, from the excellence of those laws—I do not mean to say they are perfect, any more than any other human institutions can be, but the comparative excellence of those laws—which secure to every man, from the highest to the lowest, the full enjoyment of the honest fruits of his industry, and which protect him against oppression from above, and against insult from below. I am glad the hon. Member for the West Riding has taken advantage of this meeting of the world to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed; and, if I object to being sent bound and fettered into a negotiation through which I confess I cannot see my practical way, it is not because I object to the end the hon. Member desires and proposes to accomplish, but because I think that end is more likely to be accelerated by the language of the hon. Member, and the sentiments he and the House have expressed, than it would be by the particular and specific Motion he has this evening brought before us. Upon these grounds I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the expressions of approbation with which the sentiments he has expressed have been received by the House, and with the expression of the determination of Her Majesty's Government, who feel as ardently on the subject as any man in this country or in the world can do—that as far as their influence, and power, and persuasion may extend, they will, so long as it may be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of the country, use every effort in their power to avert the misery and calamities of war. I trust the hon. Gentleman will be content with this, and that he will not press his Motion to a division, which may be liable to misconstruction, and in which it may be thought that those who oppose the Motion differ with him as to the end he seeks to accomplish, instead of merely objecting to the method by which he endeavours to effect it. When I assure the House that our endeavours to carry out the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman will be continued, I may say that the experience of recent times is highly encouraging to those who wish for the maintenance of peace. The diffusion of constitutional government throughout Europe must tend greatly to the maintenance of general peace. It not only ren-
942
ders it necessary for Governments to persuade Parliament that there is just cause for imposing burdens on the people, but it thereby places Governments on their trial, and prevents them from carrying matters in dispute to such a point that they cannot recede with honour, even if they become convinced that they are not wholly in the right. There is a growing disposition in Europe to settle quarrels among the nations by amicable intervention and negotiation; and we could not have a more striking example of this than what took place last year, when we saw those two mighty military Governments of Austria and Prussia, after calling out their hundreds of thousands of men, and apparently on the point of battle, yet, from the influence of good sense and reason on both sides, entering into preliminary negotiations, and devising means to terminate their differences without shedding a single drop of blood. The progress of civilisation in Europe is most gratifying to the friends of peace; and I can assure the hon. Member for the West Riding that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as he possibly can be, not only, to preserve this country from the calamities of war, but to exercise that influence which so powerful a people as that of England naturally possesses to save on every possible occasion other countries from those calamities.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, nobody could have heard the speech of the noble Lord without being pleased with its pacific tendency; and he was sure that the general effect of his speech would be, that every man of a peaceable disposition would have increased cause of admiration for the conduct of the noble Lord. But he must observe, that the way in which the noble Lord had represented the argument of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), would be calculated to mislead everybody as to the end which his hon. Friend had in view. The noble Lord said, he coincided in the end, but what he quarrelled with was the means. Now, the end which his hon. Friend at present proposed, was very different from what he had formerly brought before that House. Waving for the present all reference to other countries, he had corns forward with a clear and definite proposal for an agreement between the two great nations of France and England, and he asked why, in a time of profound peace, there should should be these heavy armaments. They

943
were founded upon mutual distrust, which again were created by mutual misunderstandings; and what his hon. Friend proposed was, that they should get rid of these misunderstandings, and, by coming to a full explanation as to their mutual objects and aims, that they should both agree to reduce their means of aggression and of defence. The noble Lord had used a characteristic expression in this respect—he said, that France and England had shaken hands. Yes, but they had shaken hands with the mailed glove, and what his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) proposed was, that they should take off this glove—that they should be ready, of course, if offence were given, to resent it, but that they should not always sleep in mail. The hon. Member for the West Riding said, he would not enter into the question of military armaments, because the Government of France might say that their armies were maintained not for the purpose of aggression, but for what they called the maintenance of order—an answer which only showed, by the way, how little every Government in France, since 1793, had understood of the maintenance of order. The noble Lord objected to this non-reference to military armaments. But what did the noble Lord himself say? He referred to the fortifications of Paris, which the French people had raised at an expense of several millions sterling, and he said that these fortifications could not be intended for the purposes of aggression. That was precisely what the hon. Member for the West Riding said with respect to the military-force: both were maintained to keep down internal discord, and both, he might add, were unsuccessful in doing so. The hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) had adduced one remarkable instance of successful mutual disarmament which the noble Lord had not fairly grappled with—the agreement with the United States as to the naval forces that were to be kept up on the great inland lakes. The noble Lord said there was a difference between these lakes and the seas of the world; but he (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know what was the difference between Lake Ontario and the Mediterranean. The common sense of the two countries had put an end to naval armaments on the lakes, and peace, and security, and happiness were the result. Well, if the noble Lord would address the Government of France upon the same principle, he had no doubt that the same beneficial effect would follow. He cheer-
944
fully acknowledged that the noble Lord had had the glory—["Hear, hear!"] Yes, he would use that word—the glory of maintaining peace during the most turbulent period of European history. With the single exception of 1793, he knew no period in European history more fraught with danger, turbulence, and war, than the year 1848. The noble Lord had taken England and her destinies through that fearful period unscathed, without war; and he gave the noble Lord all praise for doing so. But was there any reason why he should not improve those circumstances which the present age now afforded? They were now in very different circumstances from those with which their ancestors had to deal. Ever since 1830 the rule had been non-interference with foreign States, and the noble Lord had fully carried out that rule. [Ironical cheers from Mr. Urquhart.] The noble Lord had already dealt, he thought, with the hon. Member for Stafford, and he had no wish to strike a blow after the noble Lord. He left the hon. Gentleman and his wanderings to the estimation of the House; and he repeated that it was the peculiar characteristic of the noble Lord that he had carried out the principle of non-interference established in 1830; and he now asked the noble Lord why he did not carry the principle one step further, and adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding? If his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had introduced into his Motion the general question of peace and war, he (Mr. Roebuck) would have been opposed to him, because he did not think that they could put down war between nations. But he did not agree with the noble Lord, that when they were enjoying peace, they should be armed just as if they were at war. The Resolution of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) was not founded on fear; it simply desired peace. And why should not the House of Commons commission its Minister to represent to France that we desired peace with all its advantages, and to reduce our warlike establishments? Why should not this be done, careless of all petty jealousies and little feelings of diplomacy? The House might solemnly declare, in all the majesty of its greatness, and in all the pride of its perfect peace and unapproachable security, that we wished to divest ourselves of the powers of offence; and then we should exhibit to mankind a spectacle and set an example even greater than that we had

945
already done in this celebrated year. That would be a course beneficial in its effects, and becoming the character of this great nation. He would not follow the noble Lord through the various topics of his speech; he only wished to state to the House and the world the real nature of the proposition now before them; there was nothing abstract in it; it only signified that we wanted peace and all its advantages; and if the noble Lord would accept the proposition that was now made, instead of considering himself "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by it, then he would find himself armed with a power which no great nation had ever put into the hands of an individual, not with the means of injuring others, but of extending the dominion of peace, and all the benefits which civilisation and peace can confer.
MR. URQUHARTexplained, that he had not intended to charge the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) with the responsibility of what had occurred either in Syria or in Tahiti.
MR. MILNER GIBSONcordially agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in paying a tribute of approbation to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had no reason to consider that speech a hostile one. On the contrary, he was entitled to feel that its tone, and the admissions it contained, were very much in the direction of his Resolution. But if there was anything to complain of in the speech of the noble Lord, it was rather that of omitting to give any approval of the precise object which the hon. Member for the West Riding had in view, that precise object being a reduction of armaments and then a reduction of taxation—areduction of armaments brought about by means which would not affect the position of this country, which would leave her in as good a position to repel attack as she was before, and would not leave her to the necessity of depending upon what the noble Lord deprecated—namely, upon the forbearance of foreign countries, seeing that she offered great temptations either to the ambition or avarice of other nations. The proposition did not invite the House to depend on the forbearance of any country. It did not ask them to place the country in a position in which she would be unable to repel attack, but it merely asked the noble Lord to act now in reference to the reduction of the force precisely upon the same principle on which he him-
946
self had acted with reference to its increase, and when France, having increased her force, he called upon the House to increase ours, and supported an Address to the Crown for that purpose. The mode adopted by the noble Lord for increasing the force, was precisely the one now adopted by the hon. Member for the West Riding for decreasing it; and therefore it could not be called an improper one. He (Mr. M. Gibson) would give no advice to his hon. Friend as to whether he should or should not divide the House upon the Motion; but if he divided, he should have his cordial support. He thought the House ought to have rather more of a clear understanding that the noble Lord would practically undertake to do the things which they were anxious should be accomplished. It was not enough to make a speech showing the general advantages of peace, and the dangers that might arise from the possibility of war. The great difficulties of making reductions in our military armaments were well known. Every naval officer, naturally fond of his profession, of necessity opposed any considerable reduction of naval armaments. This rendered it necessary that the utmost powers of Parliament should be brought to bear upon the Executive Government, in order that they might have the means of replying to such officers as might want to increase the force. He remembered the present First Lord of the Admiralty putting a very pointed question to a gallant Admiral in the Committee on the Naval Establishments; he asked him if he ever know a time when gentlemen in the profession were satisfied that the amount of force was sufficient. He (Mr. M. Gibson) did not throw this out as a matter of blame. People were naturally proud of their profession, and therefore they did not want considerable reductions. All of us were rather apt to think that the naval force of the country ought to be admired in itself, that it was something to keep, to be looked at, and admired. There was a fondness for it; and he did not think it quite came home to us, that the slightest degree of naval force beyond what the country required was an unmitigated evil. But we should bear in mind that officers in the Navy were but the servants of the public; that the profession ought not to be kept up beyond what the circumstances of the country required; and that it should not be retained for the sake of ornament. He hoped that as the noble Lord had said he

947
agreed in the end now proposed, he would undertake to enter on communications with France with a view to a mutual reduction of armaments. He wished the noble Lord could have told them that he had ever entered into communications with France for such a purpose. A more absurd statement could not have been made than that about the breakwater at Cherbourg, for that so-called breakwater was a mere dyke.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his allusion was to the basins there.
MR. MILNER GIBSONhad never heard any one offer a word in defence of our works at Alderney, where a sum of 600,000 l. had been thrown into the sea. They were called defensive works. Defensive of what? Was the pier defensive of the cows? They had made these works for the reception of war steamers, in order that they might the more easily make an aggression on France, and France viewed them in that light. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would give them a more definite assurance than had been expressed by the noble Lord, that communications would be commenced with France for the purpose of procuring a mutual reduction of armaments.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that during this discussion hon. Gentlemen had altogether lost sight of one class of their fellow-subjects, namely, those British merchants who were residing in far distant countries. Their merchants residing at Valparaiso and Buenos Ayres felt now a security which they would not feel if they did not know that the fleet of England was prepared and able to protect them whenever circumstances should demand their interference. He hoped that their feelings and interests would never be lost sight of.
MR. BROTHERTONwas desirous of expressing his gratification at the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but he hoped that some Member of the Government would give a more positive assurance than had been given by the noble Lord, that the negotiations for the mutual reduction of armaments proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) would be carried into effect. He did not subscribe to the maxim, that in order to preserve peace they must be prepared for war. The best mode of preserving peace, in his opinion, was to act on just principles. He
948
understood from the noble Lord that he accepted the speech and the resolution of his hon. Friend, and, under these circumstances he would recommend his hon. Friend not to press the House to a division, as he thought the discussion would produce greater effect in Europe if there were no appearance of division on the question.
MR. HUMEsaid, it was very desirable that the House should be unanimous on the present occasion. He understood from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary that he approved of the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden), and, if so, he thought that the noble Lord should accept the Motion. His hon. Friend showed that the increase of the armaments in France was owing to the increase of the armaments of this country, whilst in this country the increase of the armaments of France was put forward as the ground of increasing the military and naval establishments of England. What his hon. Friend wanted was to put an end to the expensive policy on both sides. The noble Lord was praised for preserving peace. But he (Mr. Hume) would ask, what country came to attack them? It was to him quite sickening to hear all this talk about preserving the peace of the world. They had now been nearly forty years at peace, and during that period they had spent 10,000,000 l. or 11,000,000 l. on their warlike establishments yearly. When the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary quarrelled with France and America, their armaments had been greatly increased. He contended that whilst they were at peace they should have the benefit of peace. It was in that view that his hon. Friend proposed the Motion. He saw nothing whatever to prevent two nations like France and England coming to a mutual agreement to reduce their armaments. The good understanding which existed between this country and France, from 1830 to 1840, had enabled them to reduce their armaments to a very large extent; and it was the Syrian war which was an intermeddling in affairs not concerning them, that obliged them to increase their war establishment. If the question were withdrawn, it would lead to the inference that it met with no support in that House. He should, therefore, vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, if it was pressed to a division.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: If unanimity could be secured he should not object to the Motion, but as the Government

949
objected, the hon. Member for the West Riding would, he thought, act most wisely in accepting the assurances which had been given. He thought the hon. Member would risk all the advantage that he had gained by pressing the question to a division. If carried at all, it would be by a fractional majority; although in the present aspect of the House he could expect nothing but a defeat. It was therefore the duty of the hon. Gentleman to accept the next best thing to that which he desired, which could only be obtained by trusting to the declaration of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary.
MR. GEACHwould also request his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to withdraw his Motion, believing that his object would be much better gained by the discussion which had taken place than by even a successful division.
MR. COBDENfelt unfeigned satisfaction at the tone which the debate had taken. He was satisfied with the declaration of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and he should not, after what had been stated as to the confidence reposed by his friends in the noble Lord, persevere in the Motion, which he withdrew for the present Session. He considered, however, that the only fault of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) was being a little too sanguine in favour of the Ministerial benches.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, nothing could be so unpleasant to a Minister of the Crown as to risk the being taxed in future with the breach of an engagement. He must request the House, therefore, to observe what it was that he had said. He entirely concurred with the principle and object of the hon. Member's Motion, which he conceived to be not only the maintenance of peace with France, but the inspiring between the two Powers and the two Governments those principles of mutual confidence which would put an end to jealousies. He objected to the Motion, because he believed it was not the best means of arriving at the result. He begged not to be understood as undertaking that the Government would enter into negotiation. They would consider themselves perfectly free to use their own discretion according to circumstances; but the object at which they would aim would be that which he had stated to be their guiding principle.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BIBLE PRINTING MONOPOLY.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had never been able to learn upon what ground the Universities assumed a monopoly in the printing of the Bible, further than a decision in a court of law some years ago, which he believed was still binding. The highest authorities had recently given their testimony as to the immense advantages resulting from the diffusion of the Bible amongst the people, and it was manifest that any monopoly such as that sanctioned by the Queen's printers' patent tended to impede that diffusion, and thereby deprive the people of this country of the blessings which would otherwise flow upon them. The monopoly had expired in Scotland, and the result had been a vast increase to the enlightenment, and a great improvement in the morals of the people, occasioned by a more extensiver eading of the Holy Scriptures. Not only were the Bibles printed in Scotland now cheaper than those printed under the monopoly, but they were considerably superior in point of accuracy. Bibles were now from 50 to 60 per cent cheaper than under the old system. The University Bibles could not be sold in the United States of America because they were so full of errors. Before the Committee, which he obtained some years ago on this subject, a University Bible was produced, in which there were no fewer than 12,000 errors, as printers would designate them. The Queen's printers, feeling that others were debarred from printing the Bible, fell into careless habits with regard to its printing. Chillingworth, in the reign of Charles I., had said that the Bible, and the Bible alone, was the religion of Protestants. If that were true, what madness then was it to restrict its sale, by giving a monopoly of its printing to a few individuals. In 1846, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) stated in that House, that the degree to which the Bible was a sealed book, was most lamentable. The Queen, in Her reply to the address presented from the universities a few months ago, on the subject of the appointment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy, dwelt on the necessity of the rising portion of Her subjects being trained in a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. The Archbishop of Canterbury, at the opening of the Crystal Palace, had prayed that God's glory might be increased by the diffusion of His holy word. But of what avail was it to talk in that strain when the people were prevented by Royal Letters Patent from purchasing at a cheap

951
rate correct copies of the Holy Scriptures? The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had disputed the opinion of the printer, Mr. Childs, who stated that he would undertake to print the whole of the Bibles at an average reduction of 40 per cent from the price now paid. Since the abolition of the monopoly in Scotland, a New Testament could be obtained for 6d. and a Bible for 1s., with 2d. for the binding. If that was the case, as stated by Mr. Childs, why should we allow this monopoly to exist, and pay the amount of large subscriptions to the printer instead of having the benefit of them to increase the circulation? There was a Bible Society in Norfolk, and he bad calculated that if they could have obtained Bibles at the prices which were paid for them in Scotland, 1,800,000 copies could have been distributed. The societies for the diffusion of the Scriptures collected subscriptions which were applied to reduce the price of the books, and every subscriber was entitled to receive a certain number of copies, but still the original price was kept higher than it ought to be. Every person that desired to see the Scriptures in all the cottages in the land would agree with him that the time was now come when every obstacle ought to be removed from their circulation. This was as regarded England. But this very Government had renewed the Letters Patent to the Queen's printer in Dublin, in consequence of which not a single copy bad been printed by him, and he prevented any one else from printing them. He (Mr. Hume) had been now at this work for the last twenty years, and it would be a great gratification to him if he could see a termination to it.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that measures may be adopted to cancel the Queen's Printers' Patent, so far as relates to the monopoly of printing of Bibles, Psalms, and Prayer Books, in England and Ireland; and, if apprehensions be excited for the correctness of the Scripture text, that a Board be constituted in England and Ireland, as has been done in Scotland, for the revision before publication of all the editions that are to be printed."
MR. COWANseconded the Motion, and thanked the hon. Member for Montrose for his labours upon this subject. He was able to confirm fully what that hon. Member had stated with regard to the effect
952
produced by the abolition of the monopoly in Scotland, in 1839. The price had been reduced by one-half, and the circulation increased in an equal proportion. The Board appointed in Scotland had also shown great vigilance in the discharge of its duties, and was entitled to the highest encomiums. It was very encouraging in these times to see that the Bible had such a large and increasing circulation in this country, as he was convinced it would tend to preserve the loyal and religious feelings of the people.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he hoped that hon. Members would show the Speaker and the House some mercy. They had been in that House at Two o'clock this morning—they had met again at Two in the day, and they should have to meet again To-morrow morning.
SIR GEORGE GREYwould not occupy the House long in his observations upon this Motion. It was hardly necessary to say that they must all concur with the hon. Member for Montrose in desiring the greatest possible circulation to be given to the Scriptures throughout the country; and it was most desirable that no monopoly should exist that tended to enhance the price of the Bible, provided that due care was taken to secure accuracy in the text. He apprehended that to secure that accuracy was the original object in granting these patents to the Queen's printer. He admitted that in Scotland the Board to which reference had been made had worked in a manner fully equal to the expectations of those who had constituted it, and that very beneficial results had followed from its constitution. But without entering into the question of whether it was desirable that the patents should be granted or not, there was an objection to the Motion on the face of it, as it assumed that the Crown had a power which it really did not possess. These patents were granted in England and Scotland under the Act of 21 James I., cap. 3, and his hon. Friend was wrong in saying that the patent had been revoked in Scotland. [MR. Hume: I said expired.] He had misunderstood the hon. Member. It was on the expiration, and not en the revocation of the patent in 1839 that the Board had been appointed. The patent in question had nine years to run yet, and the hon. Gentleman in asking the Crown to revoke it, even if the Crown had the power to do so, was expecting an interference which would not be strictly legal;

953
but as the Crown had granted this patent under an Act of Parliament, it could not be revoked by the power of the Crown, and the hon. Gentleman ought to have moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose. Some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman confuted some of his own charges. He (Sir G. Grey) knew that bibles were now selling in England in sheets, the Old Testament at 6d., and the New Testament at 2d.; indeed, so low was the price, that the Queen's printer was able to compete with the Scottish hoard, and to undersell the printers in America. He did not say that was any reason for continuing the monopoly, but it was sufficient to refute any alleged necessity for violent interference with the patent. He hoped the House would not interfere with it, as the period during which it had to run was now so short.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthought the hon. Gentleman would never propose revoking the patent without offering com-compensation, probably of 200,000 l. or 300,000 l., but he doubted whether he was prepared to give that amount. Great praise had been given to the bibles of two centuries since for correctness, the edition of 1563 especially. He could refer to four instances which were too ridiculous to be noticed in the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would not divide the House, but it was a strong argument against the monopoly that ten years of it should be valued at 300,000 l. He hoped, after this, that the Government and those who clamoured so much in that House would let them hear no more about the dangers of Popery, when they would not part with a few pounds to get rid of such a monopoly.
Question put, and negatived.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a School Sites Acts Amendment.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
LORD STANLEY: I have now, my Lords, to present a petition to your Lordships respecting which I have thought it right to give notice of laying it before you—not that I mean to occupy a large portion of your Lordships' time, or further than may be necessary to state the substance of petitioners' complaint, nor that I ask your Lordships to pronounce on the present occasion an opinion on the merits of the subject; but because I am anxious to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of explaining the course they have taken, and the course they intend to take, upon a matter on which they have asked Parliament for, and on which Parliament, at their request, has entrusted to them, large discretionary powers. The petition is signed by Robert Rankin, the Chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association; but, though thus signed by a single individual only, it is the petition of the Shipowners' Association, drawn up in pursuance of a resolution agreed to at a general meeting of the Association. It may, therefore, be taken as the deliberate opinion of the Shipowners' Association of the Port of Liverpool. It is founded upon the report of a committee specially appointed by the merchants and master mariners of Liverpool, for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the results
848
arising from the repeal of the navigation laws; and upon their report the resolution, which was the basis of the petition, and which was adopted at the meeting, was founded. The petitioners state that they are the owners of a large amount of British shipping, and in common with other shipowners are at present greatly suffering from the operation of the Act for the repeal of the navigation laws, which was passed in 1849. They state that all the apprehensions which they entertained of injury from it to their interests (and when I speak of their interests I speak of the interests of the country at large), that all their anticipations of its injurious consequences have been more than realised by the practical operation of the measure. I do not contend, nor do the petitioners assort, that upon the whole the foreign trade of this country has been reduced since the passing of that Act, or that the foreign trade has not been increased; but they complain that the amount of freight has been so reduced, not by fair and equal competition, but by competition in which they labour under great disadvantages, especially in long voyages, as to be almost unremunerative; and they further state, that, notwithstanding the increase which has undoubtedly taken place in the foreign trade of this country, the advantages of that increase have been derived not by the British shipowner, but by the foreign shipowner, in his trade with this country. I know your Lordships are not willing to listen to many figures, and I am unwilling to trouble you with more of them than I can help; but I must remind you that the repeal of the navigation laws came into operation on the 1st of January, 1850. I hold in my hand an extract from tables which have been published by the Government, of the tonnage of vessels which have been entered inwards and have cleared outwards from British ports since that time. I am quite aware that those tables do not represent with perfect accuracy the true amount of tonnage either entered inwards or cleared outwards; for, from inaccuracies which have taken place previous to the repeal of the navigation laws, it is evident great fallacies prevailed in the formation of those tables, inasmuch as each separate voyage of a vessel was taken to represent a separate amount of tonnage; but for the purposes of the comparison of one period with the other, the fallacies being equal, the tables furnished by the Government are sufficiently

849
accurate. I find, then, that of the vessels entered inwards and cleared outwards from the ports of the United Kingdom, in the

ENTERED INWARDS.

To Jan., 1849.

1850.

1851.

Increase.

Total tonnage

5,579,461

6,071,269

6,113,696

42,427

Decrease.

Of which United Kingdom

4,020,415

4,390,375

4,078,544

311,831

Increase.

Foreign

1,559,046

1,680,894

2,035,152

354,258

Spain

14,672

17,812

23,717

CLEARED OUTWARDS.

Increase.

Total tonnage

5,051,237

5,429,908

5,906,978

477,070

Of which United Kingdom

3,553,777

3,762,182

3,960,764

198,582

Foreign

1,497,460

1,667,726

1,946,214

278,488

Spain

14,352

18,897

22,611

FOUR MONTHS—INWARDS.

Increase.

Total tonnage

1,554,960

1,409,451

1,690,247

280,796

Of which United Kingdom

1,046,813

946,745

1,025,793

79,048

Foreign

508,147

462,706

664,454

201,748

Spain

3,758

6,857

8,046

CLEARED OUTWARDS.

Increase.

Total tonnage

1,724,574

1,724,315

1,940,453

216,138

Of which United Kingdom

1,211,794

1,258,895

1,339,254

80,259

Foreign

512,780

465,420

601,199

135,779

Spain

4,756

6,705

9,092

Thus, although there has been an increase in the foreign trade of this country, the advantage of that increase has gone, not, as it naturally should have done, principally to the British shipowners, but almost exclusively to the foreign shipowners, who threaten us from day to day with a most formidable rivalry. The petitioners further state that previous to the repeal of the navigation laws it was thought wise and just on the part of this country that the mercantile marine should be subjected to many burdens and restrictions, which they cheerfully bore in consideration of the advantages they derived from those laws, and because they considered them necessary to support the military-naval force of the country; but they state that when they are deprived of the advantages which they previously enjoyed, and are subjected to severe competition with foreign rivals, which competition they found it difficult to meet even before the change of law, they at least expect from the Imperial Parliament that they will not leave them any further than can be helped loaded with burdens from which their foreign rivals are altogether free. These things may seem matters of minor importance; but in dealing with the statements of the petition, I will state in the first instance those which appear of minor importance, and reserve to the last the matters which are of the greatest consequence—are of the most pressing character, and call most for the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The petitioners, then, complain of the
years ending January 1, 1849, 1850, and 1851, respectively, the tonnage was as follows:—
stamp duty upon marine assurances. I do not know what the amount of that tax is at the present moment, nor how far it is an object with the Government to maintain it; but certainly there are few taxes so little capable of being defended on principle. The practical operation of keeping up the stamp duty on marine assurances is, that, in consequence of the improvement of late years effected in foreign assurances, a large amount is withdrawn from the British assurance offices, and is transferred to the foreign assurance offices on the Continent—a thing which the British merchant would have thought impossible some five years ago, but which is now very general, in consequence of the superior cheapness and equal security which those offices offer as compared with the British offices. Another source of complaint with the petitioners is the extravagant fees charged by British consuls in foreign ports. Without entering into any details on this point, the petitioners state that they thought it would be more desirable on the whole that the consuls should be paid by salaries, and not by fees; and they show that the present system of exacting fees from the captains of our merchantmen acted most injuriously on the shipping interest. If, for instance, in the port of New Orleans a dollar is the fee paid to the consul on the desertion of a sailor, you are giving the consul a pecuniary interest in encouraging desertion, and thus increasing his fees, and thereby to that extent increasing the burdens on

851
the shipping interest. The burden, indeed, is not heavy; but where the competition is so close as it is, each individual expenditure adds to the difficulty under which the mercantile marine labours, and at last renders the burden intolerable. They also complain of what they say is a hardship peculiar to this country, namely, that officers of Her Majesty's Navy are authorised to receive pecuniary reward in cases of the salvage of merchant vessels; they complain likewise that encouragement was given, he would not say to the desertion, but to the abandonment, of the mercantile marine by seamen for the purpose of entering the service of the Royal Navy. It was a grievance which pressed heavily upon them, and they said that it was not necessary for the service of the country; that if it were they would cheerfully submit to it; and that they had expected to be relieved from it on the repeal of the navigation laws. The evil, too, is aggravated by their being compelled to navigate their vessels almost exclusively with British seamen. I think that a wise regulation. But if you compel the British shipowners to navigate their vessels with crews who receive higher pay and better and dearer provisions than foreign crews, and, therefore, render the voyage more expensive, they are entitled to some consideration on the other hand, and it is not fair to compel them to enter into competition with the shipowners, who employ these cheaply-provisioned and low-paid crews, and to continue the burdens under which they laboured before they entered upon such rivalry—it is not fair to give the two classes of ships precisely the same advantages in all your ports. But this is not all—your Lordships would not have been troubled with this petition of the petitioners did they not feel they were placed in an unfair position by your conferring lavishly upon their foreign rivals every advantage they have asked for; but, on the other hand, your own seamen have not that reciprocity which they expected on the passing of the repeal of the navigation laws, and they labour under serious disadvantages, pecuniary and others, in foreign ports. They refer particularly to the ports of Spain, France, and the United States of America. It is pretty obvious, in the direct trade alone, if a foreign vessel coming from a port of any of those countries is admitted into a British port on a footing of perfect equality with British ships, the goods she imports paying no higher duty than the goods imported in the vessels of
852
this country; and on the other hand, if a British vessel going with a return cargo from this country to ports of those foreign countries is cither excluded altogether from those ports, or is charged with large differential duties—it is pretty obvious that the competition between the two classes of vessels is not either a free or a fair competition, and I am convinced that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will hardly contend that that is a fair state of things, or equal competition, or that any amount of skill or capital can countervail the disadvantages thus imposed on our shipowners. In one of the most useful, but most difficult, books of the day—I mean Bradshaw's Railway Guide—I found the other day an advertisement which bore on this subject. It might appear ludicrous, but it was a matter of serious fact in business. The advertisement referred to a steamer which passes between London and Antwerp, departing every Sunday and returning every Wednesday, and in it there is this notice given:—"Shippers are requested to observe that in consequence of this steamer being under the Belgian flag, a saving of 15 per cent in duty will be effected on all goods sent by her." But we may perhaps be told that this ship belongs to British owners, and that whatever advantage accrues, it goes into their pockets. Be it so. Still it must be recollected that, by the privilege which they had acquired of placing their steamers under the Belgian flag, they had gained an advantage over other British shipowners of 15 per cent. Besides that, let their Lordships reflect what a degradation it was for a British shipowner to repudiate the advantage of his own flag—to shelter himself and his cargo under the Belgian flag—and to renounce that glorious banner under which he had hitherto been proud to sail from the port of London. The case of Belgium is not one referred to by the petitioners; but it having come incidentally before me, I thought it was one which it was my duty to lay before your Lordships. In point of fact, whatever you may say of the determination of all other countries to follow your example, and to grant entire reciprocity, the countries are very few indeed with which you have that reciprocity, and those with whom you have not will be very slow to follow your example when they find that they can reap greater advantages without it. Now, take the case of Spain, and I hold in my hand a table of differential du-

853
ties which were levied in Spain under the tariff of 1849:—

ARTICLES.

National Ship.

Foreign Ship.

Salt fish, imported into Spain, direct from the fisheries, per quint. of 101¾ lb.

0

7

3½

0

10

0

Ditto, indirect, ditto

0

11

8

0

15

5

Bar or bolt iron, of not less than one inch diameter, ditto

0

8

4

0

10

0

Ditto, of less than one inch, ditto

0

10

0

0

12

0

Iron hoops, ditto

0

7

2¼

0

8

7½

Earthenware, common, per arroba of 26 lb

0

8

4

0

10

0

Ditto, finer quality (china or porcelain), ditto

0

13

6½

0

16

3

Raw cotton, from Spanish possessions, per quint. of 101¾ lb.

0

1

5½

0

5

2½

Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto

0

3

1½

0

7

3½

Rice, ditto

0

6

8

0

8

4

Loaf sugar, per arroba of 26 lb.

0

6

3

0

7

11

Raw sugar, from Spanish possessions, ditto

0

1

8

0

3

4

Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto

0

3

4

0

4

2

Cocoa, from Spanish possessions, per quint. Of 101¾lb.

0

4

2

0

10

5

Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto

1

9

2

1

17

6

Coffee, from Spanish possessions in America, ditto

0

6

8

0

12

11

Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto

0

16

8

1

5

0

Ditto, from Spanish possessions in Asia, ditto

0

2

11

0

11

8

Hides, from Spanish possessions, ditto

0

1

9

0

10

0

Ditto, from foreign countries, ditto

0

2

11

0

11

3

Thus you grant to Spain entire and complete reciprocity for all her vessels entering your ports, from whatever countries they may come; and the return which Spain makes to you is, that, instead of meeting you with that reciprocity which, considering the relative position of the two countries, it ought to be a greater advantage to her to grant than you to obtain, she gets the advantage of being admitted on a perfect equality to your ports, but for the back voyage subjects your freight to differential duties, varying from 50 to 100 per cent. I am not arguing as to the importance of the particular trade—I lay before you the facts of this case as a principle, which applies to a large equally with a small trade. In the course of two years, then, under your system, Spain has in-
854
creased very nearly threefold in the amount of her direct traffic in Spanish vessels to the ports of this country. With regard to France, she, too, maintains as rigidly now as she did before the measure of 1849, the provisions of her navigation laws; and whilst from any ports of the world a French vessel may bring goods to any of the ports of this country, no British ship is permitted to take to the ports of France, though subjected to a differential duty, one single ton of foreign goods, unless direct from the port of the country in which those goods are produced. Nay, I believe that in point of fact British ships are not allowed to introduce any foreign goods whatever from any foreign port into the ports of France. Here is a case which I heard of only the other day. A British merchant in Brazil had a cargo of goods which he desired to send to France. He had a British vessel belonging to the trade with which he was connected lying in the port from which the cargo was to be sent; and it would have answered his purpose to have conveyed that cargo at 20 s. a ton lower than a French vessel would charge. But though the cargo was his own, and the vessel was his own, and although the French and the English vessels would have sailed on equal terms if they went to England, he was debarred from shipping his own merchandise on board his own vessel, and was compelled to pay at the rate of 20 s. a ton more for shipping it to a French port in a French vessel. Well, I ask if that be reciprocity? Is that the description of reciprocity that we had a right to expect, and which we were told by Her Majesty's Government we should obtain if we passed the Act of 1849? But there is one country with which it was said that we should have full and entire reciprocity—and there has been an enactment in the United States of America by which, as far as the letter is concerned, they do admit the principle of reciprocity. I cannot deny that, as far as the letter of the Act goes, the United States have given us reciprocity. They have thrown open the trade of their neutral ports; and we have given them full and free admission to all our colonial ports, as well as to the ports of this country; but the Americans have, in fact, no reciprocity to give us in this respect, inasmuch as they have no colonial possessions, one distant possession only excepted. One distant possession, however, they have—I mean California. We have retained in our own hands the coast-

855
ing trade of this country, and of course nothing can be more fair than that the United States should retain to themselves the coasting trade of their country. But what is the clear definition of a coasting trade if it be not the intercourse of port with port of the same country, and through the waters belonging to that country? Now the Atlantic seaboard of the United States is infinitely more extensive than the British seaboard; nevertheless, the reciprocity would have been perfectly satisfactory if they had granted us communication between Boston and New Orleans, and we had granted them communication between Leith and London. But it seems to be a most extraordinary definition of a coasting trade when under the denomination of a coasting trade you include the voyage, not merely from Boston to New Orleans, but from New York to California—a voyage over one-half the globe, of four months' duration, and during the far greater portion of which the American ship is not in any waters which, by the utmost stretch of even American imagination, it can pretend to call its own. The voyage from New York to San Francisco occupies from four to five months, and because you do not allow the Americans to interfere in the traffic between Leith and London, and Dublin and Liverpool, they think it perfectly legitimate and right to say, that the voyage from New York to California is a sealed voyage to you, and shall be included in the coasting trade. I say it is a violation of the ordinary understanding of the term, and leads to the most important consequences. But that is not the only point in which America has refused us reciprocity. You admit American and all other foreign vessels to register as British vessels; but America will not allow your vessels to be registered as American, though it is of the utmost consequence to your North American colonies, who build cheap vessels, to be able to sell them in the United States, and to have them registered as United States vessels; but if you build vessels at Halifax or in the St. Lawrence, they are not permitted to register in the United States. Again, a British vessel sails from Liverpool with half her cargo for New York, and half for California. She arrives at New York and discharges the first part of her cargo there; but the other half for California she is not allowed to discharge. Now this is not the way in which we have dealt with America. We have given her full and entire
856
communication with all our colonial possessions. An American vessel leaves New York, and goes from thence to California, and thence to China and the East Indies; at Calcutta she enters into competition with British vessels loading for this country; so that having already paid the whole of her freight by her first voyage, every iota of freight which she afterwards obtains is so much gain added thereto. She takes a cargo from the East Indies and brings it to this country, and here she loads again with a cargo of British manufactures for New York, and thus makes three distinct freights, the first of itself being sufficient to remunerate the owners for the whole passage, and from which we are debarred, whilst you make but two, which are between our own ports. Now this system affects competition all the world over, and it is, therefore, morally impossible for the merchants of this country to continue this competition without an alteration of these terms. I am told also, that the amount of freight has fallen in a most extraordinary degree, and more especially in the East Indian trade, under the pressure of this competition, in which one party is loaded with restrictions and burdens from which the other is free. Now, why is it that I call your Lordships' attention to this absence of reciprocity? It is because Parliament deliberately vested in your hands the remedy for any evils which might occur, or, at all events, the means of securing to yourselves an equal position in any foreign ports. It was at the request of Her Majesty's Government that the 11th section of chap. 29 of 12th and 13th Victoria was inserted, which is in these words:—
"And be it enacted, that in case it shall be made to appear to Her Majesty that British ships are cither directly or indirectly subject in any foreign country to any duties or charges of any sort or kind whatsoever from which the national vessels of such country are exempt, or that any duties are imposed upon articles imported or exported in British ships, which are not equally imposed upon the like articles imported or exported in national vessels, or that any preference whatsoever is shown either directly or indirectly to national vessels over British vessels, or to articles imported or exported in national vessels over the like articles imported or exported in British vessels, or that British trade and navigation is not placed by such country upon as advantageous a footing as the trade and navigation of the most favoured nation, then and in any such case it shall be lawful for Her Majesty (if she think fit), by Order in Council, to impose such duty or duties of tonnage upon the ships of such nation entering into or departing from the ports of the United Kingdom, or of any British possession in any part of the world, or

857
such duty or duties on all goods, or on any specified classes of goods, imported or exported in the ships of such nation, as may appear to Her Majesty justly to countervail the disadvantages to which British trade or navigation is so subjected as aforesaid."
We have now had eighteen months' experience of this Bill, and I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken, or if they intend to take any steps, for the purpose of exercising the power which was placed in their hands at their own desire by Parliament, and which, when it was so given to them, it was understood would not be allowed to remain a dead letter upon the Statute-book, to the infinite loss of the shipping and commercial interests of this country? I was told this morning—and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade can correct the statement if it be wrong—that within the last three or four days an American vessel, the Hortense, has received a sudden intimation from the Custom-house authorities at Liverpool that a differential duty of 20 per cent was to be imposed upon her cargo. Now, I wish to know of Her Majesty's Government what instructions have been issued with regard to the mode in which that differential duty is to be imposed. The Act of Parliament requires that it shall be imposed by Order in Council, and that that Order shall appear in two successive numbers of the London Gazette within fourteen days of the Order coming into force, and that then, if Parliament be sitting, it shall be laid on the tables of both Houses. If this be true, the duty has been levied contrary to the regulations of the Act of Parliament, and the effect must be injurious on the interest of the British Parliament. But that to which I think it most important to call your Lordships' attention—and I do it without making any Motion on the subject—is the enormous disadvantage to which the British merchant is subjected by the want of reciprocity in the ports of Foreign Powers, and to ask Her Majesty's Government how long this is to last, and whether they intend to place on Foreign Powers such restrictions as shall compel them to do justice, and no more than justice, and to obtain fair competition, and no more than fair competition, as between the vessels of this country and those of foreign countries?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in consequence of the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down, he should be compelled to lay before their Lordships a
858
series of facts which would prove that the repeal of the navigation laws had not been injurious either to the mercantile or to the shipping interests. The result of the statements in the petition, and of the noble Lord's own remarks, was simply this, that our shipping interest was not able, without protection, to compete successfully with the foreign shipping interest, and that the difficulties with which our shipping interest had now to struggle, were increased and aggravated by our not meeting with reciprocity on the part of foreign nations. As the noble Lord laid most stress upon this latter point, he would take it first; and he would remind their Lordships that when Parliament repealed the navigation laws two years ago, it did not repeal a law common to all countries, but a law which had been enacted for this country some two centuries ago, and which had undergone constant modifications since it had been introduced. Our example in repealing that law had been followed by seven other countries. It became the duty of Her Majesty's Government, as soon as that Act was repealed, to communicate the fact to Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United States. Sweden at once announced her intention of removing all the restrictions of which this country complained. With regard to Holland, that country displayed a most liberal spirit in the negotiations which had passed on the subject. Holland was, in the first instance, anxious to retain certain privileges with regard to her colonial trade; but he (Earl Granville) was happy to say that within the last fortnight an official communication had been received stating that she was willing to admit British vessels on perfectly equal terms both in her home and colonial trade. These concessions were very much to her credit, and did much to impugn the opinion of Canning in one of his despatches, that the Dutch always asked for more than they could get, and always gave as little as they could. With respect to Belgium, he thought the noble Lord had fallen into a mistake. There certainly existed a difficulty in the proof as to whether the ship was a British or a Belgian ship; but it was true that goods carried to Belgium in Belgian ships were exempted to the extent, not of 15 per cent, but of 10 per cent, from the duty imposed on goods carried by foreign vessels. But what was the fact? England imposed double that amount of duty upon goods

859
which arrived from Belgium. This was not done by an Order of Council, but was effected by a despatch of Mr. Canning, which imposed 20 per cent on all goods coming from that country. There could be no doubt that this state of things was most injurious to both countries. With respect to France, she had not altered the system of her navigation laws, which had been framed during the reign of Louis XIV.: the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord only proved how impolitic and injurious the system must be which deprived the two countries—England and France—of the best markets for their respective goods. This was the consequence of a most absurd provision contained in the late navigation laws; and although those laws were more injurious to France than to this country, yet it became the duty of the British Government to communicate with the French Government upon the subject, with a view to effecting a change in the commercial laws of the two countries, which should be mutually beneficial. Although the French Government was greatly hampered with duties, yet they at once assured Her Majesty's Government that they were desirous of meeting us in the most liberal spirit. This assurance had been given both verbally and by letter. In the last communication received from France, considerable concessions were made; but still Her Majesty's Government did not think they were sufficiently fair for them to accept; but the Foreign Office was even yet in expectation of further information on the subject. He really thought that France was not exactly an instance that could be quoted as evidence against the soundness of the principle of free trade; or that the success of her protective system could be regarded as of any especial value. If they considered the extent and riches of France—the long line of her seaboard, the excellence of her harbours, her great power, and her scientific skill in building of vessels, above all, the intelligence of her inhabitants; and then considered that within the last fifteen years not only had her general tonnage (including vessels down to ten tons' burden) increased only at the rate of about the one seventy-sixth part of the increase of the tonnage of this country, but that her number of vessels above 200 tons' power had actually diminished from what they were fifteen years ago. If they considered these facts he thought it must be admitted that protec-
860
tion was not sufficient to create or to preserve a mercantile marine. He (Earl Granville) was one of those who thought that the prosperity of England would be increased by the prosperity of other countries; but those who entertained an opposite opinion ought devoutly to wish that France should continue not only to put a prohibitory duty on the importation of all finished articles, but on foreign machinery and on foreign shipping, and that she should persist in depriving herself of all the advantages which a free commercial intercourse with other countries would confer upon her; and that she should keep going on in the same miserable path that must for ever exclude her from all participation in the general mercantile traffic and carrying trade of the world. With regard to Portugal, negotiations were still pending, and he had reason to hope that they would finally arrive at a satisfactory issue. With respect to Spain, the question was more important. It was quite true that Spain imposed many restrictions upon our commercial intercourse with her. It must, however, be obvious, that it was quite as much the interest of Spain as of England that her present system should be changed, as it only operated to the advantage of the smuggler. But Spain was naturally slow to move, and it was much better to wait some time longer patiently, than to resort to expedients which would inflict great injury on Spain, while it would impose some additional inconvenience on ourselves. He now came to the United States; and this he considered to be really the only important part of the question. The United States was the only country that was at all a formidable rival with us in respect either to our commercial transactions or to our mercantile marine. The noble Lord had stated, and he (Earl Granville) could not deny it, that there was a disadvantage in British ships being forbidden the long voyage between the western ports and California. But the British merchant was not excluded from this voyage by the repeal of the navigation laws. The repeal of those laws had, in fact, given the British merchant an indirect foreign trade with California, and the other ports on the Pacific coast of America; and he was happy to know that the English shipowners had not neglected to avail themselves of that power. In their coasting trade, the United States of America included the whole line of seaboard from New York to

861
California. Her Majesty's Government felt that, embracing as this did so extensive a reach of coast, there was some fair ground for an appeal to the generosity of the Government of the United States; but their Lordships knew very well that much was not to be obtained from the generosity of nations. No doubt, technically speaking, the United States was justified in treating the commerce carried on throughout that extended line as a coasting trade. California was a part of the United States; and, although it was a coasting trade on a very great scale, going as it did all round Cape Horn, yet New York was to California only what Calais was to Marseilles, or many Russian ports to those of the Baltic and the Black Sea. After all, this coasting trade, if conceded to British merchants, would not place them on an equal footing with the American merchants. The Americans would not have any assorted goods on board, but only the produce of their own country; while British ships would be subject to the delays incident to the having an assorted cargo. He believed the effect ultimately would be, the carrying of European goods direct to California through England. He had thus briefly noticed the various countries with which England had either actually entered into terms of commercial reciprocity, or with which Her Majesty's Government had negotiated with a view to come to an arrangement in accordance with that principle. They had perfect reciprocity with Sweden, with Belgium, and with Holland; and with regard to the United States, they had all that reciprocity which they had a right to expect. With regard to the point so strongly dwelt upon by the noble Lord as to the exclusion of British merchants from what was called the coasting trade of the United States, what was the remedy for the evil so complained of? Either Her Majesty's Government must engage in negotiations with the United States for the purpose of inducing that Government to give up what they claimed as their coasting trade—a course which would be contrary to the principles which the noble Lord had laid down; or else the shipowners must consider our coasting trade to include the colonial trade of England. The noble Lord must remember the address which came from Jamaica as to their being excluded from trading with other countries. The whole question was, however, one of great interest. He was himself of opinion that it would be the
862
duty of the Government, if their negotiations with those countries which still refused to act upon terms of reciprocity should fail, to consider whether, even at some self-sacrifice, they should not exercise those means of coercion which were placed by Parliament within their power. But he trusted they would consider how much injury might be done to our commerce as well as to our power by any departure from a wise and sound principle. They would do well to remember that to a great commercial country like this, nothing was more important than that in all their commercial regulations they should have simplicity and uniformity. He would also have them consider how questionable might be the policy of making alterations in our commercial code in order to meet the impolitic laws of countries more backward than ourselves in the extent and in the knowledge of the principles which regulate trade and commerce. The noble Lord bad insinuated that the Government had neglected to institute negotiations in this respect. Now, he must remind the noble Lord of one difficulty which was in the way of Her Majesty's Government persuading other Governments to imitate the example of this country. It was impossible for the Government of any foreign country, when they saw a great and powerful party in this country, led by a man of such distinguished ability as the noble Lord himself, announcing to the public and to the world that every one of our great national interests were going to ruin in consequence of those very commercial principles and measures which the British Government were trying to induce that foreign country to adopt—it was impossible, he said, that the Government of such a country could fail to hesitate as to the course it should pursue, when so invited by us, although at the same time it might feel it somewhat difficult to reconcile the statements of that great political party with what they knew of our internal prosperity, our private revenues, and our extended commerce. Nevertheless, such statements must have sume influence upon foreign countries, especially when considering what commercial regulations they ought to make with a country in which there was a possibility of a party coming into power that might altogether set aside those regulations by the application of a totally different principle. He believed that there had been, both on the part of countries under free Governments and under despotic

863
Governments, a tendency more favourable of late years to the admission of foreign goods. It was quite true that in the United States of America an attempt had been made to pass a tariff of a more stringent nature than at present existed; but that attempt had failed. The only inference he could draw from that was, that it was far easier for the Protectionist party to descant on the evils arising from the relinquishment of protection when in opposition, than to re-enact protective duties when in power. He would now address himself to the present state of the shipping interest. The shipowners affirmed that every prediction as to the disastrous consequences that would result from the repeal of the navigation laws had been completely verified. Before he entered into any statistical details, he would just observe generally that some of the objects of those who promoted the repeal of the navigation laws were—that by bringing foreigners to compete with us, a certain number of foreign vessels might he employed in our commerce; that, by bringing into use inferior and more economical ships of foreign build, our own shipowners would be stimulated to adopt the modern improvements which had been already adopted abroad; that the merchants would impose a stricter discipline on their crews, and improve their general character, so as to bring them up to the standard of the ships' crews of other countries. It was also thought that the British shipowners having their share in the foreign indirect trade to the United States, would be enabled to participate more largely in the advantages of what was called the long voyage. Equally great advantages, it was supposed, would be derived to the commerce of the country by the repeal of the navigation laws. He would now advert to the amount of tonnage employed in British commerce, both before and since the repeal of those laws. The noble Earl then read the following statement.—[See Table at foot of next column.] With regard to the amount of indirect trade, although it had increased, yet, unfortunately, they did not possess that description of information which was desirable upon that point; but arrangements had now been made by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office by which such information would be hereafter furnished. As a proof of the employment of British ships in trades which were closed to them before the repeal, the United States' shipping returns were important. They
864
exhibited in the first six months of 1850, from January to June (the latest period to which the accounts were received), no less than 213 British ships, with a tonnage of 68,291, coming from third countries—which proved that the increased employment of British ships had been considerable. It was probable that similar results had been proved in other trades: 38,000 tons had been entered during the year into New York alone. He had several letters from consuls showing that from almost every port one or two ships were going on new destinations in consequence of the repeal of the navigation laws. 10,000 tons of shipping left the American coast for China during the first six months of the repeal; of these 7,000 tons were English shipping, and of the remaining 3,000 tons only 1,100 tons belonged to the United States. The list from New South Wales and Australia also swelled the return of our trade during the first four months of the repeal of the navigation laws. With regard to the outcry about the employment of foreign shipping in British trade, he considered it to be wholly unfounded. In 1850 there were entered inwards 31,249 ships of 6,113,396 tons; whereof 18,728 were English ships of 4,078,544 tons; foreign, 12,521 ships of 2,034,852 tons; that was in the first year after throwing open our ports; the proportion of foreign ships in our trade was about 40 per cent, and the tonnage about 32 per cent. Of the United States, in 1849, when they were protected against us in the indirect trade, the total numbers

STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH TONAGE IN THE FOREIGN TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

1848.

1849.

1850.

Tons.

Tons.

Tons.

Inwards

4,020,415

4,390,375

4,078,544

Outwards

3,553,777

3,762,182

3,960,764

Total

7,574,192

8,152,557

8,039,308

—

1850 compared with 1848.

1850 compared with 1849.

Increase.

Increase.

Decrease.

Tons.

Tons.

Tons.

Inwards

58,129

—

311,831

Outwards

406,987

198,582

—

Total

456,116

…

113,249

were—20,200 ships, whereof 11,208 were American; foreign, 8,992; showing that the proportion of foreign ships in this trade was 44 per cent. In the year ending June 30, 1850, the total number of ships was 18,512 of 4,348,639 tons, whereof 8,412 were American, of 2,573,016 tons; and 10,100 were foreign, of 1,775,623 tons; showing the proportion of foreign shipping to be 54 per cent, and the tonnage 41 per cent. The decrease in the United States shipping since the repeal was remarkable. On the 5th of June, 1849, inwards, 2,753,724 United States; foreign, 1,675,709: outwards, 2,658,321 United States; foreign, 1,710,515. June 5, 1850, inwards, 2,632,788 United States; foreign, 1,728,214; outwards, 2,573,016 United States; foreign, 1,775,623. It was thus seen that not only had the amount of our foreign tonnage increased, but that of United States tonnage had actually diminished—a result less favourable than our own returns exhibited. He might here state, that by a despatch which had been received from Philadelphia that day, it appeared that, in 1850, out of 129 vessels entered with cargoes, 18 only were in the indirect trade, being one in seven; but in the first four months of 1851, out of 50 vessels (a much larger proportion) 15 were of the indirect trade, being one in three. This showed an enormous accession to the employment of English shipping in the foreign trade. He would now turn to the question of the Indian trade, in which it was supposed the United States still entirely supplanted us. The table he held in his hand showed that at, all events the British shipping in that trade had not fallen off. The British ships inwards, within the limits of the East India Company's charter, were, in 1848, 387,772 tons; in 1849, 406,479 tons; in 1850, 442,793 tons. Outwards, in 1848, 453,128 tons; in 1849, 522,056 tons; and, in 1850, 562,495 tons. Now, after all, he did not mean to deny that there was some pressure upon the shipowners of this country; but he had in the first place to observe that that had nothing whatever to do with the repeal of the navigation laws; the pressure they had to sustain was in regard to the coasting trade of this country, in consequence of the competition with the internal communication by means of railways. There was also another point he was ready to admit, namely, that our second-rate vessels found a difficulty in obtaining freight; but that was a circum-
866
stance which came under the same category with the case of the post-houses on the roads. Where an improved mode of communication was introduced, the less perfect system must necessarily give way. But of this he had no doubt, that with regard to the best class of ships, they found it easy to obtain freight in all the ports of the world, and that there was a great demand for such vessels. There were some other and minor objections urged against the policy of the Government. One was as to the mode of manning British ships, namely, the undue proportion of British subjects, whom our laws required to be employed. He did not wish to dwell upon that point; but he thought that concurrently with the repeal of the navigation laws Her Majesty's Government did right in proposing to throw open and admit a certain proportion of foreign seamen to be employed in manning British merchant vessels, though he could well understand the outcry which would have been made had they proposed to throw open the manning of British ships to all the world. Another point of complaint was the amount of the consular fees. Those fees had already been in some instances reduced by an Order in Council. Before he closed his remarks, he would just allude to one serious pressure upon the shipping interest, especially that of Liverpool, to which the petitioners had not referred. It was the conduct which had been pursued lately by a Mr. Lindsay, a gentleman who had written against the repeal of the navigation laws. He was a man of very great ability, and of considerable energy. He had found that, owing to the fact of London being the greatest market in the world, there was no difficulty in obtaining freight for ships in the London port. He also found that, Liverpool being situate in a manufacturing district, he could obtain goods there, and, by making arrangements with the railway companies, he could bring those goods to London and ship them there. This very year Mr. Lindsay had launched nine ships from 800 tons to 1,200 tons burden, and, in imitation of the practice observed in America, had, for the first time, engaged captains whom he had made partners in the concern. Mr. Lindsay had his ships built by contract. Considerable discussion on a former occasion took place in their Lordships' House upon that very subject. It was a matter of surprise to many that a ship could be built cheaper in America than in England,

867
notwithstanding the materials were dearer in that country than in this. The only way for accounting for it was, that the shipowners in America ordered their ships to be built by contract—a system totally unknown in this country. As far as he (Earl Granville) knew, Mr. Lindsay had adopted that plan with great success. Now, this he certainly did consider to be a very serious competition for Liverpool to have to encounter. He was informed, but he could hardly believe it, that the Liverpool merchants had begun to sign a memorial in order to prevent the London and North-Western Railway carrying goods so cheaply in this country. He hoped, if that were really the case, they would be met in the same way as his noble and gallant Friend and the owners of the collieries in the north were met when they sought to deprive the public of the great advantages of competition in the conveyance of coal to the metropolis. If such a step were indeed to be taken by the merchants of Liverpool, he had no doubt they would be met by the same energy and ability as Mr. Lindsay and the shipowners of Southampton had already displayed. He might mention another case; for since this question had been brought forward, it was important that it should be examined in all its details. Mr. Duncan of Dunbar, who was one of our greatest shipowners, a strong opponent of the repeal of the navigation laws, and who gave evidence before the Committee against that measure, represented himself to be the owner of 15,000 tons of shipping—a very respectable position for any man to hold. He (Earl Granville) had been informed that the tonnage which that gentleman now owned, notwithstanding the repeal of the navigation laws, was something like 30,000 tons. He might mention another instance—he meant the case of a most respectable shipowner—Mr. Wigram. That gentleman stated that if the navigation laws were repealed, he should remove his business from this country; but what had he done? He had not only not abandoned his shipbuilding yard in the Thames, but had established another yard, where he was building a steamer of 2,500 tons burden, and carrying on a much larger amount of business than before the repeal took place. He (Earl Granville) was perfectly convinced that whatever might have been, or still might be, the struggle which the alterat on of the law might for a time subject the shipowners to, that that struggle
868
would be triumphantly passed over, and would not, as was predicted, necessarily end in the defeat of any party. But if, contrary to all his expectations, speaking as he did with full confidence in the great energy, the large capital, and the ability of his countrymen, the end of that struggle should be that the shipping interest of this country should fall an easy prey to the foreigner, then, he knew not whether it was prejudice on his part as an Englishman, but he should certainly think that they had lost all their character for commercial enterprise. There was one point he wished to mention, which had come to his knowledge that day. He had received from the Registrar of Seamen information that between 7,000 and 8,000 apprentices had been bound, notwithstanding the law was no longer compulsory, within the last sixteen months. He would now turn to the case of the shipbuilders. It was predicted at the time of the repeal of the navigation laws that it would be quite impossible that the shipbuilders could go on building ships. Now, the number and tonnage of vessels built and registered in the United Kingdom in 1849 was 730 ships, the tonnage being 117,953, and the average tonnage 161; while the number and tonnage of vessels built in 1850 were 689 ships, 133,695 tons, and the average 194; showing an increase of tonnage on shipbuilding during the last year, of something like 16,000 tons. He found that the amount of increase in foreign shipbuilding was about 10,000 tons during the same period. He might here add that he had received an account from the Swedish Consul, that ten out of every twelve vessels belonging to Sweden came from this country. There was, in fact, a new trade springing up with regard to shipbuilding. Not only were steamers being built for foreign Governments, but there was a large demand coming from foreign countries for iron vessels. He found by the circular of Messrs. Tonge, Curry, & Co., of Liverpool, that there had been a great increase in the amount of tonnage sold by them during the past year over that of the year 1849. He had been informed by a friend who was on a Committee of the House of Commons on another subject, that evidence had been given before that Committee that such was the prosperity of the shipbuilding, and the amount of work going on in the shipyards, that it was impossible to find a shipbuilder who would bind himself by contract to build and deliver a ship at any given time.

869
When on this point, he could not help reminding the noble Lord that the great principle which guided the Legislature was to encourage to the utmost possible degree the interests of the great bulk of the community, and not the interest of any particular class; and, therefore, if he had been able to show, partly by the statements of the noble Lord, and partly by those made by himself, that there was at the present moment more British shipping employed than before, that there was a greater demand for that shipping, and that the commercial and manufacturing classes were able to send their goods more economically, and with greater despatch, then he had done enough to establish his case; but if he added to this that the shipowners were extending their business in every direction, that the ship carpenters and builders were in a singularly prosperous condition, then he thought he was entitled to say that he had placed the matter beyond the possibility of doubt; nor were his views at all shaken by the statement that the shipowners themselves said that freights were low, and that they were in great distress. No man could have greater respect than he had for the shipowners of this country. He know well that they had already conferred great advantages on the country, and he was persuaded that they were destined to confer upon it advantages still greater; but it was because he compared the energy and ability with which they conducted their business with the tone in which they addressed Parliament, that he had come to the conclusion there was something of a conventional tone in those complaints with which they were accustomed to load their addresses. In the first place, it was to be noted that they did not represent themselves as prosperous before the recent change took place. Every shipowner that came before their Lordships' Committee, with the exception of one gentleman, stated that they were in a most depressed condition; and one of the most strenuous advocates against repeal said he was glad to take that opportunity of solemnly recalling on oath what he had said before the Committee of the House of Commons, that for twenty-five years the shipping interest of this country had lost one-half of their capital, and received but little interest for the remainder. He believed they would find it common to almost every individual, and every class, that they liked to have an opportunity of indulging in what was the universal and useful privilege of grumbling.
870
He appealed to their Lordships whether they were not accustomed to hear their banker, their lawyer, their physician, always setting forth that prices were falling, that competition was becoming ruinous, that they were seriously thinking of giving up business, and that they could not imagine what was to become of their children. Was there any one great and flourishing interest in the country from which they were not in the habit of hearing such complaints? The gigantic cotton trade had been more querulous and complaining than any other; and from those engaged in the silk, the leather, the iron trade, and indeed every department of industry, there came the same sounds of grumbling and discontent. No doubt it was the duty of that House to consider the complaints that arose from every interest in the country, and he felt that they owed a debt of thanks to the noble Lord for having brought the present question before the House. He was glad that the country had an opportunity of calmly considering and discussing the questions raised as to the alleged melancholy state of the shipping interest, as represented by one of the ablest and most distinguished Parliamentary debaters. He was glad the noble Lord had given an opportunity of fully discussing that question; but what he most felt the advantage of was, that not one single word had fallen from the noble Lord that could delude the shipowners into the fallacious hope that there was the slightest likelihood of a return to the system from which this country had departed. His firm belief was, that if the shipowners succeeded when they were in a transition from a state of monopoly to one of perfect freedom, it was not because they had any hope of realising a change at the hands of the Legislature, but because they depended on their own energy and perseverance; and he had the utmost confidence that by this wise course they would not only confer great advantages upon the country, but secure largo and increasing profits for themselves.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE, after presenting petitions from shipowners of Dartmouth, Sunderland, and Middlesbrough, and of the Committee of the General Shipowners' Society of London, complaining of the repeal of the navigation laws, proceeded to say he felt it unnecessary to enter into the details of those petitions, as they resembled very much the statements contained in the petition which had been presented by his noble Friend

871
(Lord Stanley); but he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words in answer to the able speech of the noble Earl (Earl Granville). He did not think, from the speech of the noble Earl opposite, that the shipowners of this country could have the slightest hope that it was the intention of the Government to exercise the power placed in their hands of dealing with the question of reciprocity in the manner in which the Act of Parliament enabled them to do. He never heard a speech that tended so little to raise the spirits of a drooping interest as that of his noble Friend. He had told them that they were endeavouring to negotiate with foreign nations; but that, in the event of those negotiations failing, the public must not expect that Government would exercise any powers they possessed for the benefit of the shipping interest. Let their Lordships remember that in this question, having reference to the manufacturing, the agricultural, and the commercial interests of this country, there was this great feature—that they were carrying on an experiment on a great and wealthy country, which might be able to endure the trial for a time, but which would ere now have crushed and broken down a Power less able to sustain it. We might subtract from a large heap of gold for some time, without any apparent diminution; but from a small heap it was missed at once. He held in his hand a, document referring to the state of trade during the three months ending May, 1850, and the three months ending May, 1851, from which he would read an extract. Whilst the British shipping entered inwards had increased 21 per cent, the French shipping had increased 19 per cent. Clearing outwards, whilst our shipping increased 8 per cent, France increased 13 per cent, Russia 340 per cent, Sweden 192 per cent, Norway 159 per cent, Prussia 241 per cent, Holland 111 per cent—all these nations thus increasing in a vastly larger proportion than ourselves. See what they had done by the repeal of the navigation laws in advancing the trade of America! Though the repeal of the navigation laws had nothing to do with the opening of the American trade to California, yet it would enable the Americans to do what they never could have done before; namely, after going from New York to California, the freight of the voyage clearing the whole of the expenses, the American ship might proceed to China, there take in a cargo of teas, bring them
872
to England, and return to New York, thus making the entire round of the world. Formerly the Americans were completely excluded from that trade; the whole of it was in the possession of British shipping, and it was considered to be an important voyage, not only for the merchant, but for the seamen. It was the voyage in which, next to the coasting trade, the best seamen were reared. The American vessel could now go from New York to California, and on to Calcutta, and get 6l. or 8l. a ton for that voyage; from Calcutta to England the same vessel might get 11. 5s. or 1l. 10 s. a ton; and from England to New York, 15 s. a ton; the entire voyage occupying about 14 months. The English vessel went from Liverpool to India for 20 s. or 25 s. a ton, whore the American vessel came into competition with it, so that the American vessel started with an advantage of 6l. 10 s. a ton, against 20 s. or 25 s. a ton. When his noble Friend said they had not done anything by the repeal of the navigation laws to improve the state of the shipping in America, he was not aware of what was going on in America in relation to the extraordinary trade of California. The stimulus that, together with the repeal of the navigation laws, had been given by that trade to the shipping interest of America, was such as must astonish every one. When first the trade to San Francisco was opened to the American shipping, they got rid of the whole of their old ships by sending them there for their full value, knowing they would never return. At that moment there were six hundred of those vessels rotting at San Francisco, and the remainder were employed in the coasting or whaling trade. In one year there were 1,100 new vessels built, and there were now on the stocks 1,100 more American ships, all rendered necessary by the combined action of the Californian trade and the repeal of the navigation laws. By that means, therefore, there were 2,000 or 3,000 new ships going to all parts of the world to enter into competition with them; and that vast increase of vessels would tend to reduce the rates of freights below what they are at present. The conduct of the Government and their mode of dealing with the question must be unsuccessful, and tend very much to the injury of British shipping. He had no doubt the advantages they had given to foreign nations in competition with their own, would tend gradually to reduce the British shipping, and it would no longer be

873
able, in such a state of things, to contend with foreign shipping. He had no doubt that a stimulant had been given by the repeal of the navigation laws; there was always at first in such cases a great stimulant given from the great pressure that must ensue, and persons tried to relieve themselves by new expedients, hoping always for a better state of things; but that would not last long—it could not be borne beyond a certain period; and when they looked to the situation a shipowner might be placed in, in reference to the outward trade, it was evident the state of things could not be long maintained. He would mention an instance where the expenses cost the merchant 2,174 l., while the sum realised by the outward freight amounted only to 779 l., leaving a large balance against the merchant. If they took the case of an American ship with the same freight, they would find that the owner would be paid the whole of his expenses. He would give another instance where the cost was 2,416 l., and the freight 911 l., leaving a balance against the merchant of 1,300 l. There was no subject that more required the attention of the Legislature; there were no persons who more required the protection of the Government than the shipowners, who merely asked for a system of reciprocity that would give them a fair field and no favour. He had not yet said a single word with respect to the position in which the country might be placed at a future time with reference to their military defences. If they found from the progress of mercantile transactions that there was a falling-off in the maritime mercantile force of the country, they had drawn upon themselves a state of things that might involve the country in a most difficult situation. He believed it was the opinion of their ancestors that those laws were chiefly enacted as laws of a defensive character, and the repeal of them was unsought for and unasked for by the people of this country.
EARL GREYsaid, that although he had no desire to continue the discussion in the absence of the noble Lord who had began it, or to occupy the time of their Lordships at that hour of the evening, particularly after the admirable speech of his noble Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who had left little for him to say, he trusted their Lordships, even at that hour, would allow him to say a few words with regard to what had fallen from his noble and gallant Friend who had just sat down. And, first, he could not help con-
874
gratulating their Lordships and his noble Friend opposite on his candid admission that the alteration of the navigation laws was calculated to give a great stimulus to the commerce of the world; and if it gave a great stimulus to the commerce of the world, it followed pretty clearly that this, the first commercial nation in the world, could not fail to have its full share of it. The noble Lord had given them very gloomy anticipations, founded upon particular instances of losing voyages; but they were instances to which he (Earl Grey) attached very little importance, for he believed in every description of commerce it was not very difficult to find individual transactions of a losing character. They must look to the general result of the whole to form an opinion; and on that point his noble and gallant Friend opposite had not attempted to shake the arguments of his noble Friend near him: he did not attempt to show it was not true, that all their great shipowners were extending their business most rapidly, and improving the size and number of their vessels. If it were a losing trade, he (Earl Grey) could not believe that was the conduct which those very intelligent Englishmen would pursue. He could quite understand that, in the case of a ruinous opposition, those embarked in a trade, and having a large capital invested in it, and not having the means of withdrawing from it, should endeavour to do the best they could; but he could not certainly believe that men with their eyes open would rush blindly into a losing trade, increase the number of their ships, and build new ships, to engage in a business they believed to be a ruinous one. If it were a losing business, it was certainly rather strange that one man should have in a short time doubled his tonnage by raising it from 15,000 to 30,000 tons, and that another should have added in a single year nine first-class vessels to those he already possessed. The noble Lord had pointed out the great disturbance in the trade of the world occasioned by means of California, where there was suddenly created a large community: no doubt this would be attended with great results, and American vessels might in the first instance have made large freights by carrying goods to California, and there might consequently be a difficulty in getting remunerative freights to Europe from that part of the world; but he (Earl Grey) could not understand how that affected the question of the navigation laws. After all, he

875
believed that this country had shared to no inconsiderable extent in the benefits of the Californian trade. No doubt that many vessels had gone from New York to California: but from the accounts that had reached him, he believed that no inconsiderable number had gone from England to the same destination. In that trade, of all others, in which, according to his noble Friend opposite, the Americans had a great superiority, a very large proportion of the tonnage belonged to English ships. Of 8,300 tons of shipping that had cleared out from Hong-Kong to California, 6,800 tons were British, and only one-half the remainder was American. With regard to America, he thought they possessed fully every advantage that they gave. It was true that the trade between New York and California did give an advantage to the Americans; but, on the other hand, American ships could not be drawn to that trade without making a large opening for the British in other trades, and especially in the trade from Brazil and Spain to the United States. In point of fact, it was notorious that a very large portion of that trade had fallen to the lot of the British shipping. Therefore, with regard to America, they really did enjoy reciprocity. The noble Lord had also complained that, as regarded France and Spain, they did not enjoy reciprocity. He (Earl Grey) admitted that the regulations maintained by France and Spain were regulations contrary to the true spirit of fairness—regulations of which they had the utmost right to complain; and he conceived they were entitled to adopt any measures consistent with their own interest to get rid of them. But what they had to consider was not merely whether France or Spain had acted fairly by them in establishing those regulations; they had also this further question to consider—did those regulations affect them as much as they affected those countries themselves; and, on the other hand, would they, by retaliatory measures, do more harm to themselves than to those countries? That appeared to him a very serious question. When the retaliatory clauses were introduced into the Bill for the repeal of the navigation laws, it was understood that the Government were to make use of the power conferred on them if a case arose, on which undoubtedly that power ought to be exerted. If he remembered rightly, it was urged distinctly at the time that the clause was inserted with this object, that if it were found that
876
British shipping, from the competition of other countries in consequence of this measure, was suffering, and if it were also found that by using those powers the injury to their own shipping would be done away with, then the power was to be employed; but Parliament clearly proceeded on the principle that they would not require in all cases an exact reciprocity from all nations. The principle of the Act was, that they made concessions which they thought were advantageous to themselves, fully and entirely to every nation of the world; and they merely reserved to themselves the power, in case they found it disadvantageous to themselves hereafter, to use those retaliatory clauses. Now let them see whether the conduct of those two foreign countries had been more injurious to themselves or to this country, and whether the evil to this country would be mitigated by following their example. With regard to Spain, the grievance is that high differential duties are placed on all articles if imported in British instead of in national ships. No doubt the operation of that law was very injurious. The British shipowner now and then lost an advantageous voyage; but, as the noble Lord bad said, the whole trade with Spain was, after all, an inconsiderable object. They might impose, no doubt, countervailing duties upon goods going to Spain from this country in Spanish vessels, but what would be the result? Simply to put an end to the trade altogether. It would be an injury to their manufacturers and merchants; but that it would have any effect on any interest in Spain, except that of the smuggler, he really could not see. Then, with regard to France, that country maintained, he admitted, regulations of a most absurd character, copied from our own old navigation system. France refused to receive the produce of Asia, Africa, or America, if imported from England; and what was the practical operation of that rule? It was this, that the French merchant or manufacturer, if he had an opportunity of buying cheap cotton or indigo in London or Liverpool, the greatest markets in the world, was prevented from doing so; and so with timber. If an English ship visited the Baltic, it could bring home a load of timber at a cheap rate; but the French shipbuilder could not take advantage of that circumstance. The loss to the English shipowner was merely occasional; it was the chance of making a less profit; but the

877
loss to France was that the French manufacturer was deprived of an enormous advantage in obtaining the raw materials for carrying on trade on the best terms, and the French trade in every direction was checked. In like manner as regarded their colonial trade, they were not allowed by the French law to carry any commodity between France and her Colonies, or from other countries to the French Colonies; and the effect was that the French Colonies, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure by which it was attempted to bolster them up, were dragging on a sickly and miserable existence. The Algerian territory, highly endowed by nature, possessing every possible advantage that nature could confer on it, and on which millions upon millions had been spent by the French, was merely a source of enormous expense: that great country, in the time of the Roman emperors, was one of the most productive portions of the then civilised world; but now, instead of making the progress we saw in our own colonies, and day by day starting into increased activity, and carrying on a larger commerce with France and with the world, it was only a source of expense to France. Of course they might say that French vessels should not carry produce to the British Colonies; but the effect of that would be but a very trifling injury to the French shipowner, for he was already excluded from that trade by competition against which he could not make head: and so far as the colonies were concerned, it would deprive them occasionally of the opportunity of getting certain goods at a cheaper rate which French ships would convoy to them. In his (Earl Grey's) opinion the power with which Parliament had invested Her Majesty's Government was one to be used when there was reason to apprehend any danger from the competition to which British shipping was exposed by countries of whose measures they had a right to complain. With regard to France and Spain, he had only to say that the British shipowners had no reason to complain. The competition between them was like the race between the tortoise and the hare. Spain had no mercantile marine, and France was little better. To show that, he begged to refer to official accounts of the French mercantile marine. He would not trouble their Lordships with details, but there was one fact that was striking. He found that the French commercial
878
navy possessed, in 1839, one ship, and one ship only, exceeding 800 tons in burthen; in 1849 that one solitary 800-ton ship had disappeared from the list of the French commercial navy; in 1839 France possessed altogether five ships exceeding 600 tons burthen, and carrying a collective tonnage of 3,760 tons; in 1849 the French mercantile navy still possessed five ships exceeding 600 tons in burthen, but those ships, in 1849, carried only 3,609 tons, being actually, in ten years, a diminution of 160 tons. It appeared that the whole amount of the French mercantile ships of the first class were exceeded by rather more than one-third by the additional ships added in this very last year by one British shipowner to his fleet:—in the course of the last year Mr. Lindsay had added nine ships of upwards of 800 tons each to his fleet, so that in that time he had built nearly three times as much tonnage as the first-class ships of the French mercantile marine possessed altogether. Therefore, to talk of competition between the French and English mercantile marine in the general trade of the world, was absurd. With respect to the direct trade between France and England, retaliatory measures would have no effect whatever. All they could do would be to stop that trade entirely. If they were to imitate France, and establish the same sort of restrictions on trade as she had established, they would no doubt effectually destroy all the legitimate trade with France, but would gain no advantage in competition. He was persuaded that the best way of freeing their commerce with France from the vexatious restrictions to which it was now subject, was by adhering, in matters connected with the navigation laws, to the policy adopted by them in regard to other commercial matters. He would remind their Lordships that of late years they had altered the duties paid on foreign produce, with reference to their own interests exclusively, and without any consideration as to whether they would admit our produce on equal terms; but formerly it had been an axiom that a different policy should be pursued, and it was said to be the only wise policy to give additional facilities to foreign trade only on their granting similar facilities to us. It was, indeed, so generally received a maxim, that it was seldom questioned until some eight or nine years ago, when in two successive Sessions the subject was brought before the House

879
of Commons by an hon. Friend of his (Mr. Ricardo), who exposed with the greatest ability and success the fallacy of the notions on which that policy was based; and though he did not induce the other House of Parliament to concur with him in the formal Resolution he proposed, he had the satisfaction from that time to see that an impression was made upon public opinion, and that the Administration of Sir Robert Peel (of which the noble Lord who began this discussion was a Member) acted more and more upon the principle of making relaxation of duties utterly irrespective of whether foreign nations would reciprocate them or not. The result had been beyond measure successful; for whereas, during a quarter century before, we had been engaged in endless negotiations with foreign countries to get rid of restrictions upon trade injurious to both parties, and without making the slightest progress, but, on the contrary, restrictions seemed rather to multiply than otherwise; since then, not only our own commerce had made a more extraordinary and unparalleled advance than it had ever made before, but, more than that, foreign nations were beginning—with hesitating steps to be sure—but still they were beginning to follow our example. The alterations made by foreign countries, though not extensive, all tended to a reduction of the duties which obstructed trade. But more than this, it was beginning to be very obvious that the nations who refused to follow in this course would be left further and further behind in the general race of competition amongst the nations of the civilised world. While he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that it was desirable that France and Spain should relieve our navigation from the restrictions to which it was at present subject, he was persuaded that we should best arrive at that result by the operation of that irresistible compulsion which was already beginning to toll upon them; and that, unless they imitated our example, they would be left so immeasurably behind in the race of competition that the most ordinary regard for their own interest would compel them to relax their restrictive laws. No doubt, public opinion in France had been hitherto very averse to making any change of this description; but we must remember that her navigation law was intimately connected with her general commercial system—it was a part of a system so inge-
880
niously absurd, and yet so intimately connected in all its parts, that it was scarcely possible to touch one part of it without the whole fabric falling to the ground. Her whole commerce and industry were so bound down in every direction by restriction, in the name of protection, that, if she touched one part of this system, he did not think it was possible for her to avoid altering the whole. Now, did their Lordships think that a people like the French would not open their eyes to what was going on around them in the world—that they would not compare the progress of their own country with that of other countries, and would not see that a flourishing commercial marine can only be possessed by a country which possesses a generally flourishing commerce, and that the miserable state of their mercantile marine was the natural consequence of the diminution of their commerce. It was most remarkable how the whole commerce of France was languishing under the system which was now pursued. There was no fairer test of the general state of the commerce of a country than to take the total amount of the tonnage of the ships both national and foreign, which entered her ports from foreign countries. Now if that test were applied to England and to France, the contrast between the progress of the two countries during the last few years would appear extraordinary. He would take as the points of comparison, 1842 (the year in which England first began decidedly to relax her former prohibitive system), and 1849, which was the last year for which he possessed the requisite returns. In 1842, the tonnage entered inwards and outwards in France was 3,247,000 tons; while in 1849 it was 3,375,000—showing an increase of only 128,000 tons. While France was advancing thus slowly, what was the case of England? In England there was entered inwards and outwards in 1842 7,347,000 tons; and in 1849, 12,620,000—or an increase during the seven years of 5,273,000 tons. While the commerce of France had, therefore, during the seven years, increased 4 per cent, that of England had increased 71 per cent. [A Noble LORD remarked that we had had no revolution.] It was certainly true that we had had no revolution; but he would remind the noble Lord that the consequences of that revolution showed rather favourably than otherwise for France in the compari-

881
son which he had instituted; for we knew that, at the end of 1848, after the election of a President, and from various circumstances, confidence was restored, and trade made a great spring, so that 1849 was reckoned, as regarded France, rather a favourable year; but as regarded England, it was by no means so favourable a year as 1850, or that which was just beginning. In 1849, the results of the disastrous famine in Ireland, and of the railway speculation, had not entirely passed away, and that year was by no means a prosperous one for England. But even this would give a very inadequate view of the relative commercial progress, and the advance in wealth made by the two countries. Compare them in other respects—in England we saw every description of manufacturing industry and mercantile business advancing, increasing, extending; we saw our railway communication in progress of being completed entirely by private enterprise; docks upon a gigantic scale constructing, and fixed capital being invested in public works of immense importance. In France, on the other hand, there was nothing but stagnation. Her system of railway communication was advancing only slowly to completion, and that slow advance was mainly due to the assistance of the State; there were no public works of any great importance being carried on by private enterprise, and stagnation pervaded every branch of her industry. Was this a state of things to which France was likely long to submit? It was not difficult to trace the causes why her commerce and her commercial marine were in the state he had described. He believed that under a restrictive system every trade was exposed to great disadvantages, and a commercial country, though it might by protection compensate to its merchants and manufacturers, as regarded the home trade, for the disadvantages under which they suffered, had no means of doing that as regarded the foreign trade. In neutral markets they must meet the competition of the world. The French Legislature and Government had no means of preventing the Lyons manufacturer or the Bordeaux wine-grower from being met in the markets of America and England, or in other parts of the 'world, by the manufacturers of other countries, or by the wine-growers of Spain and Portugal; and how was it possible but that a nation which raises the first cost of the elements of her commerce should compete unsuccess-
882
fully in the markets of the world? A few years ago it was supposed impracticable for the English silk manufacturers to compete, even at home, with the French manufacturers. But now, in many branches of the silk manufacture, the English were successfully rivalling their competitors in the neutral markets of the world, and were exporting largely to Brazil and America. Could they suppose, when the English manufacturer was struggling with the difficulties which beset him when first commencing business, that he was not greatly assisted by the extra expense imposed upon the French manufacturer by the laws of that country? And we knew that, even with all the disadvantages to which they were still liable, such was their taste in design that many descriptions of French cottons, of the most ornamental kinds, partially competed with our own. Was it not, then, a great advantage to the English manufacturer, in competing with the manufacturer of Rouen, that the price of the motive power of the Frenchman's steam engine was raised 20 or 30 per cent by the duties imposed upon coals, which, but for this, might be delivered to him as cheaply' as to his English rival. Was it of no advantage to the English manufacturer that every machine made by his French rival was greatly increased in cost by the enhancement of the price of iron, consequent upon the duties imposed by the French tariff? or that, by the navigation laws of France, the manufacturer of that country was prevented from obtaining his raw material, cotton or silk, from the cheapest market and by the cheapest conveyance, and from purchasing his cotton or his indigo, for example, where it could be bought at the greatest advantage, and from whence it could be brought to him at the lowest rate? He was convinced that these were facts which could not fail, sooner or later, to produce their effects on the public mind of France; and it was not by copying their unwise example, and placing now restrictions on our own trade, which would hurt ourselves far more than the French, that we could induce them to remove the restrictions of which we complained. He would say more—he would say, with his noble Friend (Earl Granville) that if we looked at France with the eyes of commercial jealousy—if we wished her to be kept behind in the general advance of the civilised world, and desired that her progress in the direction in which we were making

883
such giant strides should be retarded—we should most earnestly desire that the restrictions by which she now fettered her industry should be maintained. But he had no such wish. On the contrary, he was most anxious to see France advance like ourselves in wealth and in commercial prosperity. He knew that the consequences of her doing so might be that in some branches of the commerce of the world, in which she had a natural superiority, she would vanquish our manufacturers, and drive them, perhaps, from some fields of production which they now partially occupied. But he knew also that she would only do this by driving us into other branches of trade in which we had the superiority, and that the result would be for the benefit of both. He knew that France could not relieve her own trade and become more wealthy and prosperous without becoming a better customer to us; and he knew, too, that in the markets of the world there was a demand for the produce of both countries as unlimited as the wants of mankind, so long as we continued to let every nation pay us for what we took from them by that which they could best afford to send us. He was indeed aware that France, with her extensive and productive territory, her numerous, industrious, ingenious, and persevering people, could not fail to advance most rapidly in wealth, if their industry was relieved from the restrictions which now pressed upon it. And with her wealth, no doubt, her power would increase, too—for, in this age of the world, naval and military power was to no slight degree a question of wealth. But he had no jealousy on that score. He knew that if France thus increased her wealth and power, she would, at the same time, increase the interest which she would have in the maintenance of the peace of the world, and would give us a new security against the recurrence of that greatest of all calamities, war. He felt confident that this would be the case; and it was on that ground that he earnestly hoped and trusted that France would at no distant period follow our example, and relieve her trade with us from the restrictions to which it was now exposed. Certain he was that the wise policy for us was to wait with patience until this took place, and to abstain at all events from attempting any measures of retaliation until we saw practically that we were suffering in competi-
884
tion with that country, and that the retaliatory measures we might adopt would be calculated to relieve our own fellow-subjects from any disadvantages to which they were at present unfairly exposed.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that as both the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who addressed them at an earlier part of the evening, had both admitted the vexatious character of the restrictions imposed by France upon our trade, and the want of reciprocity on her part, and had stated that, when the proper time came to act on that opinion, they would be prepared to take such steps as were necessary to enforce reciprocity, he thought that point would be best left to the discretion of the Government. The noble Earl the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Earl Granville) had stated that the predictions of those who opposed the repeal of the navigation laws had failed in every particular; and he grounded his assertion on the fact that the general commerce of the country had increased since the repeal of these laws. That fact could not be denied; but the repeal of the navigation laws was opposed not so much as a matter of commercial policy as because of the injurious effect it would have upon our means of defence. Since the repeal of the navigation laws, too, the tonnage of British ships employed in the direct trade had fallen off, while the foreign tonnage had largely increased; and this was not so much in the American marine as in that of the northern nations, who could build and navigate their ships most cheaply. The noble Lord indeed said that the British tonnage employed in the indirect trade had increased, but there were no documents or returns to prove this; and it must also be remembered that, since the repeal of the navigation laws, a large indirect trade had sprung up between the miners of California and China—an event which could not be foreseen by those who opposed that measure. The noble Earl also said that the character of the seamen and masters of merchant vessels had improved since the repeal of the navigation laws; but he (Lord Colchester) thought that this improvement should be ascribed rather to the Mercantile Marine Act than to the repeal of the navigation laws, which it preceded in point of time.
Petitions ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday next.