Lord J.
Russell.

cach country as our interests might dictate as
expedient. The principles of Free-trade ought to
be applied to each measure under discussion, ac-
cording as
as our particular interests were affected
thereby. Sir James Graham had put the ques-
tion as one decisive between retreat and progress.
Reaction was
as much to be feared as a rash
progress, for reaction might be fraught with suf-
fering to the people, as dangerous to the interests
of the country as the proposed change was ominous
of evil.

Lord John Russell as Chief Minister of the Crown wound up the debate on his side. He was aware that the law had been almost worshipped as the charta maritima of this country, and that, much of our prosperity and commerce having been attributed to this law, it had been thought profanation to alter it. He thought this was an opinion founded in error, and that, at no time, had this law been essentially advantageous to this country. He then went over the history of the Navigation Laws, quoting authors of various times who wrote of the fluctuations in trade and public policy, and having reviewed the several points of the question, came to the conclusion that with respect to the greater part of the nations of Europe and of the world, we would obtain fair and equal terms of navigation, provided we were ready to give the same terms to them. He went farther; he boldly said that nobody could doubt that in the case of the United States of America, or in those of Prussia, Russia, or Austria, the fullest reciprocity would be conceded. The nations which would not give equal terms were, at the most, only

three or four-France, Spáin, and Belgium, and perhaps one other.

raeli.

Mr. Disraeli assumed the privilege of the last Mr. Disword, and, in reply, quoted the last report of the Shipowners' Society, which has been already given, intimating their readiness to discuss the policy of amending the Navigation Laws on all points not involving fundamental principles. He next took a rapid review of the effects of repeal on the Australian and other colonies, arguing that, if Canada had not a Protective duty on corn restored to it, as demanded by the Legislative Assembly, Canada would be lost to the British Crown. "Woe to those statesmen and to the policy which plucked this jewel from the Crown of England! No shuffling change in the Navigation Law could compensate the people of Canada for what they had lost, and which they felt so acutely." Mr. Disraeli then referred to the papers from foreign Powers, arguing that they were valueless, and, especially, that everything respecting the United States was a tabula rasa, all that we had heard last year having been obliterated as an element of consideration. The last division on this Majority famous Bill now took place upon the third reading, r when the Ayes were 275; Noes, 214; Majority, 61.

for Bill,

7th May,

the second

CHAPTER X.

Debate in the Lords, May 7, 1819, on second reading-Speech of the Marquess of Lansdowne-Lord Brougham-Condemnation of Mr. Porter's statistics-Protected and unprotected Trade-Voyages to the continent-Napoleon's desire for ships, colonies, and commerce —Earl Granville-Earl of Ellenborough-Increase of foreign peace establishments-Earl of Harrowby-Earl Grey-Lord Stanley.-Admits need of modifications-Canada not our only colony-Majority for the Bill, 10-Duke of Wellington votes for it-Proceedings and debate in Committee-Lord Stanley's amendment-Rejected by 13 -Earl of Ellenborough's amendment-Claims of Shipowners, and fear of competition-Amendment rejected by a majority of 12-Bill read a third time-Timber duties, &c., admitted to be grievances— Lord Stanley's protest-Royal assent given, June 26-Coasting trade thrown open, 1854-Americans, October 1849, throw open all; except their coasting trade.

Debate in ALTHOUGH the majority in favour of the Bill had the Lords, slightly increased since the division had been taken 1849, on on the second reading in the House of Commons, the reading. Shipowners were not discouraged, believing it would be thrown out by the Lords. They knew that the ministry had staked their reputation upon it, and that the fate of the Government depended on the result, but they confidently believed that the Upper House would reject "so pernicious a measure." The Bill was at once carried up to the Lords, and read a first time. on Tuesday, 24th April; and on Monday, 7th.May, the Marquess of Lansdowne moved the second read

of the

of Lans

ing in a long and elaborate speech. He contended Speech that the origin of the Navigation Laws during the Marquess Protectorate of Cromwell did not arise so much from downe. a commercial or political want as from a desire to punish the Dutch for their loyal support to Charles I.1 He admitted, however, that there were then good grounds for trying the experiment how far the national arm could be strengthened by restriction, and how far the naval force of the country could be thus increased. The noble Marquess next traced at length the changes contemplated by Mr. Pitt, and the incidents of the war with Napoleon, contending that the law, by successive changes, had ceased to be a suit of impenetrable armour, and was now only an imperfect garment of shreds and patches, manufactured out of parchments from statute books. He, further, showed the increase of our shipping since the relaxation of the shipping laws, maintaining that the dread of foreign competition was altogether irrational, and demonstrating, by statistics, the large share of the American direct and carrying trade we had already secured in open competition with American ships hence, and with foreign ships from their own ports to American shores; while we were, at the same time, able to bear off the chief share of the Russian trade from the Baltic ships even within the heart of their own country. He briefly referred to the colonial bearing of the question, and said that the West Indies were subject to great troubles, and

1 A much more likely reason has been already assigned for English hostility to the Dutch in and about 1652; and that is, their perceiving that the Dutch were gradually engrossing all the foreign trade, especially that on the other side the line.

Lord

Canada engaged in a difficult competition with the United States, the whole trade of the St. Lawrence depending on the repeal of that part of the Navigation Laws still in operation, the complete opening of that river alone, he thought, being sufficient to enable her to retain the trade now fast passing through the United States. The Marquess quoted Bonaparte, whose aim, when at the summit of his power, had been to obtain ships, colonies, and commerce. Bonaparte conquered one-half of Europe; the other half he seduced or entrapped into negotiations. He could create monopolies everywhere, and did so unscrupulously; but the genius of English commerce overcame those monopolies. Ships he could not get; colonies he could not acquire; commerce he could not establish; and was this, he asked, a consequence of the British Navigation Laws? No; it was British commerce and enterprise, which, in spite of restrictions in all parts of the world, secured a footing; and, in spite of edicts enforced by a million of bayonets, was established and conducted successfully. The Marquess then explained that the Administration depended upon this question, and were prepared for all the consequences of a hostile

vote.

To the astonishment of the country, Lord Brougham, Brougham in one of the ablest, or at least the most rhetorical speeches he perhaps ever delivered even in his best days, opposed the second reading of the Bill. His Lordship had supported the other great measures of Free-trade, and now did not escape the charge of

The speech was published by Ridgway. Our space allows but a brief epitome of it.