man. call the attention of the House to a point | Herries) had been two, and he did not which had not been adverted to with suf- think the answers of the right hon. Genficient clearness by the right hon. Gentle- tleman, the President of the Board of When this country had to contend Trade at all satisfactory. The first was, with a country which possessed cheap tim- that Government, having by the treaty ber and low wages, it was impossible that violated the Navigation Act, had afterthis country could succeed in the compe- wards taken no steps towards getting the tition. In stating this fact, which was of consent of Parliament to that measure. great importance, he would be able to There was no personal blame to be atprove it by returns which he held in his tached to the present President of the hand. Mr. Huskisson considered, that Board of Trade for the omission, but certhe increase of shipping between this and tainly Government, as a body, were reother countries with which we had reci- sponsible. The right hon. Gentleman procal treaties would be in our favour, had stated, that no great inconvenience but the contrary was proved to be the had arisen from the conflict between the fact. With respect to the eight countries treaty and the law. He could tell him of Europe, with which we have treaties of that he knew a gentleman who, on the reciprocity, taking the three years from promulgation of the treaty, was most anx1821 to 1824, before the passing of these ious to open a trade with Austria, but treaties, and the three years from 1836 to who, on the seizure of the vessel at Glou1839, since the signing of these treaties, cester, immediately abandoned the idea. it appeared that in the three former years The fact was, that the imperfect state of there were 910,000 tons of British ship- the treaty precluded all attempts at inping employed in her trade with those creasing the trade. The other objection countries, and 771,000 tons of foreign of his right hon. Friend was, that in conshipping. In the three latter years, ending sequence of neglecting to include Turkey 1839, the amount of British tonnage had in the arrangement, our trade would be increased to 1,588,000 tons, whilst the left at the mercy of any foreign power who foreign shipping had increased to 1,168,000 could successfully intrigue at the Turkish tons. There were, on the other hand, six court for the closing of the ports of the countries with which we had no recipro- Danube. He trusted, that the right hon. city treaties, in contrast with which our Gentleman would use his best endeavours tonnage was rapidly increasing. He to remove those imperfections from a thought that these facts demonstrated treaty which, generally speaking, was most clearly, that this country, when com- likely to prove beneficial to the trade of peting with countries which possessed this country. cheap timber and low-priced labour, could not possibly succeed. That was, how ever, no reason why reciprocity treaties should not be adopted. If they did not exist, what Mr. Huskisson had called conflicting duties would be the consequence; and their fruit would cause incalculable injury to trade. He contended that no reciprocity treaty was useful in which care was not taken to obtain advantages for our manufacturers; and, certainly, that point had been attended to in the Austrian treaty, for in that manufac. turers were included. With respect to the 4th article in the treaty, which was the principal subject in discussion, he thought that Government had left it very imperfect, they not having secured the trade of laws. the Danube by a treaty with Turkey. While we were without a treaty with Turkey, the fourth article of the Austrian treaty was of little or no use. The objec Mr. Hawes said, that the object of the framers of the fourth article in this treaty had been to interest Great Britain in maintaining the free navigation of the mouth of the Danube and the Black Sea, and the ports there. It was observable, that since this treaty had been concluded there had been an increased activity in the trade between this country and Aus tria. It was highly desirable, therefore, that the Government should be empowered to enter into similar treaties with other powers, and so far to relax the strictness of the navigation laws. He rejoiced to find that this bill had received such a degree of attention, and that there was a prospect of some relaxation of those Mr. A. Chapman objected to the principle of the treaty. He was old enough to remember when reciprocity treaties first came before the House, and, at that be to increase the tonnage of other countries, and to diminish our own. The returns produced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilmarnock, proved that his (Mr. Chapman's) prophecy had been correct, because now if it were not for our colonial trade our tonnage would be small indeed. Now, we carried no coffee from Batavia to Holland, nor was there any trade from the Baltic to this country, except in foreign ships. The hon. Member for Lambeth had made a comparison between our trade at the present time, and that of 1814, alleging, that in 1814 this country was carrier to all the world. The hon. Member had forgotten, that in 1814, the Berlin and Milan decrees were promulgated, and consequently that then we had no trade in Europe from the North Cape to Gibraltar. The most flourishing period of our trade was from 1816 to 1822, the last being the year in which the unfortunate reciprocal treaties were introduced. He trusted, that the noble Lord would not proceed with any more of those treaties, but would preserve those laws which had created nurseries for our seamen, and had led to the victories of a Howe and a Nel son. Mr. Sheil: There was this advantage gained from the treaty, which distinguished it from that of Lord Aberdeen-that at present British ships could go from any part of the world to Austria. Formerly they were confined to Great Britain. This was a change essentially distinct, which the hon. Member for Harwich must admit, on consideration, to be a change for the better. What was the result? In 1837, the number of British ships which went into Austria were 95; in 1838, the year of the treaty, they increased to 164; and in 1839, there were 144. It was a curious circumstance, that of the latter there were 59 which came not direct from Britain, but from various foreign ports, and this in virtue of the present treaty. Another advantage from the present change was the alteration of the tariff and the shortening of the period of quarantine. Sir E. Sugden said, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the 5th Clause, which gave to Austria great advantages. The complaint of his hon. Friend was, that the Government had not come earlier to the House for the power to carry the treaty into execution, inasmuch as the treaty was in violation of the Navigation Laws. As to the allegation that fifty-nine of our ships had taken advantage of the clause and only one Austrian vessel, that was an additional reason why the Government should have come down to the House earlier, as it looked like a breach of faith with the Powers with whom we had entered into a treaty. The construction of the treaty according to its terms was very doubtful. Under all the circumstances, what the House was bound to do was to ascertain that Austria had the power to give that entry to the Turkish ports which she professed, and that the Queen's Government should not be authorised to infringe the Navigation Laws until it was satisfactorily ascertained that Austria had the power to give that which they professed to give. Mr. A. White trusted Government would not relax the Navigation Laws. Mr. Hindley observed, that the advocates of free trade in that House did not at all relish the principles of the bill when they affected their own constituents. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws, but was strenuously opposed to any change in the Navigation Laws. He was favourable to the principles of free trade, and should, therefore, support the motion. Sir S. Canning: The framers of this treaty were certainly, in his opinion, entitled to credit for the spirit which prevailed in it. At the same time he must say, that in the encomiums bestowed on it sufficient attention had not been paid to that which preceded it. He certainly could not bestow unequivocal praise on the distinctions of a treaty which resting on the ground of mutual advantages refused to allow the entrance of the ships of the foreign power. The discussion, however, would be advantageous. Viscount Palmerston felt great gratification at perceiving that the opinions of almost everybody who had taken part in this subject were in accordance with the principles upon which this treaty was framed. He thought that it would prove exceedingly useful to the commercial interests and relations of this country for it to go forth that all parties were agreed in favour of the liberal principles on which this treaty was framed. It had been objected that some of the articles of the treaty were not so clearly drawn as they might have been. He did not admit this objection to the extent it had been made, and he thought that the right hon. Member who urged it showed that he fully understood the article to which he referred. He would admit, that the 4th Article was not quite so clearly worded as it might have been. The fact was, that during the regotiations at Vienna on this subject this article was frequently altered and copied, and it was in the course of these proceedings that this slight obscurity crept in. When the treaty came to this country to be ratified the question was, whether it should be sent back again for verbal amendment, or signed at once; and the latter course was adopted, as it was not considered that a trifling obscurity in one or two expressions would be a sufficient ground to postpone the adoption of so important a principle as the treaty involved. With respect to the objection that the advantages conferred upon Austria by this treaty were clear and evident, but that those intended for England were absolutely nugatory, he did not think that it was borne out by the fact. The right hon. Member would bear in mind that by the terms of this treaty, Austria was precluded, not only from asking, but also from accepting if offered, any greater advantages in the ports of Turkey than were enjoyed by England. With respect to the objection, that fully to realize the advantages contemplated by this connexion, a subsequent treaty with Turkey would be necessary in order to prevent that power from excluding us altogether from the Danube, he would only remark, that by virtue of existing treaties, English ships had a right of trading in any Turkish ports, and therefore to all parts of the Danube comprehended within the Turkish territory, whilst the freedom of the remainder was guaranteed by the treaty with Austria. He agreed that it was of vast importance to give every possible development to the commercial energies of Turkey and Austria, and the opening of the navigation of the Danube, by affording a water communication with those great and productive countries, could not but afford very great facilities for that mercantile intercourse with Great Britain, which on every account was so desirable. Mr. Herries had not intended to say anything against the general scope and principle of this treaty. Report agreed to. NUES.] House in Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. On Clause 35, Colonel Rolleston moved to omit the proviso "that the benefices in the patronage of the prebendaries of the collegiate church of Southwell, shall be vested partly in the Bishop of Ripon, and partly in the Bishop of Manchester." The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand:-Ayes 77; Noes 17; Majority 60 List of the Ayes. Abercromby, hn. G.R. James, W. Howard, hn. E. G. G. Williams, W. A. TELLERS. Gordon, R. Tufnell, H. Eliott, Lord Holmes, W. Lambton, H. Manners, Lord C. S. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, July 7, 1840. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Isle of Man; Gram mar Schools.-Read a second time:-Borough Watch Rates. Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, from Members of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.-By Lord Brougham, from places in Scotland, in favour of Non-Intrusion; from Medical Practitioners of Renfrew, for Medical Repeal of the Corn-laws. By the Earl of Kinnoul, from Scotland, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill. By the Earl of Aberdeen, from the North American Colonial Association, in favour of the Union of Upper and Lower Canada.— By Viscount St. Vincent, from 400 form; and from Inhabitants of Bridgewater, for the Re Boatmen, against the Conveyance of Goods on the Lord's Day. INDIAN ARMY.] The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that he had received from the Earl of Auckland the following letter, in return to the thanks of the House, communicated to his Lordship by the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to an order of the House of the 4th of February last. "Calcutta, May 4, 1840. "My Lord, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter, transmitting to me the resolutions of the House of Lords of the 21st of February last, respecting the late military operations to the westward. of the Indus. These resolutions, with your Lordship's letter, have been published in general orders, and the separate resolutions have been forwarded to the officers whom their Lordships have been pleased to honour by their particular approbation. The great distinction conferred by the unanimous thanks of the House of Lords, will be most sensibly appreciated by all to whom it has been directed; and must be regarded by them as amongst the highest rewards of public service. On my part, I request your Lordship to submit to the House of Lords my grateful acknowledgments of the honour which has been done to me. "I am your Lordship's most faithful "The Lord High Chancellor, &c." On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the Governor-general's letter was ordered GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.] Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the day for a Committee of the whole House on the Canada Government Bill. The Order of the day having been read, The Earl of Hardwicke said, that in rising to address their Lordships on this occasion, and in pursuance of the notice which he had given the other day, that this bill be committed this day six months, he felt it his duty to state to their Lordships the grounds on which he took this, what might be considered in some degree extraordinary proceeding. It was perfectly true, that he was present when this bill was read a second time, and he did not rise in his place to offer any objection to the principle of the measure; but when he came into the House he was not aware that the course which was then pursued would be taken. Since that time he had thought it his duty to proceed in the manner in which he was now proceeding, not consulting any individual, not coning entirely on his own responsibility, and necting himself with any party, but actfrom a sense of public duty. He was perfectly aware of his own imperfections he was aware that he had neither the talents nor the knowledge which a Member of that House presuming to address their Lordships on such a subject ought to possess. But he had about him a strong sense of duty which impelled him to avow his conviction, that if this bill were permitted to pass, it would tend to the separation of our Canadian colonies from the mother country. Although he felt incapable of doing justice to the subject, he also felt that the cause was just and right, and he further felt, that if he failed in showing that this bill was dangerous to the union between this country and her colonies, several of those who had already addressed their Lordships were on his side, although they might not be disposed to carry their opposition to the full extent. He, therefore, was not oppressed by the same difficulty under which he should have laboured, if the whole charge of the proof, and the consequences of failure, had rested upon him alone. He might rest contented upon this occasion, in going at once to a vote upon the speeches which had been delivered by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and his noble Friend the noble Baron (Ellenborough) who sat at creased, and the French still formed a very large portion of the population, and it seemed to him that the advantage which we had gained by having erected in that country something like an English citadel would be placed in jeopardy by this bill. Now, his opinion was, that no union between the two provinces could be founded on justice. He cared not for the he repeated, be contented to ask for a division on those speeches alone, but he thought it more respectful to their Lord ships to take upon himself the task of stating the reasons upon which he founded the motion with which he should conclude. He thought, however, that he might also rest in some small degree on the speech of the noble Viscount who had introduced the subject to their Lord-effect of an Act of Parliament, but if an ships, a speech not conveying to his mind, whatever it might to the minds of others, that sort of impression which ought to be conveyed by a Minister of the Crown on a subject of so great importance, namely, that it was a measure which the noble Viscount was fully confident was necessary to the safety of the empire. The noble Viscount concluded the latter part of his speech with these words: - "But whether this union, abstractedly considered, would, with a country which had yet to be settled, be the wisest and the most expedient that could be devised, was scarcely worth discussing, for circumstances were sometimes more powerful than reasons, opinions, theories, and systems." act was to pass to unite the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, it never could carry with it the force of justice. If the bill should pass their Lordships' House, and receive the royal assent, that bill being avowedly intended to secure the preponderance of British influence in the united Legislature, by that very act alone they would perpetuate the dissensions which prevailed, and the French Canadians would never feel satisfied that they would be justly and peaceably governed. But he would take another case, and he would suppose, that the bill was a just bill, and would give equal political rights to all parties in that country. If that were the case, their Lordships would do injustice to the other party. Those who had fought and bled for the connexion with this country, and had contended for its institutions in Church and State, would look upon themselves as deserted by us, and handed over to the tyranny of those who were aliens in affection to them. Under those circumstances he held that it was impossible that their Lordships could pass any measure which should be both just, and at the same time insure a preponderance for British influence. This it was which had induced Scarcely worth discussion! scarcely worth discussion! Such observations as those, when the question before the House was whether two great and important colonies should be well or ill governed, seemed so extraordinary, that they must have escaped a Minister of the Crown by the merest accident. [Viscount Melbourne: They never escaped me at all.] He did not quote from memory, but from The Times, which was tolerably correct, he believed, in the reports which it contained of the proceedings in their Lordships' House. How-him to take the step which he had adopted ever, he took the purport of the observa- on that occasion. Now, none of the gotions which fell from the noble Viscount vernors of the province, till Lord Durham's to indicate that grave doubts existed in time, since 1791, had recommended the his mind whether the measure would be union of the provinces, and none of the beneficial. But to proceed. He would executive councils had sanctioned it, but pass over that portion of time and that had invariably discountenanced it. He Act of Parliament which, after the con- was now going to refer to a pamphlet quest of Canada, divided the province which he held in his hand, which was not into two portions for the purpose of form- of authority by itself, but which he should ing the upper part of it into an English use entirely as a matter of convenience. province. Now, he would ask their Lord-He should turn to the opinion of Sir ships whether the prospects of Canada were so materially changed, or the aspect of affairs was so satisfactory in itself, that they would no longer think it their duty to keep that division as it was at present. The country had by no means diminished Peregrine Maitland, which was given to the author of the pamphlet, Sir F. Head, in reply to a question put by the latter. The opinion was contained in a letter, which was as follows: Brighton, June 6, 1839." |