WILL MR. LABOUCHERE’S 
 
 NAVIGATION MEASURE PASS THE HOUSE 
 OF LORDS? 
 
 LETTER 
 
 PROTECTIONIST PEER, 
 
 THE HON. W. F. CAMPBELL, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, 
 
 & MACMILLAN & CO. CAMBRIDGE. 
 
2- 1 ? , ><3fe- 
 
 London: 
 
 GILBERT AND RIYINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. 
 
 1043“! 
 
LETTER, 
 
 ¥■ 
 
 My dear Lord, 
 
 On Sunday afternoon your Lordship had the good¬ 
 ness to call upon me, with a view to the debate 
 on Mr. Labouchere’s measure, which takes place in 
 your House on the 7th of May; * * * 
 
 * * * Unfortunately, I was little able to 
 
 meet the wishes of your Lordship. Having failed 
 entirely in the hope of being able to support the 
 measure in the debate upon the third reading, as your 
 Lordship well knows I had intended, in consequence 
 of somewhat painful circumstances which I need not 
 now explain, since that time other thoughts have so 
 far occupied me as very much to weaken the im¬ 
 pression of the numerous and complicated facts 
 
4 
 
 which are necessary to be brought to bear on this 
 widely r amif ying question. Since the visit of your 
 Lordship, I have felt myself bound to recur to some 
 of the materials which I still have around me; and I 
 will now endeavour, with that indifference to style 
 and disregard of regularity which the shortness of 
 the time imperatively calls for, to collect a few state¬ 
 ments in the order of the questions which your 
 Lordship put to me, and not in that of any formal 
 argument which it might have been appropriate to 
 urge upon the House of Commons. 
 
 There is one mooted topic of enquiry which the 
 candour of your Lordship in the outset of our 
 conversation rendered it unnecessary that I should 
 any longer dwell upon. It is, whether the British 
 ship-owner is able to compete with the foreign ship¬ 
 owner in the construction of merchant vessels ? The 
 affirmative of this question your Lordship did not 
 scruple to admit. You declared that you had no 
 desire to countenance the ill-supported paradox: that 
 while the English compete successfully with the 
 Dutch; while nearly all the trade between Har¬ 
 lingen and London is carried on in British bottoms; 
 while, in point of feet, we command the trade be¬ 
 tween Holland and England; while there is no 
 country in the world which can compete with our 
 North American ship-builders 1 ; while in China, 
 
 1 See Evidence of Mr. Browning, Mr. Graham, Mr. Berger, 
 and Mr. Colquhoun. 
 
5 
 
 Singhapore, and Manilla, English vessels are found 
 to have the advantage over the United States; 
 while the amount of British and colonial shipping 
 entered inwards, in the United States, increased 
 between 1836 and 1846, from 227 ships, measuring 
 82,453 tons, to 368 ships, measuring 223,676 tons, 
 being an increase of 171 per cent; while the United 
 States shipping only increased in that time from 
 542 ships, measuring 236,393 tons, to 741 ships, 
 measuring 444,442 tons, being only an increase of 
 90 per cent; while the United States, admitting 
 goods imported by the vessels of Russia, Denmark, 
 and Sweden, irrespective of their being the produc¬ 
 tions of those countries, the total number of the 
 ships of those countries arriving in the United 
 States in 1846 was 21 Russian, 84 Swedish, 19 
 Danish, 5^209 English ships; while a competent 
 authority has undertaken to import Dantzic oak, 
 and build a ship at Sunderland, cheaper than it 
 could be built at Dantzic; while the ship-owners in 
 Bremen, without any natural advantages, and with¬ 
 out any Navigation Law, by means of intelligence 
 and industry, compete with the whole world; while, 
 also, in its facility for building iron vessels, England 
 is without any rival; that, in spite of these sub¬ 
 stantial facts, any danger can arise to the employ¬ 
 ment of our tonnage from the competition of the 
 foreigner. 
 
 Indeed, my Lord, in this admission, you have only 
 followed the implied convictions of your party. In 
 the debate upon the third reading, in the Commons, 
 
Mr. Henries made scarcely an attempt to revive the 
 hazardous position which was once so much relied 
 upon. Mr. Disraeli would not have ventured on 
 the desperate expedient of treating with contempt 
 and ridicule the grounds which have been alleged in 
 favour of the measure, if the more plausible and 
 decorous scheme of establishing a counter-case had 
 not been utterly impracticable. Still less would 
 Mr. Walpole, whose parliamentary abilities your 
 Lordship recollects, have incorporated in his grace¬ 
 ful speech the crowning answer to the apprehensions 
 of the ship-owner; viz., that the relaxations intro¬ 
 duced by Mr. Huskisson have led to unmixed good, 
 if he had thought it possible to hold with that 
 declamatory class that they have led to unmitigated 
 ruin, which is an essential portion of the creed they 
 urge against the present measure. Dismissing alto¬ 
 gether, therefore, this preliminary portion of the 
 subject, I will now proceed, as shortly as I can, to 
 answer the remaining questions upon which your 
 Lordship has declared that you are still unsa¬ 
 tisfied. 
 
 Yon inquired, in the first instance, “ Whether in 
 point of feet any solid reasons have appeared to 
 justify the interference of the Legislature ? whether 
 any difficulty would arise in acquiescing in the law 
 as it exists at present? whether the movement which 
 has taken place against it is gratuitous and rash, 
 or sober and authenticated ? ” My Lord, if I am not 
 mistaken, in your view, the Executive is more im¬ 
 portant in the long run than the legislative part 
 
7 
 
 of our system. The public good, in your mode of 
 thinking, is more effectually secured by a prosperous 
 administration of the departments which divide the 
 public service, than by any large and showy altera¬ 
 tions introduced, to satisfy a popular demand, or 
 imaginary grievance, in the statute book. Hence 
 it is you are disposed to feel a certain scepticism 
 when a bold or comprehensive measure is submitted 
 to you for approval, as to whether it is not rather 
 ornamental than substantial in its nature; whether 
 it is not better calculated to give effect to an am¬ 
 bitious theory, than to remove obstructions from 
 the path of regular and ordinary statesmanship. If 
 ever you could be induced to look with favour on a 
 measure which exhibits force in its design, and 
 breadth in its dimensions, it would be when the 
 daily exigencies of the administrative service had 
 suggested it, when it was necessary to the credit 
 and efficiency of some great department in the State, 
 irrespectively of those who may happen at the 
 moment to preside over it. Having since last ses¬ 
 sion taken pains to acquire as correct a view as I 
 was able of the measure which Mr. Labouchere has 
 carried through the House of Commons—I mean, 
 as regards the circumstances out of which it may 
 be supposed to spring, and the object towards which 
 it is directed—the only definition I could now con¬ 
 sent to give of it is, a considerable change forced upon 
 the minds of those who are responsible for the daily 
 operation of the State machinery by the accumulated 
 
exigencies of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, 
 and the Board of Trade. All the facts which bear 
 upon the measure in demonstration of its necessity, 
 may he classed in connexion with one of these three 
 great departments. It would not be inaccurate, I 
 think, to state that they may he considered as unit¬ 
 ing, without any reference to persons, in an impor¬ 
 tunate demand upon the Legislature for some such 
 measure as the House of Commons has now, after a 
 long deliberation, read a third time. 
 
 The difficulties which the Foreign Office is entitled 
 to allege as against the present Navigation Laws, are 
 too complicated to he fully entered into in such a 
 letter as the present. Ample justice will no doubt be 
 done to them in debate. It will he sufficient that 
 I should just apprise your Lordship of their nature. 
 They depend upon two great facts. 1st. By a 
 treaty dated 1838, relaxations were conceded to 
 the Austrian Government, on the ground of some 
 peculiar circumstances affecting their trade and 
 shipping, which have brought down upon the Office 
 nearly every European power which has any shipping 
 to encourage, in the attitude of powerful demand 
 for those advantages which Austria has extorted. 
 In the second place, the objections which are made 
 by foreign powers to all the main provisions of our 
 navigation system, designed as they were to arrest 
 and abridge their maritime advantages, have gradu¬ 
 ally prepared their minds for such a general con¬ 
 spiracy against British interests, as would have the 
 
9 
 
 demonstrable consequence of driving 200,000 tons 
 of British shipping from employment 1 . And although 
 the evidence of Captain Stirling and Lieutenant 
 Brown has gone a great way to show that we are 
 not entirely dependent on the size of our mercantile 
 marine for the support of our navy, it cannot be 
 denied, my Lord, that so grave a blow as this may 
 justly cause misgiving and alarm in the minds of 
 those who are responsible for the maintenance of 
 British independence among the powers of the 
 globe. 
 
 The case which the Colonial Office is competent 
 to urge against the present Navigation Laws, is at 
 once concise and irresistible. The colonies are now 
 exposed to foreign competition. The sentence which 
 exposes them to foreign competition is well known to 
 be irrevocable, inasmuch as it is in conformity with the 
 convictions of the English Legislature, with the wishes 
 of the English people, and the fixed laws of economic 
 progress. In sustaining this competition, the colonies 
 have various advantages, and some disadvantages, 
 inherent to their position. However much the 
 former may preponderate, it is by no means clear 
 (and how much better is your Lordship informed of 
 this than I am) that, if restricted in their means of 
 export and of import, they will be able to maintain 
 their position as commercial countries. The Colonial 
 Office is beset with remonstrances from Canada, 
 Jamaica, Trinidad, against the hardship and injus- 
 
 1 See History of Navigation Laws, by a Banister. 
 
10 
 
 tice of being compelled to pay higher freights for 
 the supposed advantage of the British ship-owner; 
 when the loss of the protective system, which for 
 many ages they enjoyed, has made it so peculiarly im¬ 
 portant for them to diminish, in all its elements, the 
 cost of production in the articles in which they deal. 
 No doubt, my Lord, the colonies would he disposed 
 to submit to this grievance, if it could be considered 
 as essential to the foreign policy or domestic policy 
 of England. That it is not essential to the former, 
 I have given reasons for supposing; that it is not 
 conducive to the latter, will appear when we investi¬ 
 gate the case which the Board of Trade may be con¬ 
 sidered to advance against the present Navigation 
 Laws. 
 
 My Lord, that case is not composed, as some 
 have unscrupulously said, of isolated facts and ped¬ 
 dling exceptions. The complaints of the British 
 merchant fall into four great divisions. He com¬ 
 plains, first, that he is deprived of much valuable 
 trade which, with an unrestricted navigation, would 
 be open to him ; he complains, in the second place, 
 that the present system places a premium upon 
 foreign manufactures; he complains, in the third 
 instance, of the commercial prohibitions which other 
 countries have imposed, with a view to self-defence 
 against the system which is now at issue; he com¬ 
 plains, in the fourth place, that great difficulties are 
 opposed to those new enterprises which, as capital 
 becomes more redundant, and the rate of profits 
 more depressed, are more essential to his prosperity. 
 
11 
 
 I will only refer your Lordship to the evidence of 
 Mr. Brooks for an explanation of the process by 
 which, according to the present navigation system, 
 the sugar trade between England and Batavia is 
 annihilated; to that of Mr. Goschen, for a statement 
 of the manner in which England is now prevented 
 from being a depot for foreign goods; and to that 
 of Mr. Berger, for an illustration of the sentiments 
 impressed upon the minds of British merchants by 
 what he justly terms this oppressive tax upon the 
 commerce of the world. 
 
 My Lord, the task of showing, by a copious refer¬ 
 ence to correspondence and details, to what extent 
 the three departments I have mentioned are justified 
 in the position they assume before the Legislature, 
 is not so much for me as others to accomplish. T 
 have said enough, perhaps, to show that each of 
 them has a case which cannot be rejected; that 
 each of them has an interest in the settlement of 
 this question; and that it has been unsettled by 
 gradually advancing circumstances over which go¬ 
 vernments and parties could not in their nature 
 exercise control. I come therefore to the second 
 question which your Lordship put to me, namely, 
 “ Into what shape has Mr. Labouchere proposed to 
 throw the legislative burden which the Foreign 
 Office, the Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade, 
 are all three compelled to force upon his shoulders ?” 
 
 The main features of the Bill itself are, first, that 
 it removes all restrictions which the existing law 
 
12 
 
 imposes upon the employment of foreign ships in the 
 foreign and colonial trade; secondly, that it admits 
 foreign-built ships to be registered as British; thirdly, 
 that it repeals the obligation to carry apprentices; 
 fourthly, that it reserves ample power to the Crown of 
 exercising retaliation upon the ships of such states as 
 may not treat us upon a footing of equality. You 
 will see, therefore, that it involves three great and 
 fundamental principles: first, that our foreign, colo¬ 
 nial, and commercial interests should be extricated 
 from the difficulties in which they have been all 
 involved; secondly, that the British ship-owner 
 should no longer be exposed to the embarrasing con¬ 
 ditions under which his business has been hitherto 
 conducted; and, lastly, that in case foreign powers 
 should without any provocation continue the de¬ 
 signs they now justify against British shipping, suffi¬ 
 cient means should be provided to repel and to 
 defeat them. 
 
 Your Lordship next asked me: “ Would it not 
 be possible to frame the measure with a regard to 
 reciprocity even more strict than that involved in 
 the present measure ? ” Decided as my own con¬ 
 victions are in the negative of this question, I fear 
 that I may have some difficulty in explaining them. 
 The debate in the Committee of the House of 
 Commons on the Bill is perhaps the best answer 
 to your question. Mr. Bouverie proposed a plan 
 of reciprocity which was found to be obnoxious to 
 two classes of objections. It would either have in- 
 
13 
 
 volved a flagrant inequality in the restrictions we 
 endured, and the restrictions we inflicted, or have 
 made it necessary to vary our Navigation Law to 
 suit the exact case of every country in the world. 
 Mr. Gladstone indicated a scheme which was not 
 subjected to the ordeal of parliamentary discussion, 
 and which, although doubtless it was fraught with 
 the elements of ingenuity and order, it is questioned 
 by candid judges whether even his mind could have 
 digested into any clear or practicable system. The 
 fact is, my Lord, that any scheme of rigid recipro¬ 
 city is met by the difficulty, that if concessions were 
 made conditionally to some countries, we should be 
 compelled to make them unconditionally to other 
 countries. To make the extent of this difficulty 
 visible, it is necessary to allude to our relations to 
 some of those countries with which we have treaties 
 containing favoured nation clauses. With Sweden 
 we have some treaties of ancient, and one of modern 
 date, which contain stipulations binding either coun¬ 
 try to treat the other on the footing of the most 
 favoured nation *. It has been held that, were we to 
 admit the ships of any country into the reserved 
 trades, though upon condition that British ships 
 should be admitted into the corresponding trade of 
 that country, we should be bound to admit Swedish 
 ships into the same trades without obtaining the 
 fulfilment of a similar condition. With Spain and 
 Denmark also there are treaties of ancient date, 
 which are still in force, and which it is not in our 
 1 See Hazlitt’s Treaties. 
 
14 
 
 power to terminate. They contain stipulations 
 couched in language quite as strong as that of our 
 Swedish treaty, binding us to treat those nations 
 on the footing of the most favoured nation. Den¬ 
 mark treats foreign ships with liberality, and our 
 engagements to her would therefore not be likely to 
 lead to much embarrassment. Spain, on the other 
 hand, imposes very heavy differential duties upon 
 foreign ships, and there is no probability of her taking 
 them off. Here then a difficulty would at once arise; 
 for Spain would claim our privileges without fulfilling 
 our conditions 1 . We have treaties with Buenos Ayres, 
 Venezuela, Bolivia, and Columbia, which are not in 
 our power to terminate, and which contain some sti¬ 
 pulations in the nature of most favoured nation clauses. 
 To these, however, less importance is attached. In the 
 treaty with France, it is mutually agreed that, in the 
 intercourse of navigation between the two countries, 
 the vessels of a third power shall in no case obtain 
 more favourable conditions than those stipulated in 
 favour of British and French vessels. This provision, 
 so far as it extends, it will be observed, is uncon¬ 
 ditional. According to the construction put upon 
 the Swedish treaty, we shall be bound, if we grant 
 any better privileges to the vessels of the United 
 States, in regard to. the navigation between England 
 and France than those secured to French vessels, to 
 extend the same to French vessels, without regard 
 to any possible equivalent from the United States. 
 With Holland a treaty was concluded in 1824, 
 
 1 See Hazlitt’s Treaties 
 
15 
 
 having reference to the East Indian possessions of 
 either country; which treaty is not terminable at 
 the will of one party, and under which we shall be 
 obliged to admit the ships of Holland to trade 
 freely with the possessions on the continent of India 
 and on Ceylon in the Eastern seas, although they 
 absolutely exclude us, in common with other fo¬ 
 reigners, from trading with the Spice Islands, and 
 with some of their settlements in Borneo; and 
 although they have the power of absolutely excluding 
 us, with other foreigners, from any other of their 
 possessions '. This case alone demonstrates the im¬ 
 possibility of adopting a rigidly self-acting rule of 
 retaliation, without making provision for the fulfil¬ 
 ment of our treaty obligations. In the treaty of 
 1835 with the Hanse towns, there is a stipulation 
 that all goods, wares, and merchandise, whether the 
 production of the Hanse towns, or of any other 
 country, which can legally be imported in British 
 ships, shall also be admitted in Hanseatic ships. If, 
 therefore, we repeal the prohibition against importing 
 the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, from 
 Europe, and allow it to come in British ships, we 
 must admit it from the Hanse towns in Hanseatic 
 ships, without regard to an equivalent; and even if 
 it were not admitted in the ships of any other 
 
 1 See Hazlitt’s Treaties. This information has been fur¬ 
 nished to the writer by the singularly able author of “ A History 
 of the Navigation Laws,” and may be relied upon as perfectly 
 authentic. 
 
16 
 
 foreign country. For the rest, it is sufficient to 
 remark, that any privileges which we may he obliged 
 to grant unconditionally or gratuitously to any 
 country, must be granted unconditionally to Austria, 
 Prussia, Portugal, to Uruguay, Hanover, and Sicily; 
 besides Holland, Sweden, Denmark. 
 
 One more remark is called for. It may be said, 
 Why not adopt a self-acting rule, with a special 
 proviso to meet our treaty obligations ? This might 
 undoubtedly be done; but it would have the effect 
 of calling the attention of foreign countries to the 
 existence of such obligations on our part, and of 
 inducing them to set up claims founded upon those 
 treaties. The Bill as arranged by Mr. Labouchere 
 does all that is needed: it empowers the Crown to 
 retaliate; it defines the limits of retaliation; and, 
 finally, by virtue of the provision which regulates 
 the period of its coming into operation, gives time 
 for the Queen to make arrangements in the interim 
 with foreign powers. Such a course is not only 
 reasonable, but quite in accordance with the pre¬ 
 cedents set by Mr. Huskisson in 1822 and 1825. 
 Some indeed have objected to the discretionary 
 power vested in the Crown; but it is only to be 
 borne in mind, my Lord, that since a self-acting 
 system is impossible, whether you proceed by relax¬ 
 ations or resumptions, a discretionary power in the 
 Crown is equally essential. 
 
 Such, my Lord, may he considered as an outline 
 of the measure against which Lord Stanley has pro- 
 
17 
 
 posed to agitate the country, and lias threatened 
 with a warm uncompromising opposition, in the 
 I-Jouse ,of Lords. On what ground a sa a o or n p tn . 
 
 statesman can meet it in such a spirit, the 
 human mind is utterly bewildered in any effort to 
 discover. It would ill become his dignity and pru¬ 
 dence to resort to the effete hypothesis, abandoned 
 in the House of Commons, that the British ship¬ 
 owner is not able to sustain the foreign compe¬ 
 tition over which he has long triumphed. Still less 
 could he decorously deny that the Foreign Office is 
 entitled to attention, when it alleges that to main¬ 
 tain our mutilated and incongruous restrictions 
 against the demand of foreign powers is impossible, 
 .and that nothing but a speedy and effectual change 
 can dissipate the rapidly-converging elements of a 
 retaliatory system by which 200,000 tons of British 
 shipping may be driven from employment. It would 
 not consist with his humanity or patriotism to deny 
 that our colonies ought to have every possible advan¬ 
 tage, to indemnify them for the privileges which be 
 may think should never have been taken from them. 
 He will not deny that the allegiance of Canada is 
 placed in jeopardy by the restrictions on its navi¬ 
 gation ; nor will he say that it is proper to en¬ 
 danger our colonial empire at a time when- a 
 redundant population, and a redundant capital, 
 make it more than ever necessary to us; when 
 the rapid and neglected start which some forms of 
 social evil have taken in the mother country, accord- 
 
T8 
 
 ing to the views of many, render it the only field for 
 the conceptions of the statesman, the only refuge for 
 the aspirations of the philanthropist; when the public 
 mind is just beginning to awaken to a correct idea 
 of its importance, and when its own maturity is not 
 such as to make it certain whether an abrupt dis¬ 
 memberment of its vast and scattered portions would 
 contribute to the despotism and confusion, or to the 
 liberty and order, of the world. 
 
 Will Lord Stanley deny, either that the system 
 which is demonstrably calculated to sustain and 
 aggravate commercial distress, is also demonstrably 
 calculated to promote that union of our middle 
 classes and our demagogues which, in the eyes of 
 M. Leon Faucher \ can alone effect the subjugation 
 of the British empire to the disastrous and humi¬ 
 liating sway of a numerical majority? Will Lord 
 Stanley undertake to say, that in a measure to 
 repeal the Navigation Laws (a measure so urgently 
 required by interests of such a pregnant character), 
 no provision should be made to secure reciprocal 
 concessions from our neighbours ? or will he enter 
 on the hopeless undertaking of superseding the pro¬ 
 visions which Mr. Labouchere has made, and under¬ 
 take a task which the industry and ability of Mr. 
 Bouverie have conspicuously and wholly failed to 
 execute, which Mr. Herries has declined and Mr. 
 Gladstone has abandoned ? : - 
 
 * See Etudes sur I’Angleterre, par M. Leon Faucher. 2 vols. 
 Svo. 1845. ......... 
 
19 
 
 So neither can it be expected that Lord Stanley 
 should, resort to the gross and childish fallacy that, 
 because the Navigation Laws may have been suc¬ 
 cessful in accomplishing their object, they ought to 
 be preserved without any object to excuse them. As 
 it is possible that less fastidious speakers may resort to 
 it, it will not be inappropriate to arm your Lordship 
 with an extract from the luminous oration which 
 Mr. Huskisson delivered in the House of Commons 
 on May 12tb, 1826: “Under what circumstances 
 did England found her Navigation system? When 
 her commercial marine was comparatively insignifi¬ 
 cant, her wealth inconsiderable; before manufactures 
 were established, and when she exported corn, wool, 
 and other raw material. When, on the other hand, 
 Holland and the Netherlands were rich; possessed 
 of large manufactures, and of the largest portion of 
 the carrying trade of Europe and the world. What 
 has followed? The commercial marine of other 
 countries has dwindled away, and that of Great 
 Britain is now immense. * * * Let gentlemen reflect 
 on these circumstances before they decide that it is 
 necessarily wise to enter on a similar contest with 
 other poor and unmanufacturing countries. Let 
 them seriously consider whether a system of dis¬ 
 criminating duties (and the same would apply, of 
 course, to direct prohibitions), now that the exclusive 
 patent by which we held that system is expired, is 
 not the expedient of such a country as I have de¬ 
 scribed, rather than the resource of one which already 
 
20 
 
 possesses the largest commercial marine in the world. 
 They will then see that it may possibly be a wise 
 policy to divert such countries from that system, 
 rather than to goad them on, or even leave them a 
 pretext for going into it 1 .” 
 
 This extract from the earliest of Lord Brougham’s 
 many efforts, and one which is still valued by the 
 student of colonial literature for its elegance, its 
 erudition, and precision, may he usefully considered. 
 “The Navigation Laws of England operated upon 
 the distribution of wealth and industry already in 
 the country, or upon the direction of resources and 
 capacities which the nation possessed. Perhaps it 
 only anticipated by a short period that state of things 
 which the course of national prosperity might have 
 afterwards established of its own accord 2 .” 
 
 If, therefore, we inquire on what principle an 
 uncompromising opposition could be offered to the 
 Bill, it appears that only one could be adopted as 
 a basis to it. It is the principle that change is always 
 to be deprecated, however pregnant with improve¬ 
 ment :—that evil is a good if it exists, and good an 
 evil if it has not been invested with existence: that 
 chaos ought to have survived, although creation has 
 succeeded to it: the principle by which tyranny was 
 recommended in the days of Charles the Second— 
 by which the Revolution was condemned—the 
 
 1 Huskisson’s Speeches, Vol. III. p. 32. 
 
 ’ Brougham on the Colonial Policy of Modem Europe, vol. i. 
 p. 267- 
 
21 
 
 Slave Trade justified—the demonstrations of the 
 Bullion Committee set at nought — the labours of 
 Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Samuel Romilly im¬ 
 peded— by which Education was disparaged, and 
 the old Poor Law vindicated—of which corruption 
 is the fruit, and selfishness the mainspring; and 
 on which the term of Toryism has been conven¬ 
 tionally fixed. Permit me to observe, my Lord, that 
 this principle was irrevocably disavowed by Lord 
 Stanley, when he participated in the great change 
 by which the ruling power was transferred from the 
 higher to the middle classes of the country; and no 
 less pointedly or irreversibly repudiated by his fol¬ 
 lowers, when they determined that hereafter the 
 Conservatives of England should be ranged under 
 the banners of a firm, of an eager and illustrious 
 Reformer. 
 
 Perhaps, it may be said, however, by those who 
 love to wander from a point at issue into some wider 
 field of declamation and inquiry, “We object to Free 
 Trade principles; and we object to this Bill because 
 some have chosen to defend it as an application of 
 them.” My Lord, as it is your lot to be familiarly 
 conversant with the science of political economy, 
 although belonging to a party by which it is seldom 
 treated with respect, I need hardly point to the 
 extraordinary error involved in this attack. Your 
 Lordship well knows that, in the abstract, it is not 
 possible to urge objections against Free Trade which 
 do not drive with equal vehemence and point against 
 
22 
 
 Foreign Commerce. . Your Lordship well knows that, 
 inasmuch as the action of the latter is to economize 
 productive power throughout the habitable globe 
 and as the simple function of the former is still farther 
 to economize it; whoever hardily proclaims in uni¬ 
 versal that he is hostile to Free Trade, means neither 
 more nor less than that all foreign commerce is 
 distasteful to him—that English wines should be 
 preferred to Portuguese and French—that North 
 America should manufacture for itself—that mercan¬ 
 tile marines should cease among the countries of the 
 earth; and, in spite of its antiquity, the whole system 
 of exports and imports receive a summary extinc¬ 
 tion. Your Lordship would not wish it to be proved 
 that although, in the views of all (except some inex¬ 
 orable theorists, or very simple-minded Englishmen), 
 it is competent in some peculiar circumstances to 
 prove a case for interfering with the unimpeded 
 interchange of various productions among the na¬ 
 tions which produce them, such a case must be con¬ 
 sidered as exceptional; and that whether the existing 
 "Navigation Laws are a wise and necessary, or a 
 perilous and indefensible, restriction, depends on the 
 precise effects which are calculated to arise from 
 them, and not on the solution which the sceptics of 
 the nineteenth century may give to a question so long 
 decided- by the concurrent practice of mankind, as 
 to whether foreign commerce is a cause of national 
 prosperity. 
 
 1 See J. S. Mills’s Political Economy. 
 
23 
 
 Inasmuch, therefore, as each exception to the an¬ 
 cient and acknowledged principle of foreign com¬ 
 merce 1 or free trade must be defended on its own 
 peculiar basis, it follows, that the bad consequences 
 which have been imputed to the abrogation of the 
 Corn Laws, even if allowed, have no bearing on the 
 present question. If free trade in corn has been disas¬ 
 trous, is there any adequate consideration for keeping 
 our foreign policy in a state of weakness and per¬ 
 plexity? If free trade in corn has been disastrous, is 
 there any fair and reasonable object in alienating 
 the affections, in crippling the energies, in neglecting 
 the advantages, and blackening the prospects of our 
 colonial empire ? If free trade in com has been disas¬ 
 trous, is there any proper answer to the inquiry on 
 what intelligible principle the returns of capital should 
 be kept by enhanced freights, restricted enterprise, 
 discouraged manufactures, and annihilated trade, in a 
 state of unnatural and perilous depression? Would it 
 not be as rational to urge, that, because the Reform 
 Bill has not been productive of all the good that has 
 been expected of it, the old Poor Law ought to be 
 revived, and a desolating pauperism spread over the 
 country? Would it not be as rational to urge, that, 
 because the new Post-office arrangement has disap¬ 
 pointed the Exchequer, the nuisances of Smithfield 
 ought to be upheld? Would it not be as rational to 
 
 1 The most flagrant and illogical of the exceptions ever 
 claimed must, of course, be considered the well-known mercan¬ 
 tile theory; viz., that exports were good, but that imports ought 
 to be discouraged. ‘ 
 
24 
 
 urge, that, because the measures to repress the slave 
 trade have rather tended to increase it, no efforts 
 should he made to diminish domestic crime, or 
 encroach upon domestic poverty ? It surely cannot 
 be contended, that because the Corn Laws and 
 the Navigation Laws possessed a common feature, 
 the feature of monopoly, with a different history, 
 with a different object, and with different conse¬ 
 quences, a result which is alleged to weaken the 
 case against the one, is calculated to destroy the 
 arguments against the other. 
 
 My Lord, as the alleged failure of free trade in 
 com can afford no rational excuse for not consider¬ 
 ing the measure of Mr. Labouchere upon its own 
 merits, I will venture to allude to two considerations 
 which appear to me to place the necessity for its 
 adoption by the House of Lords in so overpowering 
 a light, that, from my inmost heart, I wish it had 
 fallen to another pen than mine to attempt an 
 adequate or proper statement of them. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the House of Lords 
 gave their sanction to the Corn Bill in spite of 
 objections which, however weak, were infinitely 
 stronger than any which could be urged against 
 Mr. Labouchere’s measure. I will only mention 
 one of them. It was then open to contend, that a 
 plausible alternative existed to the measure of Sir 
 Robert Peel in a low fixed duty, recommended as it 
 was by the body of political economists. It is not 
 open to contend now that any mode of solving the 
 difficulties which arise from our present Navigation 
 
Law, except that advanced by Mr. Labouchere, can 
 be adopted. It cannot be denied that the emergency 
 alleged to justify the abrogation of the Com Laws, 
 viz., the prospect of an Irish famine, however serious 
 and well authenticated, was not at all more serious 
 and incapable, from its very nature, of being so well 
 authenticated as the emergency which the Foreign 
 Office, the Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade have 
 brought before the Legislature and the public. If 
 the means of meeting that emergency should he 
 positively refused, while the means of meeting the 
 anterior emergency were readily conceded, who will 
 be able to avoid the painful inference that the 
 monopoly in corn fell before the interested clamours 
 of the Anti-Corn Law League, and not before the 
 free determination of the British aristocracy ? 
 
 Last Session the House of Lords refused to give its 
 sanction to the measure for dispensing with the usual 
 declaration imposed on members of the House , of 
 Commons for the purpose of admitting a single 
 Jew to Parliament. On a question of this sort, 
 involving abstract and religious considerations, it is 
 felt by thinking men that the decision of the House 
 of Lords has considerably more authority than 
 the decision of the House of Commons. When 
 once it is established that on factious grounds 
 or with a view to party combinations the House of 
 Lords is capable of rejecting a measure which three 
 departments of the State have called for, which the 
 intentions of Foreign Powers, the state of our de- 
 
26 
 
 pendencies, and the condition of our trade have 
 rendered necessary, which, conversant mainly with 
 details congenial to its habits and not beyond its 
 comprehension, the House of Commons has matured 
 with care and sanctioned with deliberation, will any 
 one be able to refer to the authority of the Upper 
 House in vindication of the views by which he is com¬ 
 pelled to oppose the Jewish measure ? Does any one 
 imagine, that if the House of Lords reject the Navi- 
 gationBill, they will any longer be enabled to reject the 
 Jew Bill, or that their power of resisting crude, arro¬ 
 gant, and ill-supported 1 theories could survive their 
 disposition, if it ever showed itself, to set at nought 
 the practical conclusions of administrative talent, or 
 the pressing exigencies of public Boards ? My 
 Lord, the truth of these two considerations to such 
 a mind as yours, will be the more apparent in pro¬ 
 portion as little pains is taken to enforce or to 
 embellish it. 
 
 My Lord, in looking over these lines, I find that 
 they contain some harshness of tone, and much in¬ 
 accuracy of: expression, which nothing but the posi¬ 
 tive necessity of avoiding delay at such a moment 
 as the present could prevent me from eliminating, 
 with as much care as I was able. I submit them to 
 yonr indulgence, in the firm conviction that they 
 
 1 From any charge of this nature the writer is bound of course, 
 by opinions recently expressed, to exclude the theory on which 
 hjr, Gladstone has defended the Jewish measure. 
 
27 
 
 advance no position which is false in favour of the 
 great measure of which the fate is pending. 
 
 Deficient as they are as a full defence of that 
 measure, I rejoice in the prospect that it will not 
 suffer in the end from the want of ample vindica¬ 
 tion. There is little doubt that the commercial ar¬ 
 gument will receive from its official sponsor whatever 
 illustration it may yet require: there is little doubt 
 that the full force of the colonial argument will at 
 length be understood and recognized when Lord Grey 
 himself rises, for the purposes of advancing and display¬ 
 ing it: there is little doubt that in the House of Lords 
 the impolicy of any effort to maintain our present 
 Navigation Laws, as regards their European in¬ 
 fluence and consequences, will be judiciously ex¬ 
 plained, and amply inculcated. To expect that any 
 speech should be delivered embracing all the parts 
 of this wide and chequered subject, giving to each 
 its proper force, to each its due proportion; prov¬ 
 ing how inexhaustible details may be compressed 
 by dexterous arrangement, and uninteresting facts 
 illuminated by perspicuous statement; placing in 
 its proper light the whole extent of a three¬ 
 fold administrative evil; and exhibiting at full 
 length the stature of a large and variously calculated 
 remedy might be a rash and idle anticipation, if it 
 was not recollected that for nearly fifty years the sub¬ 
 ject of the Navigation Laws has been familiar to the 
 mind of a distinguished person who frequently en¬ 
 livens your discussions, but who does not often find 
 
28 
 
 an opportunity of showing, in, a single night, that he 
 has not yet lost his power of grasping complicated 
 evidence; that he is more than ever eager in his 
 attention to the vicissitudes and sentiments of 
 Europe; that he has not renounced his friendship 
 for the North American dependencies; that the 
 cause of our commercial interests is still congenial 
 to his feelings; that the selfish declamations of a class 
 can neither overcome his patriotic bias, or impose 
 upon his vigorous intelligence; and that whatever 
 may be thought by some of his political consistency 
 or dignity, he has fairly and correctly claimed to be 
 accepted as the critic of Demosthenes, and the rival 
 of George Canning. 
 
 I remain, my dear Lord, 
 
 W. F. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Brompton, Thursday, May 3rd, 1849. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Although the opportunity above alluded to has 
 been painfully and unexpectedly abandoned, it 
 should be allowed, at least, in defence of Lord 
 Brougham, that the task shadowed out in the con¬ 
 cluding lines of this letter was appropriated by his 
 predecessor 1 in debate, and not left to his perform¬ 
 ance. Whatever compliment may seem to be in¬ 
 volved in the anticipation of the brilliant part which 
 he has so conspicuously avoided, the writer would be 
 bound, of course, to retract, in an emphatic manner, 
 if the third reading of the bill, and the season of 
 reflection which precedes it, did not still leave it 
 open to the various and versatile ability of this un¬ 
 equalled rhetorician. 
 
 Having in these pages ventured to allude to the 
 name of Lord Stanley (not, he trusts, disrespectfully), 
 and having last night heard his powerful and touch¬ 
 ing, but to him unconvincing eloquence, the writer 
 is compelled by his feelings to add, that the satis¬ 
 faction he derives from the certain triumph of the 
 measure, is wounded and diminished by the circum¬ 
 stance, that so much genius should deplore, and 
 so much public spirit be alarmed by it. 
 
 1 Lord Lansdowne. 
 
 Wednesday, May 9th.