The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

•
Sir B. SHAW presented a petitionfrom 'certain Christians
resident in Dublin, calling themselves Separatists, praying that
the same privileges whiclithe Quakers enjoy in the practice of
their religion might-be extended to then-i. The lion. Baronet
stated that he knew many of -the petitioners to be respectable
men, and worthy the indulgence they prayed for—Ordered to
lie on the.table. '
THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr..LAMB'fON said he had been intrusted with two peti-
tions from the Ship-owners of Sunderland and North Shields,
against the Navigation Bill, the second reading of which was
fixed for that evening. The petitioners stated that they had
embarked large capitals in shipping, under the faith of the Na-
vigation Laws, the abicwation of which must inevitably ruin
them. They considered the Bill before the House; -called the
Navigation 11111, to be totally subversive of the principles of the
' Navigation Laws, and they concluded with praying that they'
might be heard by Counsel against it. The Hon. Member ob--
served, that although he did-not believe that no alteration of,
the Navigation Laws ought to take place, yet if, as was alleged,
the Bill which had been introduced to the House would de-
stroy our'maritime superiority and cause the ruin of the ship-
ping interest, he certainly could not consent to its passing. As
he understood the subject it was this :—According to the old
Navigation Laws, no imports from Asia, Africa, or America
could take place unless they came direct to this country in Bri-
tish bottoms ; but by the projected alterations it was proposed
to-allow the prodube of the continents he had mentioned- to be
imported from any place, that is to say, without coming direct
to this country. The effect of the proposed alteration, in his opi-
nion, would be this—that the produce of the different quarters
of- the world which had hitherto been imported direct into this
country in British vessels, would be ' brought to some port near
this country in foreign vessels, and afterwards imported here in
vessels of our own-4year !)—Thus would a competition be
raised between British and foreign shipping, in which it was im-,
possible the former could succeed, on account of the heavy taxa-
tion to'which it was subjected; and from which the latter was free.
His own opinions were in favour of a free trade ; but while the
Government was imposing restrictions upon trade in favour of
one class of the community, it was hard that they- should re-
move existing restrictions of a similar nature to the detriment
of another class. In order to show how unequal British ves-
sels were to cope with those of foreign countries in 'fin unres-
tricted commerce, he would state to the House the difference in
their cost and construction, and outfitting. - In the port of
London the price of -building was 251. per ton, and in the out-
ports it was about 161. 10s.' whilst in Norwsy the price was only'
111. per ton. The outfits were all in the same proportion.
Under these circumstances, he could not help' thinking it im-
politic to plaCe British and foreign vessels on the same footing.
If the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wallace) could
convince him that his Bill would not deprive the British mer-
chant of the maritime superiority to which he was entitled, he
would not oppose it ; but otherwise, notwithstanding his own
sentiments in favour of a free trade, he should feel it his duty
to vote against it.—(Hear, hear.)

Sir I. COFFIN said, that if, the ship-owners were not pro-
tected, he should never be able to fight a battle again.
Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that the fears of the
Ilon. Member for Durham, as to the probability of foreign
vessels bringing the produce of Asia, Africa, or America to
some neighbouring foreign port, in order afterwards to be im-
ported into this country in ships of our own, were not well
founded. In his opinion it would be fbund cheaper to import
the produce direct to this country in vessels of our own, than in
the manner which the Hon. Member for Durham anticipated
would be resorted to.

Mr. GLADSTONE supported the prayer of the Petition.
Mr. M. A. .TAYLOR said, that unless good reason were
shown, he would not consent to change the Navigation Laws
under which the country had for so long a period flourished.
General GA SCOYNE thought the Right Hon. Gentleman's
Bill would confer a benefit upon foreign nations for which this
country would receive no equivalent.. It was extremely impolitic
at the present moment,when foreign nations were excluding our
ships from their ports, to repeal the navigation laws, under
which this Country had thriven.
Mr. WALLACE said he would not anticipate the :discus-
sion on the Bill by' prolonging the present conversation.
When the Bill should come fairly under discussion, he thought
he could show sufficient grounds to induce the House to give
it their support.
Sir W. CURTIS observed, that the navigation laws formed
the key-stone of our commercial prosperity : take that away,
and the whole fabric would fall to pieces. (Hear.) lie would
resist the Bill to the utmost of his power, and he wished he
had a Stentorian voice to -make himself heard throughout the
country.

-111 r. LAM BTON could not see any impropriety in entering
upon the discussion of a public measure, upon the occasion of
the presentation of a Petition which referred to it. He would
not at present add any thing to what he had before.said, except
to observe that he agreed in the architectural simile of the
worthy Baronet who spoke last.
Mr. ELLICE was surprised that Government had-, not,
during the course of the-Session, brought forward some propo-
sition for reducing the charges upen shipping. In addition to
the expense of building, which was always double, and in
some cases treble that which:was paid in foreign countries, our
shipping were subject to enormous imposts, from which the
vessels of other nations were exempt. A collector was sta-
tioned at Quebec, who received a salary of 4,0001., ra'lsed by
taxes upon shipping.. The collector at New York, which was
the largest port in the world, except London and Liverpool,
and perhaps the Clyde, received only a salary, of 5001. A Bri-
tish vessel was obliged•to pay fees at every port at which she
touched in the West Indies. The Consular fees (a subject to
which the Member for Alontrose had called the attention of the
House) were also a most oppressive tax upon shipping. This
was a subject that might be r4ulated by Government itself,
without the interference of the House. If an English vessel
entered four different ports of Sicily, she would be compelled
to pay. No measure was more called for than a reduction of
charges that unnecessarily pressed upon the shipping interest.
If it were considered necessary to revert to the
_principles of a
free trade, such proceeding should be accompanied by a dimi-
nution of those burdens which prevented our 'merchants from,
navigating at so cheap a rate as those of foreign nations.
General GASCO't NE desired to know whether the motion
for the second reading . of the Bill would be, made that night,
and if not, when it would be made ?

Mr. WALLACE replied, that he wished the Bill to be read
a second time this day without observations, and that the dis.
cussion upon the principle of the,rneasure should take place in
the committee.

After a short conversation, in which Mr. LAMATON, Mr.
MARRYATT, Mr. ELLICE, Sir W. de CRESPIGNY, and Sir
M. W. RIDLEY, bore parts, the Bill was read a second time.
Air. WALLACE then gave notice, that he would move that
the Bill be committed to-morrow.

LordsEBRI.NGTON.• presented a Petition signed by 792
holders and occupiers of land in the vicinity of Doldsworthy,
in the county of Devon, complaining of distress. The Peti-
tioners were of opinion that the distresSes of the country .did
not arise from abundant production, but were tile consequences
of unexampled taxation, augmented by the late change in the
value of the currency.
.➢lr. W. GORDON presented a Petition from the ship-
owners of the port of Aberdeen against the Navigation Bill.