The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 21.
NAVIGATION LAWS,
Lord STANLEY (in continuation from our Third
Edition) said—His amendments were cons,,nant with
the principle of the Government measure, and only dif-
fered from that measure in some degree. He was willing
to: agree in the removal of the restrictions on our com-
merce imposed by the navigation-laws, but he thought
the Government were going too far consistently with
safety to the British shipowner, in removing all the re-
strictions at present imposed on the foreigner, especially
with regard to our home and colonial trade. Mr. Hus-
kisson, in his proposed regulation of those laws, had ab-
stained from throwing open those branches of our trade
to those who from superior cheapness of building and
sailing would thus be enabled to meet us in every port
and monopolise the whole commerce of the world, and
build on our ruin a great preponderating naval power.
He warned them that by assenting to the measure as it
now stood they were running a great hazard. In that
opinion he was supported by all the leading naval and
commercial men—all the shipowners and others con-
nected with shipping throughout the country, who all
agreed in condemning the dangerous measure they were
introducing, and entreating them not to incur that great
hazard, Her Majesty's Government were acting against
the sense of the country, and they knew it.—(Loud
cheers.) At all events, if they despised that warning
and those opinions—if they were strongly convinced that
the measure was a necessary one—then, as a prudent
Government, they ought not to proceed with undue
rashness, giving so opportunity for repentance until too
late, but ought to prepare the country, step by step, for
such a hazardous experiment. He would beseech of them,
as they valued the possession of the carrying trade to the
colonies, and to those countries where their supremacy
was undoubted, not to be acting against the feeling of
the country. For, though he did not deny the respecta-
bility of the names attached to the petition presented by
the Noble Marquis from Liverpool, he must take the
liberty of informing him, that this petition lay for
some time in the Exchange of Liverpool, where it
acquired the signatures of only 143 members. Now,
the petition which he (Lord Stanley) had had the honour
to present, was signed by as many as 47,000 persons,
of whom 1,470 were members of the Liverpool Stock
Exchange, which contained 2,000 members in all.
The object of the motion which, on this occasion, he
should venture to submit, was not to dispute the prin-
ciple affirmed by their Lordships the other night.—
(Hear, hear.) Therefore, the first question to which he
should venture to draw their Lordships' attention would
be, whether they would proceed in the first instance ac-
cording to the mode he was about to suggest, or accord-
ing to that proposed to them by the Noble Marquis—
whether they would at once repeal those laws, and take
the chance of what they might afterwards re-enact, or
whether, adopting the principles he had to lay before
them, they would empower the Crown to grant to
foreign powers disposed to make concessions, such pri-
vileges, on a footing of reciprocity, as it would now
be inconsistent with the state of the law to provide.
It was true that her Majesty's Government called this a
Bill to improve the navigation and shipping of the coun-
try, and that the first step for that purpose would be to
repeal the Act of the Bth and 9th Victoria, c. 88 ; but
be proposed to confine himself strictly within the true
limits of the title of the Bill. He proposed to amend the
law, and to impose restrictions ; but he did not propose
to repeal it altogether. The Noble Marquis had charged
him with withholding too long a notice of the nature of
his amendments. He did not think that that charge was
a just one ; for if her Majesty's Government had taken
two whole years to consider what should be the specific
Acts they ought to propose ; if, after conference with
many foreign Powers, they at length came down to
Parliament with a measure much altered from that of
last year, and if at the last moment, without notice,
they found it necessary to withdraw a large portion of
the concessions they now proposed to make, and
to except from the Bill the whole of the coast-
ing trade ; if, after all that, the Government found
that it was a question in detail, it could hardly be
charged against him that, taking certain amendments
in detail, he had occupied a space of eight days in dis-
cussing the question with practical men, as to what these
amendments should be. Their Lordships were aware that
the navigation-laws of this country made a distinction
between articles the produce of Europe and those which
were the produce of the other three quarters of the world.
He proposed still to adhere to that distinction, but to
make such modification in the existing law as should be
beneficial to the country in cases where it did not admit
of a useful operation. The reason of the distinction was
plain, it having been the object of legislation to secure,
not only the communication from British port to British
port, but also to obtain for this cuuutry the great ad-
vantage of bringing in British vessels those bulky
articles which employed a large quantity of shipping.
The law relating to the importation of goods from
European ports was less stringent than that applying
to the other three quarters of the globe, but as
he proposed to relax the one, so also be proposed
to relax the other. No goods the produce of Eu-
rope could be imported into thiscountry from a European
port, except either in British ships, or the ships of the
country from which they were directly imported. The
amendment he proposed to introduce with regard to
goods the produce of Europe was one of considerable
importance,' as its effect would be to open largely the
trade with European countries. He thought it wiser, as
well as more statesmanlike, to allow the Government to
enter into reciprocal treaties, provided it first obtained
from those countries with which it had such relations, a
sufficient provision for the interests of the shipping of
this country, and by an order in council to grant to such
countries as might be disposed to concede equivalents,
the right of carry ing on that indirect trade from which
they had been debarred. In proposing that system,
he laid stress upon the fact that the order in council
was to be irrevocable. Then, with regard to the
trade with Asia, Africa, and America, he thought it
necessary, as he had already stated, that the
laws should not be repealed which secured to
them the most valuable advantage they possessed,
the conveyance of the bulky articles of commerce in the
lung voyage. By the I,w. as it stood, no goods could
be imported from Asia, Africa, and America, except in
British ships, or the ships of the country in which they
were produced, or from whence they were imported.
Therefore. as the great bulk of the countries in Asia,
Attica, and America had no shipping of their own, the
practical effect of that navigation law was to vest in their
hands the trade of those countries, almost as exclusively
as that of their colonies. Her Majesty's Government
were about to surrender the whole of it, and to leave the
English shipowner to the competition of foreign rivals.
Was he in a condition to contend with them ? Let them
take the United States, and consider how matters would
stand when the Government proposition was adopted, of
inviting those countries to free competition with them
in Asia, Africa, and America, and their colonies, form
ing three quarters of the globe, in which their shipping
had a practical monopoly. It was also, he should state,
a portion of the present law, that no ship, not even
a British ship. could import the produce of Asia,
Africa, or America, from any port in Europe. The effect
of this was to maintain a direct trade from the places of
production to the places of consumption, and to obtain
the establishment of the great warehousing system. But
he freely admitted that that principle, sound as it was,
might be pushed too tar. What he suggested was, to
maintain the principle of the law, and yet to admit of
exceptions applying to Asia, Africa, and America, as to
Europe, to be included in an enumeration of articles.
Those modifications were founded on principles of main-
taining that which was important to navigation, and of
doing away with what might sometimes prove an incon-
venience to trade. As they were about to surrender this
indirect trade, he would call their attention to an im-
portant paper, presented that morning to Parliament,
which showed that in the year 1848 the tonnage
which entered the port of Liverpool amounted
to 1,320,000 tons, of which 800,000 alone were English
vessels. If, therefore,: protection were withdrawn, what
return from foreign countries could they expect, when
it appeared from the- return and from others, that those
countries had nothing whatever to give?—(Hear.) The
United States, it also appeared from the returns, were
rivals whom, if they entered into direct competition on
equal terms, they might expect to see acquire a large
portion of the trade of the kingdom. To those formid-
able rivals it was that they were about to throw open
the trade of the world, sad that at a time when no de-
mand was made upon them, when no reason was given
to them, nor any necessity shewn.—(Hear, hear.) At
all events they ought to proceed with caution, and to
proceed, at first at least, on principles of reciprocity. As
America had been permitted to get the better of them in
the direct trade, so also she would obtain a decided supe-
riority in the indirect, were this measure enacted. He
would not now enter more extensively into the discussion
of those resolutions which, in a later stage of the Bill, he
should feel it his duty to propose, but he thought it right to
say, in summing up the views which be entertained upon
this question, he proposed to maintain the great prin-
ciples
of the navigation-laws—the exclusive maintenance
of their colonial trade—to maintain, as far as possible,
the advantages of the long-voyage trade and the com-
munication with those countries possessing no stripping
of their their own.—(Hear, hear.) He proposed. to maintain
the fundamental principle of the navigation laws, but he
al
proposed
herin Majesty,som e c
in Council,
es absolutely, an
shouldd
permitin o h er
permissively,s
re-
laxations to be made in favour of countries willing to
enter into reciprocal engagements with themselves for
the sake of their mutual advantage. He protested
against their enforcing principles of retaliation against
countries which were not disposed to make conces•
'lions, which they would, moreover, find difficult
in practise. Surely the better practice would be to
say that the navigation-laws had laid down certain re-
strictions but that Parliament had enabled them to relax.
He need hardly argue that they were discussing the
policy and the justice of securing advantages to their
own shipping interests in the results of the change
which they were contemplating. Some, as he had
heard, contended that his course of proceeding was nut
magnanimous; but nations had no business to be mag-
nanimous. They were to be prudent, and to decide a
commercial question on commercial principles. They
were to decide whether they would repeal first and re-
enact afterwards, or whether they would maintain the
general principle of the navigation-laws, and authorise
her Majesty to dispense with them in certain cases in
favour of Chase countries which might be willing to enter
into engagements of reciprocal advantages. That was
the question which was now before them, and which
would fully arise upon the amendment he proposed.
Earl GREY was at a loss to say whether it was from
stupidity or otherwise, but he was unable to understand
the amendment of the Noble Lord. He supposed that
the words to be inserted were intended as a sub-
stitute for the repealing provisions of the preceding
clause. The Noble Lord had said that his object was
net to repeal, but to make certain modifications in the
navigationelaws. But the words introduced by the
Noble Lord would nit make sense, unless they omitted
the words by which the existing law was repealed. He

was desirous to know from the Noble Lord whether he
meant, in the event ce his amendment being adopted. to
allow the remainder of the clause to continue in the Bill,
and the existing amendments to be repealed, and how
he would till no the blank that would result ?
Lord STANLEY explained that it was his intention
to omit the repealing clauses in the second section.
Earl GREY—But the Noble Lord would see that
there were none in the second section.
Lord STANLEY—It was in the first, then. The
House would then consider those clauses which he had
laid upon the table, and when they came to the repealing
clauses he would object, upon principle, to the repeal of
those Acts; and he would, in the first instance, take the
sense of their Lordships' House upon the question of
amendment in so wide a shape that it would not bind any
person to a particular mode; but when they came to
those clauses he would fairly lay upon the table a list of
the enumerated articles, and each one of them might, if
their Lordships thought fit, be made the subject of dis
h hear, from Earl Grey.) But he did
not that' those clauses should be laid upon the
tabless
came to a decision on the
principle.
eiin°tn.beerfdo(re li
their Lordships
Earl GREY v. ished distinctly to know from the Noble
Lord whether, in that list of enumerated articles, tea,
coffee, sugar, tobacco, and cotton, would be included?
Lord STANLEY—Every one of them.
Earl GREY—That is most satisfactory.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had told them on Friday even-
ing last, that it was his intention tin going into Com-
mittee on this Bill, to propose such an alteration in it as
would go to its root.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
prin-
ciple,e
questionl n bt ur ot
do ut
cdwt
oga
nsr eoet;
one
the bouf t
ah
re
word( n cEs
pa
olr
erl
the Ga nr de
sy
of)o bwploer
Lord
would
Ts,
dal
eywo(that
.
The
now told them that the question was not one of
th
not make sense. According to all Parliamentary usage,
when words were to be introduced, it was customary to
move the omission of certain words for the purpose of
inserting those words. The Noble Lord had alluded to
their carrying trade in corn, but the Noble Lord would
be called upon to explain why corn could only be im-
ported in a British ship, and why, when ground into
imported in any ship. The Noble
flour,L
or
dispense be
with the principle of the Bill in certain
ds ith mightould explain those anomalies. The Noble Lord
would
enumerated articles. He (Lord Grey) did not think
quite the time for discussing the
wholehat
great
question, or of entering very tpresent en t was
mi-
nutely into a consideration of the question of " recipro-
city." With regard to British ships, the tact was that
they did not possess any
monopoly whatever, and it they
wanted to bring corn from Danzic, it was a Prussian ship
they had most to fear from. Either it was desirable to
open that trade or not; and it it was desirable, then they
ought at once to remove all restrictions in the way of it
—they should remove those restrictions which fettered
the trade of their merchants. The Noble Lord had al-
luded to their indirect trade and warehousing system,
but the Noble Lord should take care that by main-
taining our restrictions he did not jeopardy our
Interests in those branches of our trade. He
should take care that by maintaining our re-
strictions we should not provoke Russia, the Hanse
Towns, and other countries, to retaliate against us;
for should they, then would our great carrying trade be
endangered, and this great country and the whole civi-
lized world would be the losers. The Noble Lord
should not forget the fable of " The Dog and the Sha-
dow;" and he should recollect that the dog, in trying to
grasp at an imaginary substance, lost the actual sub
stance he was in possession ot. The Noble Lord should
take care that the course which he would impel this
country upon would not lead to a similar result. The
Noble Lord had also alluded to the trade of the British
merchants with America, but he (Earl Grey) would
show by a return which he held in his hand that the ad.
vantagf s were all against us in our trade with the
United States, by the maintenance of our restrictions.
Looking at these fact, he would say that if the English
were placed on the same footing as the Americans, we
should be able to compete with them successfully. He now
came to the question of the colonies, and, first, with re-
spect to Canada. There was no doubt Canada had strong
claims upon our sympathy, but what would be the effect
of the Noble Lord's amendment ? Why, to give pro-
tection to America, to the prejudice of European coun-
tries with whom we were on friendly terms, and all this
was done to favour the trade of the River St. Lawrence.
But the only way to do this truly was by throwing open
the trade of the River St. Lawrence, and getting rid of
all the restrictions which existed on the trade of that
part of the world. They ought to do all in their power
to assist the colonies, the produce of which had now to
compete with the productions of other countries under
great disadvantages. The only way to do this effec-
tively was by getting rid of the navigation laws. The
Noble Earl then proceeded to contend that the Reci-
procity Act did not produce any good to this country,
while it tended materially to injure our colonies, as was
proved by the benefit which Martinique obtainedby
French and Spanish ships being obliged, under existing
circumstances, to trade there instead of going in
the first instance direct to Trinidad. No one knew the
injury of restriction until it had been removed.—(Hear.)
This was proved by the article of Indian rubber. Maey
years ago this substance was only used by artists, and
for very ordinary purposes by the public.
Now, since
the duty on the article has been withdrawn, it was
adapted to a hundred uses with great advantage to the
public.— (Hear.) He dissented from the statement of
the Noble Lord, that the feeling of the public was against
the measure. He, on the contrary, believed that the
feeling of the country was in its favour, notwithstanding
the efforts made to get up an artificial excitement against
the measure. He trusted their Lordships would not re-
scind the vote they had given in favour of the Bill on its

second reading.—(Hear.)
Lord WHARNCLIFEE said that he felt it to be his
duty to oppose the amendment proposed by his Noble
Friend. The Bill proposed to throw open the trade of the
colonies, but the amendments of his Noble Friend
would close up the trade of all the colonies, with the
exception of one. The perplexity of the existing nevi
gatiou laws would be increased by the amendments.
The Earl of HARROWBY said he thought the true
question was, whether they should not first secure reci-
procity, before they admitted foreign countries to privi-
leges from which they were now debarred. Aud as
there was nothing of value which they could expect in
return for their generous relaxation, he thought their
Lordships would have no difficulty in affirming the
propositions submitted by his Noble Friend near him
(Lord Stanley).
Earl GRANVILLE said he believed, that though the
amendment which the Noble Lord on the cross-oenches
(Lord Wharncliffe) had placed upon the paper was in-
ferior to the proposition of the Government, still he be-
lieved it to be superior to that of the Noble Lord oppo-
site. In his own opinion, it was exceedingly unwise
to act upon reciprocity treaties; and with regard to those
countries with which they were not on terms of reci-
procity, he 'would ask whether it was wise to throw the
whole weight of their navigation law restrictions into
the scale against them, notwithstandingj the power
they at present possessed of exercising a re-
taliatoryofpolicy. After illustrating his
referring briefly to the trading
arguments lishey
clauses with respect to Belgium, France, and Spain, the
Noble Earl said he was of opinion, upon consideration
e in.
n shouldw That, at
h ao tr least,
constitutede
was
of these retaliation principles, that it was impolitic to
enter into the interminable special pleading which the
v
proposition of the Noble Lord opposite would neces-
sarilyoimtnaerrrienegaea o
reason
the 200,000 nf
why
;ecl e rejected. Wh
the
Great Britain, from what source, he would ask, were
toi
they to be supplied, should this Bill be carried into a law?
Was it from Norway or Denmark ? Surely not ; nor
could it be from the United States, who were obliged to
compose their own crews of three-fourths Englishmen.—
(Hear, hear.) It had been asserted that the statistics
by which it was
_sought to support this question had
been blown out of the waters by the speech of
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), and that
the speech of the Noble Lord had produced a
very powerful impression on their Lordships'
minds. This last assertion was not all disposed
to question ; but he could not admit that the Noble
Lord had blown out of the waters the case of the
advocates of this measure, or that he had uttered one
word which weakened its statistical position.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Earl Granville) was prepared to show tha
the more the figures were knocked about the more ia-
contestibly did they prove the strength and value of the
arguments relied upon by the advocates of this Bill.
With respect to Mr, Porter, to whom frequent allusion had
been made in the course of this debate, he (Earl Gran-
ville) felt he would not be justified were he not to make
some brief allusion. The Noble Earl opposite (Earl
Harrowby) had accused that gentleman of fencing with
the question of foreign tonnage, when he was under
examination of the Committee. Now he (Earl Gran •
ville) had had occasion to look into the evidence of Mr.
Porter as given before the Committee, and he must in
candour say that he did not think there was the least
ground for such a charge. The Noble Earl then de-
fended Mr. Porter against the charges brought against
him in connexion with tonnage calculations relating to
this subject.
Lord COLCHESTER, who was almost inaudible in
the gallery, was understood to, say, that at the present
moment we were not able to enter into competition with
the United States, because the vessels of those Stites in
their voyages carried twice the quantity of hands that
British ships did.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that if, accord-
ing to the Noble Lord, the present law operated so in-
juriously, and if the system was so bad, why should they
be so clamorous for the continuance of it? The amend-
ments of the Noble Lord (Stanley), involved an infrac-
tion of treaties which they had made with other coun-
tries. It was absurd to say that the present system
might be relaxed in the case of one or two colonies that
might rtquire it ; but it it was just to grant concessions
to one colony, why not grant them to all? The fact
was, that a general and comprehensive measure was re-
quired to deal with the whole subject, and this was that

measure.
Lord BROUGHAM would make a short statement to
justify the vote which lie intended to give in favour of
the amendment. The Noble Earl (Granville) depre-
cated making speeches cn this stage of the Bill, and 3et
the Nuble Lord himself made a long speech, not upon
the amendment, but upon the whole question involved in
the measure before the House. He contended that the
use made of Mr. Porter's figures by the Noble Earl
(Granville) was nut a correct one—for instance, the
Noble Earl arrived at the conclusion that a particular
vessel had carried a larger tonnage by multiplying the
number of voyages which she had taken. The Noble
Lord then referred to a meeting held at Liverpool to
support this Bill, and read a resolution which declared
that this Bill was only the precursor of other measures
which were to sweep away all restrictions. Here was an
avowal of the charactEr of this measure, which war-
rantad him in opposing it. Lord Melbourne on one occa-
sion said that the man who thought there ought to be
no restrictions, was fitter for a place in Bedlam than for
a seat in that House. Hull did not sympathise with
Liverpool, as was shown by the fact, that the Member