The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-24 00:00:00

NAVIGATION-LAWS.

Mr. CLAY presented a petition from Hull, signed by
16 out of every 21 members of the Chamber of Com-
merce, in favour of the repeal of the navigation-laws.

Mr. LABOUCHERE rose to move that the House
do resolve itself into Committee upon the navigation-
laws, but before doing so said he thought it his duty to
make a statement to the House with regard to an im-
portant alteration which he proposed to make. He had
stated to the House that it was his intention
to admit foreign vessels to a share of our
coasting trade, but that ho did not attach

much practical importance to that alteration, be-
cause it it was impossible for foreign nations to avail
themselves fully of the advantages which such a pro-
vision would give. He was now bound to state that it
was not his intention to continue that assurance. His
Hon. Friend the Chief of the Commissioners of the
Customs was not prepared to say, at first, that the
clauses would throw any very considerable difficulty—
that no such difficulty and danger would result, or
could with propriety be set in opposition to the course
the Government might think it advisable to
pursue with respect to a matter of great national policy
like that of the navigation-laws. Upon the faith and
in the full belief of that assurance he made the pro-
posals he had to the House. His Hon. Friend supplied
him with various Customs' regulations which had been
embodied in the Bill before the House, but in the course
of the last few days he had received communications from
his Honourable Friend to the effect that in going
further into these regulations, and in further exam-
ining this question with the most experienced officers
of the Customs, ho had come to the conclusion that
if the carrying out of the regulations with respect
to the coasting and general trade were . per-
sisted in, it could not fail to be attended with
extreme difficulty—that it would be a most difficult mat-
ter to frame regulations which would not leave the revenue
exposed to great danger, if they were to do away with
the difference between the coasting and general trade
of the country. He said this danger would arise
more from British ships engaged in the trade than from
foreign ships. Under these circumstances he did not
feel called upon to advise the House to throw open the
coasting trade in the way he had originally proposed.
Let it, however, be understood that ho did not
throw any blame on his Right Honourable Friend
at the head of the Customs. On the contrary, he was
proud to take any blame that might exist in
respect of this matter upon himself. The
Bill thus very much returned to the same
state in which he proposed it to the House
last session. The course he had adopted he should ima-
gine would in no way interfere with their at once pro-
ceeding with the discussion of the Bill.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether, if the trade was
opened entirely, the difficulty mentioned by the Hon.
Gentleman would be obviated?

Mr. LABOUCHERE replied that it would not. Great
difficulty would result if foreign vessels were allowed to
undertake a foreign as well as a coasting voyage. It
could not be done with any safety to the revenue.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, having objected to the
clauses referred to by the Hon. Gentleman on the se-
cond reading of the Bill, he did not rise to dispute the
desirability of the course he had adopted. Yet he could
not refrain from making some remarks upon that
course he had felt it his duty to pursue.
The first was that he had been more successful in jus-
tifying the conclusion he had now announced than in
showing that there were sufficient grounds for
the course originally proposed by him.—(Hear.)
No one who had heard the retraciation of the
Honourable Gentleman could fail to be of
opinion that the Chief Commissioner of the Cus•
toms was originally against the clauses referred to.
He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he saw great incon-
venience if Ministers of the Crown made it
a practice to state the nature and result of
conferences which they had had with persons
connected with different departments, who, strictly
speaking, were subordinate functionaries, as the practice
tended to perplex the public mind as to
who was responsible with respect to public measures in-
troduced into that House.—(Hear.) He did not intend
to trouble the House with an amendment, but he could
not forbear stating the course he had originally intended
to pursue. lie should have proposed a clause which re-
lated to conditional legislation; and secondly, a number
of clauses on direct legislation; and he should have pro-
posed a division of the whole trade of the empire into
two parts: one, the first of them, into that which re-
lated to the trade with foreign countries; and secondly,
into domestic or British trade, including the trade coast-
wise and likewise the trade of the colonies. He should
then have proposed to the House to enact by a law not
dependent on any discretion of the Crown, that when
any country was disposed to give to Great Britain per-
fect freedom in their foreign trade, they should receive
in return perfect freedom in our foreign trade; and that
when it was disposed to give perfect freedom in all ma-
ritime trade whatever, both foreign and domestic, it
should then receive the
perfect freedom of British vessels
in the whole trade, both coasting and foreign. He should
also have urged, as the Right Hon. Gentleman would
now recommend, the repeal of the restraint on the im-
portation of tropical
accorpdriondgutcoe the
Europe, because that
was a restraint,
but 33rlitrisetseoriu
vessels
dlaw ,
also.w hic h
He
fe-
-t e d not only the foreign
pneaaltuarbesoo-f
uld have urged that the House
qy all fiscal restraint, everything in tlis'ee
on the British shipowner, both in the commanding
tehde t irge
the manning of his ship. The object of his
.1 was not to obstruct or embarrass the Pro
he Government. Lie was not unfriendlytoce
re-
ttion of the navigation-laws. He wished to see their
,tal effected, but effected in a way which would, as far
as was able to judge, have avoided any shock to the
great interests involved in British shipping.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HERRIES was prepared, when he came down to
that House, to go at once into Committee, being desirous
not to retard the proceedings on the Bill; but the
propoition of the Right Jim Geutleinau had ii2daed