The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-, FEBRUARY lO 1847.

He had seen letters from abroad about charting ships, and ex-
-1
pressing a desire to have any ships but French or English. I
The fault was not in the ships of this country, which were as
good as those of any country, excepting those of Canada, of
which the Noble Lend ( George Bentinek) was so ena-
moured, because of the defective character of the captains.
He believed great injury had been done to the colonies and
the navigation laws, and an ,iiry into their operation would
elicit many important facts.—Gear, hear.)
Captain HARRIS was of opinion that those on his side of
the House were strong enough to have the Committee so con-
stituted as to have a fair inquiry if it were thought necessary
for the welfare of the country. But before they consented to
such a committee they must have good reason given for its
necessity ; not such illustrations as had been given by the pro-
poser of the motion, about pedlars and free trade.
The cost of building ships in the Thames was some 131. or 141.
a ton, while in Dantaic it amounted only, to 5/. 7s. 6d. It
could not, therefore, be expected that they could cope with
them unless their commerce was in some degree protected. It
would not be necessary to remind the House, that these laws
were instituted by a Republican Government ; they were
established by Cromwell, sanctioned by the Rump Parliament,
and consolidated by Charles the second. In 1816 the
reciprocity Act passed the legislature, they were modified
in 1824, and consolidated in 1833. There was one point con-
nected with this subject to which he wished to call the particular
attention of the House ; that was the question of supplying
men for the service of the country. It had been put forward
with great justice by the shipowners, that if they did
away with the navigation laws, they must also do
away with the restrictions which fettered them; they
must do away with the restrictions on the employ-
ment of foreigners, and they must take away the
restriction, which imposed so many men for every hundred
tens; they must do away with all these, and if they did so, they
would limit the number of those young men who wished to be-
gin their career in tho merchant service. Perhaps he might
be allowed to quote the example of a man to whom they were
accustomed to look up with pride, as a thorough seaman and a
patriot—he referred to the immortal Nelson. When he
was on the West India station, in command of a
ship, he disobeyed the orders of his superior, and that was no
joke in the naval service; he found that the Americans had
monopolised the trade of the West Indies, and although he
had the lawyers against him, he had the nation with him, and
by the enforcement of these laws he carried his point, and con-
ferred the superiority on the British trnder. It was to pre-
serve and extend this trade that they should retain these laws.
The Dutch, in the time of the Protectorate, had a monopoly
of the carrying trade upon the high seas, and it was for the
purpose of competing with them that these laws were first en-
acted. The Hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had in-
formed the House, that by the operation of these laws they
had lost the Canadas. He need not tell the Hon. Member
that if the: Canadas were lost to this country, it was only
in consequence of the laws affecting their produce, which had
passed the Legislature last session. For these reasons he could
net support the motion for inquiry.
Mr. WA WN felt that it would be for the interest of the
country to grant the inquiry. There was one question con-
nected with it, which the Government oughr to take upon its
own responsibility, and that was the case of the British sailor.
If their trade should decrease, and the British seamen should
be forced into the service of other countries, he should like to
know where they were to find men to man the navy in a time
of war. He would support the motion for inquiry, as no harm
would accrue from having the real facts of the case placed be-
fore them.

After a few words from Sir W. JAMES,
it,iiosSnsiuwrpapßso,Or
twßthEoe
ttßh4r
pPtrhoEeproEesListhi
osoanuildod,f
ntthohatet
bileito
awnn.a sl‘iinheqi
Member.
ibinreytreinnttiToo nl:heteoqugei
ope-
rationve-
be
amaintenancenof
o the
peo
opportunity
ii
tgyta
ht Navigation v
eLnaaws• Laws, and therepresent
sent
whether should
existed, nthoet
at:alysweehretatahtinerini
would really be for the interest of commerce and manufactures,
and also whether or not the maintenance of these laws were
necessary fur the purpose of securing the maritime defence of
the,eountry. The Government, he considered, might consent
to tins inquiry, without pledging themselves as supporting or
assenting to the views of any Hon. Member. The inquiry was
proposed by an individual Member of Parliament, and he (Sir
B. Peel) apprehended that those who assented to the inquiry
were not in any respect bound by the sentiments of that Hon.
Member. The Committee were not bound to give effect to
any preconceived oisinions, but simply to examine and inquire
into all the various bearings of this question. It had been re-
marked in the course of the de..ate, that the navigation laws
had existed fur two hundred years, and that they had their
origin in the time of the Protectorate. Ile (Sir R. Peel) ap-
prehended that they had lasted, much longer; he apprehended
that the navigation laws were simultaneous with maritime
enterprises. But he would not stop to examine into the
their antiquity. They had been compelled already to relax
these laws, not on theoretical principles, but because the felt
it necessary for positive reasons to do so. In 1815 the naviga-
tion laws had been relaxed, not on any speculative notions, but
because America was determined to intro ince the principle of
this country, and to levy a duty not only on their ship., but
also upon their manufactured goods. In point of fact, the
only point in question was, whether they would give a prefer-
ence to this amount in the American market, or whether they
would relax these laws for the purpose of extending their com-
me• cial relations with the United States? It was a simple
question between the exclusion of that commerce from the
American markets or the relaxation of the navigation laws.
Ai;ain, when Mr. Huskisson modified these laws in 1821, it
was not from any theoretical principle he acted, but
because Prussia was imitating the example of the United States.
They would find, in the speech of Mr. Huskisson on that oc-
casion, a full explmation on the subject of the treaty with
Prussia. Prussia complained that her vessels were subjected
to many disadvantages in British ports, and she was about to
retaliate by subjecting British vessels to the same disadvan-
tages in the ports of Prussia, and she was determined not to
stop there ; she would go still further, for she would also sub-
ject. British goods to higher rates. It was from fear of the
operation of those laws on British commerce that Mr. llus-
\kisson felt it his duty to admit Prussian vessels to greater pri-
vileges in the port of Great Britain ; and these privileges
were afterwards extended to Norway and Sweden and other
countries. It would be for the Committee to inquire whether
the recent changes in their commercial policy would not render
other changes in these laws necessary. He did hope that
this House would take care that the Committee was

so constituted that in any conclusion it might come to, it would
by its deliberate and dispassionate investigations, wine for
itself the respect of Parliament, and the confidence of the
country.
Mr. HUDSON said that it was his intention to give his
vote against the inquiry. He believed that any alteration in
these laws would be injurious alike to the commercial and
maritime interests of the country. He believed that it would
be particularly injurious to the seamen, and believing all this,
he was averse to any agitation of the question. He should,
therefore, vote against any inquiry.
Mr. HUTT said it had never been the practice of this House
to confide an inquiry of this description to the Government.
He could not conceive that her Majesty's Ministers would op-
pose the proposition, for he remembered that he in a former
session was permitted to have a Committee to inquire into one
of the most important laws of the country—to have an
heH7ethdaidndraBotthcoonfsvidieertotrhiaa,t
inquiry into the Act. of Settlement itself. Now, he
might quote the opinion of ,Ir. Burke, and that had
this was a subject on which the interests of the country were
to be sacrificed, or that the whole of its property was depen-
dent on the navigation laws. Ile did not think that the pro-
given in favour odfetplieinsdineqduoirnyt.
been
chapter 38. He did •
net think that this House would interfere
the • • navigation-laws. He did think
to prevent an inquiry into.
apnLeintneiocnehsissoitfyskati?ffoak4irofs
measure. The Right Hon.
Member his inquiry were refused, would be to pre-
tphearttythoef
ethffiesetc,oun try
pre-
vent the progress of clilissahteiounld,
sain:htthlyatuintdierosutladndthewrheafotrewbase
wiser to institute the inquiry.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. DISRAELI was anxious, before the House came to a
division, that the Hole.
the feeling of the gentlemffeenheohnevehbdistshidate of the House with
regard to this inquiry. there was no feeling
wasthnaotthiinntiguiirnytrhvy:Tfbheueeltifnwahroenthethr aitnstild,ee
on this side of the Hloluesequteostipornevheenftortehethientnquwirasy onnotthwehoetthheerr
side of the House.
htwerieuitugthweas
realnot
the House should make any permanent alteration in the nevi-
og
of
ti othen
into owaira,quai
gentlemanagainst
present
the House advisable
or not. The
;Lotus; laughter)—but not indisposed
to go into this inquiry—
was whetherg • this should be a
question before the House
laws,
eantod pthreerveent
per-
manent or only a temporary_._
Member for Tam worth (Sir H. Peel) had made a very plau-
sible statement, and grounded upon it an equally plausible
._ _
scheme.—(
llea ,
r hear. ) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought that
this was a very proper reason why an investigation should be
instituted by the House of Commons, and he did think that
this investigation should be made,
the time had come when
the doctrine which had been propounded
and he thought that
The reply which he would
dangerous doctrine.
was a very
;was, that it would be unwise to institute
make to that doctrine
the ofthe
circumstances, Committee, unless it was to investigate whole
circumstances, and how far their results would affect the whole
of the commercial interests of the country, especially when
they proposed to make such great changes. The real question
thischange only
was whether they should make
purposes, or for permanent purposes; and this was not only a
commercial lent also a constitutional question. The measures
proposed by Mr. 1-luskisson were not only speculativ
intended to be of a permanent cha-
racter.measures, hut were
before
them, therefore, was not
The question
should takelace or whe-
so much whether the investigation s
be Abound by this
ther it should not, but whether they should
decision to a permanent measure ? It should
be recollected
that this was no new subject—that this was not an occasion on
which they needed information, or of the nature of which they
were ill-informed ; and he was surprised that it had not been
it'
taken into consideration by the Government before, and that 1
had not been frequently made the subject of consideration in
the Cabinet Council. It was not a question whether this
that Ministry should remain in power, and lie thought that o
it
was the duty of the Government to make the inwvehse g
lther
Lion sought for. He would ask the Hour
°
this was a question, the alteration of which was to
be permanent, or whether this was only to be
laws ?
a temporary suspens'on of the navigation _
and he did not think, that at the beginnirong osed. f
Parliament, such a question as this should be ppo
But under the circumstances, they had this consolation, that
however it was concluded, it could not affect the state of the
country. But the present question was not as to the state of
the navigation laws, but whether they should be only tempo-
rarily altered, or whether there should be a permanent altera-
tion, and he contended that this was not so much a party ques-
tion as one for the Prime Minister of State, and one for the
Government under him. He (Mr. Disraeli) was anxious to
make this observation before the House divided. He would
again repeat that this was not so much a matter of inquiry for
a private member of the House as for the Ministry of the
Crown. It was not a subject on which the House required any
information. It was an old subject—one which had been con-
sidered for 1 wo hundred years, and he thought that the gentle-
men on his side of the House had only to assume the position
to justify their conduct, and they might have the argument
of the Honourable Gentleman who proposed this committee.
This Ives a matter which, of all others, was of a constitutional
character. and one which, of all others, ought to be out of the
power of the Gosernment, and one, at least, on which they
ought
to have the opinion of the Government. He did not
thiuk that this was the moment for discussing the question of
the navigation laws, but they ought to take the question on its
merits.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Hon. Gentleman had
stated the case very fairly to the House, and had declared that
the question was not whether the House would agree to an alter-
ation of the navigation laws—whether permanent or tem-
porary, but whether they would consent to inquiry. That was
the question before the House. The Hon. Gentleman, and
those who acted with him, were not indisposed to inquiry, but
they were indisposed to permanent alteration. They agreed
with him that an alteration was now necessary, and all that his
Hon. Fricnd desired was, that the consent of the 'louse
should be given to that inquiry. The Hon. Gentleman agreed
that those lows should he inquired into, that they were not a
fixed part sf the constitution, and yet he seemed disinclined to
consent to an alteration of these laws. He hail referred to the
opinion of Mr. Huskisson' and for years that statesman had
alteration
consented to make an -and
of these laws, the Hon. 1
Gentleman himself stated, he proposed no alteration of the
leers, and lie ( Lord J. Russell) felt assured that there was no
serious intention to oppose the Bill, and he himself thought
that no better occasion could be taken for a general revision of
these laws, nor ce taken up
uld the subject be under better ci - i
cumstances than the present.
Mr. DISRAELI did not object alteration
to the of the law, •
but only to the constitutional alteration,