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

He had seen letters from abroad about charting ships, and ex-
pressing a desire to have any ships but French or English.
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 Lot d ( George Bentinck) 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 inquiry into their operation would
elicit many important facts.—( Hear, 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 51. is. 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 the 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 ought 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,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it was his intention to give
his support to the proposition of the Hon. Member. The ques-
tion was, whether there should not be an inquiry into the ope-
ration of the Navigation Laws, and whether there should not
be an opportunity given f ascertaining whether the
maintenance of theirs as they at present existed,
would really be for the interest of commerce and manufactures,
and also whether or not the maintenance of these laws were
necessary for the purpose of securing the maritime defence of
the country. The Government, he considered, might consent
to this 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
It. 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 opinions, but simply to examine and inquire
into all the various bearings of this question. It had been re-
marked in the course of the der ate, that the navigation laws
had existed for two hundred years, and that they had their
origin in the time of the Protectorate. He (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 thee 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 introduce 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-
enee to this amount in the American market, or whether they
would relax these laws for the purpose of extending their corn-
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.
Again, when Mr. Huskisson modified these laws in 1824, it
was net 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 explanation 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. Hus-
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 polic would not render
other changes in these laws necessary. lie 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, secure 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 tise 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 ef the question. He should,
Mr. HUTT said it had never been the practice of this House
therefore,qmaui
oonv
sstoteutotie3i
ietamtheghtepoacion against any inquiry.
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
fsrememberedeoAitfntlltrete.hrSettlement
eeesßnt
sctuoortukfhi
net that he
the country
and
dot
country—to
in
Nnt
have
ryte,were
hformeraahnde
session was permitted to have a Committee to inquire into one
important
Actpanwi
nth elawsopinion
ftheo
that
hoh
aatp ttchre prevent3e
effect, been Igegunthihrtgeiv en in favour of this inquiry.
nfa t
itsl
.e
pididarwo
pin.eortt
ylic Gwen
asdsi
iddde
ertphteihnnak.t
hdlie did not think that the pro-
party°Oen the 7th and Bth of Victoria,
laws.hidwneek that this House would interfere
this was
if his inquiry were refused, would be to pre-
of civilisation, and that it would therefore be
t to
dent b euou sacrificed,
tthshe
asnavigation
ln e orudi country
r dtyhnadi
into
ftohet
hent
the inquiry.—(Divide, divide.)
LI was anxious, before the House came to a
dwvieivniTitsrirot.thnoDe, ipintrhitaßgittrAutehCese House should rightly understand what was
the feeling of the gentlemen on his side of the House with
regard to this inquiry. He believed that there was no feeling
on this side of the House to prevent the inquiry on the other
side of the House. The question before them was not whether
the House should make any permanent alteration in the navi-
gation laws, and there was nothing in the feeling on that side
whether ewr
of the Houseuutoesspirtyevetuntguthaint
tuinqitu,iuruyi.ry Tbhuetfewehli
; f affairs it notas
the
against any n
present
position o waa advisable or not. The
gentleman on his side of the House was not indisposed
(L
to go into this inquiry—(Laud y—oud laughter)—but the real
question before the House was whether this should be Hon.manent or only a temi.earary measure. The Right
for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had made a very plau-
sible statement, and g upon it an equally plausible
scheme.—
( Hear, 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
the time had come when this investigation should be made,
and he thought that the doctrine which had been propounded
was a very dangerous doctrine. The reply which he would
make was, that it would be unwise to institute
to that doctrine,
this Committee • , unless it was to investigate the whole of the
circumstances, and how far their results would affect the whole
of the country, especially when
of the commercial interests
to make such great changes. The real question
they proposed
was whether they should make this
change
only for temporary
purposes, or
for permanentpurposes ; and this was nut only a
commercial but also a constitutional question. The measures
proposed by
Mr. Huskisson were not only speculativ
measures, but were intended to be of a perm anent cha-
racter. The question before them, therefore, was not
so much whether the investigation should take place or whe-
ther it should not, but whether they should be bound by this
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 d
which they
not been
were ill-informed ; and he was surprised that it had
taken into consideration by the Government before, and that it
sideration in
had not been frequently made the subject of con
whether this or
the Cabinet Council. It was not a question
that Ministry should remain in power, and he thought that it
was the duty of the Government to make the investiga-
House whether
tion sought for. He would ask
the
of which was to
this was a question, the alteration
was only to be
be permanent, or whether this
navigation laws ?
a temporary suspens'on of the
the -beginning of
and he did not think, that at
should be proposed.
Parliament, such a question as this
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 fur the
Government under him. He (Mr. Disraeli) was anxious to
make this observation before the House divided. lie would
again repeat that this was not so much a matter of inquiry for
a private member of the House as for the Ministry ef the
Crown. It was not a sub'ect on which the House required any
information. It was an old subject—one which had been con-
sidered for two hundred ears, 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 was 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 Government, and one, at least, on which they
ought to have the opinion of the Government. He did not
think 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 wore indisposed to permanent alteration. They agreed
with him that an alteration was now necessary, and all that his
Hon. Friend desired
was, that the consent of the House
should be given to that inquiry. The Hon. Gentleman agreed
that those laws should be inquired into, that they were not a
fixed part of the constitution, and yet he seemed disinclined to
consent to an alteration of these laws. He had referred to the I
opinion of Mr. liuskisson, and for years that statesman had
consented to make an alteration of these laws, and the lion.
G
snti eman himself stated, he proposed rio alteration of the
laws, and he (Lord J. Russell) felt assured that there was no
serious intention to opeose the Bill, and he himself thought '
that no better occasion could be taken for a general revision of
these laws, nor could the subject be taken up under better cir-
cumstances than the present
Mr. DISRAELI did not oh'the object to alteration of the law,
but only to the constitutional alteration,