The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-01 00:00:00

S 117 Ny FEBRUARY 1, 1847.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

As the navigation laws are suspended for the present
by an Act which, although only introduced to the House
of Commons on Wednesday week, received the royal
assent on Tuesday last, the following brief history of
their first institution, and of the purposes for which
thpy were framed, may be of some interest to our
readers :

The navigation laws form (formed) an important
branch of maritime law. In this country they are un-
derstood to comprise the various Acts that have been
passed defining British ships, the way iu which such
ships are to be manned, the peculiar privileges enjoyed
by them, and the conditions under which foreign ships
shall be allowed to engage in the trade of the country,
either as importers or exporters of commodities, or as
carriers of commodities from one part of the country to
the other.

The origin of the navigation laws may be traced to
the reign of Richard 11., or, perhaps, to a still more
remote period ; but as no intelligible account of the
vaaying and contradictory enactments framed at so
distant an epoch could be compressed within ony
reasonable space, it is sufficient to observe,
that in the reign of Henry VII., two of the
leading principles of the navigation laws were dis•
tinctly recognised in the prohibition of the importation of
certain commodities unless imported in ships belonging
to English owners, and manned by English seamen. In
the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, foreign ships
were excluded from our fisheries and coasting trade.
The republican Parliament gave a great extension to
the navigation laws; by the Act of 1650, which prohi-
bited all ships of all foreign nations whatever from
trading with the plantations in America without having
obtained a licence. Theso Acts were, however, rather
intended to regulate the trade between the different
ports and dependencies of the empire, than to regulate
our intercourse with foreigners. In the following year
(1651) the republican Parliament passed the famous
Act of Navigation. This Act had a double object. It
was intended not only to promote our own navigation,
but also to strike a decisive blow at the naval ower of
.ihe Ditch who " w alt
,

circumstances had transpired to incense the English.
The Act in question declared that no goods or commo-
dities whatever of the growth, production, or manu-
facture of Asia, Africa, or America should be im-
ported either into England or Ireland, or any of the
plantations, except in ships belonging to British sub-
jects, and of which the master and the greater
number of the crew were also English. Having
thus secured the import trade of Asia, Africa, or Ame-
rica to the English shipowner, the Act went on to se-
cure to them as far as that was possible the import trade
of Europe. For this purpose it further enacted that no
goods of the growth, production, or manufacture of any
country in Europe should be imported into Great Bri-
tain except in British ships, or in such ships as were the
real property of the people of the country or place in
which the goods were produced, or from which they
could only be or most usually were exported. The lat-
ter part of the clause was entirely levelled against the
Dutch, who had but little native produce to support, and
whose ships were principally employed in carrying the
produce of other countries to foreign markets. Such
were the leading provisions of this lamous Act. They
were adopted by the regal Government which succeeded
Cromwell, and forms the basis of the Act 12th Car. 11.
c, 18, which continued to a very recent period to be the
rule by which our naval intercourse with other countries
was mainly regulated, and has been pompously desig-
nated the Charta Maratima of England.
These laws continued in force till the beginning of the
present century. Considerable changes were effected in
them by Mr. Wallace, in 1821, and by Mr. Huskisson,
in 1825, and partly by the adoption of what has been
called the reciprocity system. Under the Act 6th
George IV., cap. 109, the intercourse of all European
countries in amity with Great Britain was placed on the
same footing. The memorials of our former animosity,
and of our jealousy of the prosperity of certain of our
neighbours were abolished. This uniformity, besides
giving greater scope to mercantile operations, and ex-
tending our traffic with some of our most opulent neigh-
bours, removed a great source of embarrassment and
litigation ; at the same time it detracted considerably
from that selfish character which had been believed on
the continent, and not without considerable reason, to be
the animating principle of our commercial system.
The distinction between enumerated and non enume-
rated articles was still kept up under the new regula-
tions; but, instead of confining the importation of the
former into the United Kingdom—either to British
ships, or ships belonging to the country or place where
the goods were produced, or from which they were
originally exported—the new regulations permitted that
they might be imported either in British ships or the
ships of the country of which the goods are the pro-
duce, or in ships of the country or place from which
they aro imported into England. Under the old law,
when a number of articles, the product of different
countries, but all of them suitable for importation into
England, were found in a foreign port, they could not
be .imported except .in a British ship, or separately in
ships belonging to the different countries whose pro-
duce they were. This was obviously a very great
hardship on the foreigner, without being of any real
advantage to the shipowners. When the foreign mer-
chant had vessels of his own, it was not very probable
that ho would permit them to remain unoccupied, and
freight a British vessel; and there were very few ports
of any importance in which foreign bottoms might not
be found, in which the articles could be legally itn •
ported.
Besides tho restrictive regulations already alluded to,
it had been a part of our policy to encourage the em-
ployment of our shipping by imposing higher duties on '
commodities imported into our harbours in foreign ves-
sels than were imposed on them when imported in British
vessels, and it had also been customary to charge foreign
vessels with higher port and lighthouse duties. This
system was always loudly complained of by foreigners ;
but we had little difficulty in maintaining it, so long as
the state of our manufactures enabled us to disregard
the retaliatory measures of other powers. But the ex•
traordinary increase that took place since the Com-
mencement of the late war in our manufactories for
foreign consumption, and the necessity under which we
were in consequence placed of conciliating our cus-
tomers abroad, led to the adoption of the reciprocity sys-
tem. This system was first introduced into the trade
with the United States. After the North American Co-
lonic; had succeeded in establishing their independence,
they set about framing a code of navigation laws on
the model of those of this country. Among other regu-
lations of a restrictive character it was enacted that all fo •
reign vessels trading to the United states should pay half a
dollar, which was afterwards raised to a dollar per ton duty
beyond what was paid by American ships, and further that
goods imported in foreign vessels should pay a duty of 10
per cent., over and above what was payable on the same
description of goods imported in American vessels. The
law was avowedly directed against the navigation laws
of Great Britain, though, as it was bottomed upon the
very same principles as our navigation laws, we could
not openly complain of its operation. Various devices
were fallen upon to counteract the navigation system of
the Americans, but they all failed in their object In
consequence, the conviction of the necessity of making
concessions gained ground progressively ; and it was
ultimately fixed by the commercial treaty agreed upon
between Great Britain and the United States in 1815,
that in future equal charges should be imposed on the
ships of either country in the ports of the other, and
that equal duties should bo laid upon all articles the pro-
duce of the one country imported into the other, whether
such importation were effected in the ships of the one or
the other. The principle of the reciprocity system having
been thus conceded in the case of the intercourse with
the United States, whose commercial marine is second
only to that of Great Britain, it was not possible to re-
fuse acting on the same principle in the case of such
other European countries as might choose to admit our
ships into their ports on a footing of equality. Accord-
ingly, after more protracted diplomatic negotiations, a
commercial treaty, based on the reciprocity system, was
made with Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden. On that
occasion (12th of May, 1826) Mr. Huskisson, in his
speech, said—
" By others, it may be said your duty was to retaliate
by increasing your own port charges, and discriminating
duties on British shipping. I have already stated gene-
rally my reasons against the policy of this latter course.
We were not prepared to begin a system of commercial
hostility, which, if followed up on both sides to its legi-
timate consequences, could only tend to reciprocal pros-
titution. In this state of things, snore prudently, as I
contend, we entered upon an amicable negotiation with
the Prussian Government, upon the principle of our
treaty with the United States—that of abolishing on
both sides all discriminating duties on the ships and
goods of the respective countries in the ports of the
other."
With respect to the general policy of the navigation
laws, Adam Smith, in his " Wealth of Nations," vol. ii.
p. 29, says—
" When the Act of Navigation was made, though
England and Holland were not actually at war, the
most violent animosity subsisted between the twote
nations. It had begun during the Government of the
long Parliament, which first framed the Act, and it
broke out soon after the in Dutch wars, during that of the
Protector and Charles 11. It is not impossible, there-
fore, that some of the regulations of this famous
se
Actar e
all
may have proceeded from national animosity.
as wise, however, as if they had beendictatedl. by the
most deliberate wisdom. National animosity at that
particular time arrived at the same b
most deliberate wisdom would have oject which the
recommended, the
diminution of the naval power of Rolland,hteseetahreit)o,nleyt
power which could have endangered
not favourable to
England, The Act of navigation
foreign commerce, or to that opulence which can arise
from it. * As defence, however, is of
much more importance than opulence,llthe
commercialthe Act of navi-
gation is perhaps the wisest of a
regu-
lations of England."

POOR MAN'S GUARDIAN SOCIETY.—In conse-
quence of the alarming amount of suffering created among
the labouring classes from the present high prices of provi-
sion, and the fact of many thousands being thrown out of
employment in the metropolis, the committee have sup n
ptwliedo,
bread and soup to the poor, daily, to more tha
hundred persons. They need the benevolent aid of the
public.

MARYLEB ONE VESTRY.

TIIE REGENT'S CANAL RAILWAY.-At the Maryle-
bone Vestry, on Sat&day, the committee appointed to
oppose the formation of this railway brought up their
report, by which it was stated that the property in
Marylebone to be tunnelled under and removed, would
amount to 3,8891, and the rental of the property im-
mediately affected by the proposed railway amounted to
6,4001, besides the injury that would he done to the
chapel in Aberdeen-place. The report also contained a
statement that a deputation, consisting► of Crow❑ tenants
and others, waited upon the Right Honourable Lord.
Morpeth, and his Lordship, after hearing the various
complaints, informed the deputation that be would con-
sider the application, both legally and morally, and then
decide upon the principles of justice. The following
communication was read from Mr. Edwin Lundseer

My Lords and Guntlemen,—Having been informed
that the projected railway from Euston-square to Pad
dington has claimed your attention, I beg respect-
fully to represent to you the injury which I an:
likely to sustain if such project should be carried
into effect. The house in which I reside was built
by myself at a great expense, and as my professional
pursuits require studious and other accommodation not
to be met within ordinary houses, no compensation which
a railway company will be likely to give would be an
equivalent for the loss I should sustain in the event of a
railway, or any other nuisance, obliging me to quit the
neighbourhood. I selected this locality for my residence
on account of the quiet retirement which it affords, and
which is to me of great importance. According to the
plan contemplated I understand that the opening of a
tunnel will be at the bottom of my garden, and I shall
be continually annoyed by the noise of the engine and
railway whistle, besides losing a portion of my garden,
and a plantation now forming the boundary of my pre-
mises. I fully anticipate that this annoyance would
oblige me to leave the neighbourhood, in which case I
should be under the necessity of building myself another
house, an undertaking which would involve a very great
expense, as well as a serious sacrifice of time. My bro-
layi
l ther, i Mrrtlias Larlsacr,„ who resides in Cunning
Mlinr . , -..i.abitiospent triejitiltiehtf*iiiiiiiel7
lib tithlb lig eiffinilt itlitutTio at a 61:Milder:ilia expense,
as the proposed railway, if constructed, will pass under
his house, which it will destroy. I, therefore, on his
behalf, as well as on my own, make this appeal to the
vestry in support of tho opposition to the proposed
railway.—l have the honour to be, my Lords and Gen-
tlemen, your obedient humble servant,
E. LANDSEER.
After a few words from Sir P. LAURIE and others, the
report was put and carried.