The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 25.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the
Woolsack at Fire o'clock.
ROME.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition
from the congregation of St. Matthew's, Glasgow,
against diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome.
THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

Th© 14:TriLE DUKE also presente 1 a number of
petitions from shipowners and sailors of Liverpool,
Montrose, and other places, in favour of these laws.
The Noble Duke said he could not conceive how any
Minister, in the present state of Europe, could be
wild enough to propose any alteration in these laws,
because he believed the stability of the country
materially depended upon their maintenance. It was
unnecessary for him to add that he should vote
against any proposition for their abrogation.
ROME.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from a place
in Devon against diplomatic relations with the Court
of Rome.

NAVIGATION LAWS.

The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition, signed
by 6,000 of the shipowners, merchants, and sailors of
Liverpool against any alteration in these laws. The
petitioners hoped at least that no melsure on the
subject would be introduced until the fullest inquiry
had been made as to the operation of these laws.
The Noble Lord also presented a petition to the same
effect, signed by 500 persons, from Bideford, as we
understood.
The Earl of lIARDIVICKE presented a number
of petitions to the same effect from London, Shields,
Exeter, Scarborough, Belfast, Sunderland, and other
places.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Lord BEAUMONT and the Marquis Of LANSDOWNE
presented petitions from societies of Oddfelbws, in
Manchester and other places, praying that the pro-
visions of the Friendly Societies' Act might be ex-
tended to them.
NAVIGATION LAWS.

The Earl of HARDIVICKE then, in pursuance of
notiee, proceeded to move for a Committee of Inquiry
into the operation of these laws. The Noble Marquis
(Lansdowne) had kindly intimated to him that he
should not object to the motion for the appointment
of the inquiry he proposed, but as the question
was so important, he felt that he should not dis-
charge his duty if he did not enter into some details.
These laws were so mixed up with a number of
trades, and so much diversity of opinion prevailed
upon the matter, that without inquiry it
would be utterly impossible to legislate upon
them, because they would thereby be enabled
to obtain the opinion of competent persons.—(llear.)
Much dissatisfaction prevailed out of doors at the
opinion of the Government with respect to these
laws. As late as the lath of last March, the Ship-
owners' Society had been informed by the Govern-
ment that it was not their intention to interfere
with the navigation-laws. But a change came over
the Government, for on the 23d of November it was
first intimated that a change was intended. The
intimation was given to the people of this country,
though a correspondence that had taken place at the
time between the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) and
Air. Bancroft, the American Minister. The corre-
spondence was published in the newspapers; and he
asked them if it was right that the people of England
should have first received information of the intended
change through the columns of a newspaper, and,
further, whether the Noble Lord had not violated the
laws of the country by the course he had adopted ?
Not only had the country been deceived, but the Foreign
Minister was pledged to the people of the United States
that these laws should be repealed, and he thought that
was clearly illegal. Before the Committee of the House
of Commons on the subject of the navigation-laws the
evidence was one-sided, twenty- five witnesses being ex-
amined in favour of a repeal of these laws, and only nine
against, and the Committee had made no report; and
this surely was a reason for the appointment of a Com-
mittee of their Lordships. There were other circum-
stances connected with this Committee which rendered
it unfair. A distinguished naval officer, on the day he
was to have arrived to take a part before the Committee
In favour of the continuance of these laws, was sum-
moned away at the call of duty. A statistical paper on
the subject of the navigationelaws had excited much
attention and been laid hold of by the free-traders. Mr.
Porter had endeavoured to show, in the paper in questioa4
the great
,advantages of an unprotected trade ; but the
stlttementa in that paper were false.—(Hear, hear.)
Be gave a list of places under the protected trade, and a
list of places which he said were free, and comparing the
teturns in 1824 with those in 1846, he made it appear
that the increase in the former had been at the rate of
25 per cent.; whilst the latter had been 182 per cent.;
but in point of fact, the ships of other states with whom
reciprocity treaties existed had no right to transfer the
goods of foreign countries to this kingdom; and in truth
the whole trade was a protected trade when regarded in
this light. This applied to China, Mexico, France. and
other plaees put down on the side of free trade, and the
calculation was therefore most erroneous. The Noble
ierd pointed out other errors in the returns of a similar
nature, and stated there was no doubt that the increase
of the whole tonnage had been under the protective
laws. It had been stated by the Noble Lord opposite
that it would be an advantage to the West Indians to
make a obange in the navigation-laws; but, as far as he
had been able to ascertain, the West Indians scouted
the ides. If the freights were reduced, say 2.5 per
cent., from the West Indies, they would also be
lowered in the same ratio from the East Indies, the Mau-
ritius, and other places, and the reduction in the rate of
freight would produce no sensible alteration in the price
of cotton or tea. But the fact was, the Noble Marquis
was the driver of a theory which was perilling the best
interests of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Was it not
so ? Need he point to the state of our import and ex-
port trade—to our cotton manufactures—to the West
India trade—and to our finances, in proof of the asser•
tion9—(Hear, hoar.) From 1842 to 1846 there had been
a deficit of 33,000,000/. in our export, as compared with
the import trade. Then, as to the cotton trade, taking
16 months at the end of 1845, and comparing that period
with the 16 months ending January, 1843, the total loss
of cotton eeeports to the manufacturers, who we re so
anxious to get cheap sugar, had been about 1,100,0001.
I-1e thought, therefore, there was abundant reason for the
appointment of the Committee for which he asked, and
that the subject should be put before the country again
and again, until they were satisfied of the danger
of the policy of free trade to our commercial
prospects. The policy pursued from 1700 to this time
had raised the shipping from 218,000 to at this moment
3,800,000 tons, and he was convinced that the only safe
course was to pursue the system whith had produced
such a result.—(Hear, hear.) He was convinced that if
the American trade were opened it would ruin our colo-
nial trade, which at present employed 40,000 seamen.
While the smallest benefit would bo gained by this
country we were about to give the American commercial
navy advantages that would ruin us. We could not
compete with America in this respect; they would bring
our tea from China, and load back to the United States
with cotton. Was there no example? Why, in the South
So whale fishery, since the bounty had been taken away
in 1824, end t,he reduction of the protecting duty on
sperm oil frona:e3o/. to 151. in 1840 (which duty would
altogether ceask in the present year) the Americans had
beaten us out of the market; and, in fact, the cost of
their ships and (heir men enabled them at all times
to compete with us to certain advantage. Then, as to
our reciprocity trade. If we referred to those countries
with which we had reciprocity treaties the result would
show thee they had operated greatly to our disadvantage.
Another subject to which he wished to direct atten-
tion, was that if the shipowner were allowed to build
where he could do so at the cheapest rate, we should
soon lose our private dockyards, which were almost as
important (referring to the subject of Rational defences)
as the mercantile navy iteelt. With those merchant
yards, which had produced a very large proportion of
our military shipping in tote last war, we should also
lose the numerous artisans whom they employed. It
must be expected that our shipowners would hare re-
course to foreign shipbuilders and foreign yards, where
they Gould obtain their vessels at a much cheaper rate.
In the United States ships could be built at 17 per cent.
less than in this country; in Holland 20 per cent. less,
in F
acent, e9
22
per cent. less, in Denmark and Norway 31
per
less, in' Bremen 37 per cent. less, in Prussia 45
p_e_r_ell_tu-elesl;_and in Finland 51 per cent. less. If that
iwnecr6o:petitionhat withchatnhcous bad the
fothreeigßil riotoisuhntrsihosip?owAneords
what benefit would it be t9toho this country to find in times
of necessity the yards of
she relativi?eshipowners dismantled?
But this would not be all.
emust admit foreign sea-
as,eforelileownse,rah
xreprenses of British and
sea-
men also. Now,
a year, each being
supposedforeignships
h have the or of officers and the
same number of seamen es they had at present i—At this
time a British ship of 500 tons cost 6501, year; an
Swede,669l. 3a9sDl.7teahodashipß,re6m4oe/n.;eeassol,
Prussian
471/.
American ship,
malin; 8854,i be
merchant seamen, remembered, were the class
fibm which the naval marine of this country was drawn.
Abandon the mercantile marine, and we must abandon
the navy of England,
for in time. of war it would be
utterly impossible ever to man it. If theft. Lordships,
therefore, were determined to have an effective navy, if
they desired to hare a certain way of manning that
navy in time of war, and if the country wished to have
the protec-
tion navy estimates, they must maintain t
tion and the monopoly which the British shipowner a.
present enjoyed. The Noble Lord concluded by sub-
mitting his motion.
Earl GREY said, as their Lordships were already in-
formed, it was not the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to oppose this motion. The motion might not be
necessary, but, at any rate, it could do no harm, and it
was fits belief that the more information their Lordships
had the better they would be enabled to deal with any
mt o
miser% her Majesty's Government might have hereafter
penes°. Haynie said this, ho should be without
Justification if he
were to follow the Noble Lord through
hie various remarks. As there was to be an inquir3 •
,
and a measure was hereafter to oome before them, there
wits no necessity nowfor a discussion. He was quite
willing to leave the speech
of the Noble Lord without a
reply. There was n
against the Noble Lord's odneeessity to warn the country
the abstract, nor denunciations of free trade in
to follow him through
many of them very erroneous,
for their consideration. weelsevishich he had opened
the proper time arrived, they wouldonllZ sAy, that when
no doubt, very clearly to demonstrateabk, as he had
in-
terests of the shipowners here were not boundth!" thla
the protection she Noble Lord had up with
advocated. With