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

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

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

-TIIE NAVIGATION LAWS.

The /ii;n7.E DUKE also presented 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,
beeause 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 measure 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 SOO persons, from Bideford, a►s we
undeastood.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a number
of petitions to the same effect from London, Shields,
Exeter, Scarborough, Belfast, Sunderland, and other
places.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Dad BBAIIILONT and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
presented petitions from societies of Oddfell )ws, in
Manchester and other places, praying that the pre-
visions of the Friendly Societies' Act might be ex-
Waded to them.
NAVIGATION' LAWS.

The Earl of lIARDWICKE then, in pursuance of
notice, 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
woo so important, be 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, awed so much diversity of opinion prevailed
upon. the matter, that without inquiry it
wouhl be utterly impossible to legislate upon
them, because they would thereby be enabled
to obtain the opinion of competent persons.—([leer.)
Much dissatisfaction prevailed out of doors at the
opinion of the Government with respect to these
laws. As late as the 15th of last March, the Ship-
owners' Society had been informed by the Govern-
silent 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
Mr. 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 county been deceived, but the Foreign
Minister was pledged to the people of the United States
that these laws shouli 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 trrepeal of these laws, and only nine
and the Committee had made no report; and
against,this surely was a reason fur 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 navigation laws had excited much
attention and been laid hold of by the free-traders. Mr.
Porter hadendeavoured to show, in the paper in questio.a4!
the great
,advantages of an unprotected trade ; but the,
statements in that paper were false.—(Hear, heat.)
lie gjve a list of places under the protected trade, and a
list or places which he said were free, and comparing the
returns in 1824 with those in 1946, 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 faot, 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
ether places put down on the side of free trade, and the
calculation was therefore most erroneous. The Noble
Lord 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
lams. It had been stated by the Noble Lord opposite
that it would be an advantage to the West Indians to
make a change in the navigation-laws; but, as far as he
had been able to ascertain, the West Indians scouted
Le ides. If the freights were reduced, say 25 per
cent., from the %Vest 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 tact was, the Noble Marquis
was the driver of a theory which was perilling the best
interests of the country.—(llear, 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
tioa?—(Llear, hear.) From 1842 to 1846 there had beet,
a deficit of 35,000,0001. 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 14 months ending January, 1848, the total loss
of cotton exports to the manufacturers, who were so
anxious to gee cheap sugar, had been about 1,100,0001.
Ile 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 1.700 to this time
had raised the shipping from 216,007 i-to at this moment
3,800,000 tons, and he was convinced that the only safe
course was to purses the system width 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 preseut employed 40,000 'seamen.
While the smallest benefit would be 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 Chins, and load buck to the United States
with cotebn. Was there no example? Why, in the South
See whale fishery, since the bounty had been taken away
in 1824, and the reduction of the protecting duty on
sperm oil from 301. to 151. in 1830 (which duty would
altogether ceark in the present year) the Americans had
beaten us out of the market; and, in fact, the cost of
their ships and their 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 lbw/ they had operated greatly to our disadvantage.
Anottser 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 dockyiii:ds, which were almost as
important (referring to the subject of stational defences)
as the mercantile navy itself. With these merchant
yards, which had produced a very large proportion of
our military shipping in the last war, we should also
lose the numerous artisans whom they employed. It
must be expected that our shipowners would have re-
course to. foreign shipbuilders and foreign yards, where
they could obtain their vessels at a much cheaper rate
In the United ;States ships could be built at 17 per cent..
less than its this country; inHolland 20 per cent. less,
in France 22 per cent. lolls, in Denmark and Norway 31
per cent. less, in liretneinz7dpseir cent. less,Prussia 43
had
Britishcent. -
per less, and in F
the
cent.
less. If that
were true.. what chance
in competition with these of foreign shipowners
ga countries? And
what benefit would it be to this
dismantled?
country to find in times
of necessity' the yards of those shipowners
But this would not be all. We must admit foreign
sea-
men eels°. Now, the relative expenses
of British and
foreign ships were as follows, for a year, each being
supposed to have the same number of officers and the
same number of seamen as they had at present:—At this
time a British ship of 500 tons cost 6,501, ayear; an
American ship, 6401.; a Prussian
669/ ; ft Dutch ship,
ship, 885/.; a Swede, 3951.; and a Bremen vessel, 4711.
The merchant seamen, be it remembered, were tho class
from which the naval marine of this country was drawn.
Abandon the mercantile marine, and we must abandon
the navy of England, for its time of war it would be
utterly impossible ever to man it. If their Lordships,
therefore, were determined to have an effective navy, it'
th ey desired to have a certain way of manning that
nary in time of war, and if the country wished to have
clairap navy estimates, they must maintain the protec-
tions. and the monopoly which the British shipowner at
present enjoyed. 'The Noble Lord concluded by sub- i
mi fling his motion.
Earl GREY said, as their Lordships were already in-
foimeed, it was not the intention other Majesty's Govern-
Zomata scary,
oppose this motion. The motion might not be
but, at any rate, it could do no harm, and it
Wens his belief that the mot:, infOriniirion their Lordships
'measure her Ntnieyst
hack the better tit • would be enabled to deal with any
ion if he
iwnetryr'ess?t nhte liewrietofhotue rt
fit
,ft:s lrlow the Nuble Lord through
theret was to be an inquiry,
his -various remarks.
and' measure wastihoewrealtr a
lioc,,c,wn before them, there
was • no necessity
u7.toieZe Lord without a
evil. ling to leave the speech of Ile was quite
the
rep 15. There was no necessity
age inst the) Noble Lord's
denunciations
free
country
the abstract,• nor to follow 4ien through allreteh,!rade in
mr.t.4 of them very erroneous, whierh he hail d
u-eptails'
for Their consi, 'aeration. lie would only say, that
when
h"
the proper time arrived, they would be able, as he head
no doubt, very clearly to demonstrate that the in-
terests of lowners here were not bound up with
protection the tloble Lord had adsiccated. With