The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-06-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Labouchere's motion to
go into committee to consider his resolution on the Navi-
gation Laws, and Mr. Herries' amendment thereto, was
resumed by Sir J. WALsn, who opposed the ministerial
proposition.
. Mr. ArGar.Gon spoke in favour of the repeal of the
laws.

Mr. W. MILES warmly supported Mr. Herries' amend-
went. He was perfectly willing to consider the Naviga-
tion Laws with the view of removing any inconveniences
that might be caused by their operation, but he was reso-
lutely opposed to the repeal of laws under which this coun-
try had attained its commercial and naval supremacy.
Where, he asked, were the petitions demanding this mea-
sure ?-L-what commercial port had asked for it ?—what im-
portent commercial classes required it ? On the contrary,
there was the great demonstration of the sailors, there
were the petitions of merchants, of shipowners, and of
shipwrights, and the petitions of all the ports in the king-
dom in favour of preserving that fine mercantile marine
which had heretofore manned our navy and upheld the
honour and safety of the British empire.

Mr. MOODY said he should vote for the motion to go
into committee to consider Mr. Labouchere's resolution,
on the ground that great difference of opinion existed with
respect to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, that an ad-
verse vote on this question would add much to the embar-
rassment of the government, and that Free Trade would
not have a fair trial unless these laws were greatly mo-
dified.

When the hon. member sat down, no one rose to speak,
and loud cries of " divide," were uttered. As there were
not forty members present, a division would have been
fatal. The gentlemen on the treasury bench seemed in a
quandary, and naturally looked to " gentlemen opposite"
to help them out of their difficulty. " Hon. gentlemen
opposite" did not fail the government in their need.
Mr. CARDWELL reminded the house that the question
-which it had then to decide was, whether it would or
would not consider the laws which regulated the naviga-
tion of the country. Her Majesty, in her speech from
tha throne at the commencement of the session, had re-
commended the consideration of those laws to the house ;
and the house in an unanimous address told Her Majesty
that it would consider them with a view to ascertain
whether any changes could be adopted which, without
danger to our maritime strength, might promote the
commercial and colonial interests of the empire. Since
that time we had received two remarkable documents—
one from Prussia, intimating to us that the advantages
which we enjoyed in her ports would be withdrawn from
us if we did not give her corresponding advantages in our
ports.; and the other from the United States, informing
us that they would make relaxations in favour of our
trade if we would make similar relaxations in favour of
theirs. We had also received from several of our colonies
memorials complaining of the grievances inflicted upon
them by these laws; and yet, in the face of all this, Mr.
Herries proposed a preliminary objection to the Speaker's
leaving the chair, which amounted, in point of fact, to a
declaration that the house refused to consider at all the
question of the navigation laws. On these grounds alone
he should refuse to vote for the amendment of Mr. Her-
ries. But he had other grounds which he then stated to
the house. He was not afraid of competition with foreign
shipping if the British shipowner and British shipping
were-placed not on a fancied but on a substantial equality
with other nations. We.had a greater amount of capital
and greater energy and skill than any other country, and
we had therefore no reason to fear any competition.
Statistical returns, which he quoted, also established that
fact. He then took a review of the Reciprocity Acts of
Mr. Huskisson, avowing his confident belie! that Mr.
Huskisson, had he been alive now, enlightened by expe-
rience, would have gone forward in the same direction
withgreater confidence and a freer step. He then pro-
ceeded.to examine the question, whether the measure of
Mr. Labouchere did ensure to the British shipowners per-
fect equality and freedom. This was not the time for
entering into details, but he must be forgiven for saying
that there were some provisions on the face of it which it
was dificult to reconcile with perfect equality and freedom.
For instance, Mr. Labouchere placed the British ship-
owner under restrictions as to the manning of his vessel.
Next, a ship built in the Baltic might be imported into
Great Britain duty free; but the raw material of which it
was manufactured, timber, was still to be subjected to
duty—the only instance in the tariff in which the raw
material was tart(' when the manufactured article was
duty free. Mr. Labouchere also proposed to exempt the
coasting trade from his bill, because he was afraid that the
proposal to throw open the coasting trade would create
greatalarm. Now, he must inform Mr. Labouchere that
his propositions had already excited great consternation
among those whose property they affected ; and that he
had not diminished it by exempting the coasting trade
from the operation of his bill. Now, if Mr. Labouchere
was going to propose perfect freedom of trade and naviga-
tion, he should look for compensation for privilege, which
he ga'e in England, to the coasting trade in America.
He then pointed out various hardships which occurred
under, and various anomalies which existed in, the navi-
gation laws, and concluded by declaring that he could not
.withhold his consent from a judicious relaxation of those
hardships and those anomalies. He should therefore vote
in favour of the motion that the Speaker leave the chair.
The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER abstained from
following Mr. Cardwell into the objections which he had
urged against the details of the Government plan, because
another and more fitting opportunity would arise for such
a discussion. He hail no fear of the British shipowner
suffering under the repeal of the navigation laws ; for the
history of our shipping since 1525 abounded with proof
thatithe British shipowner could compete successfully
with the shipowner of every part of the world. He could
also build ships as cheap as the ship owner of any country
in Europe, Asia, and America; and ldaships were univer-
sally admitted to be more durable than any others. It
would be a great advantage to this country to have cheap

carriage and low freights, and being an advantage he re-
commended the house to take it now when it could be
obtained, from Prussia on the one side and from the
United States on the other, without any sacrifice on our
part.
Sir C. BURRELL protested against the dangerous mea-
sure which Ministers, were proposing to the house to
adopt.
On the motion of Mr. D'ISRAELI, the debate was then
adjourned, upon the understanding that it should be either
concluded to-morrow (Friday), or be adjourned till Mon-
day.

HOUSE OF LORDS—FRIDAY.
The royal assent was given by commission to various
public and private bills.
The subject of Spanish pensioners, and that of Penin-
sular medals, occupied the attention of the house for a
short time, the former at the instance of the Marquis of
LONDONDERRY, rnd the latter at that of the Duke of
RICHMOND.
After a debate the Registering of Births, &c. (Scot-
land), and the Marriages (Scotland) Bills were read a
second time and ordered to be referred to a select com-
mittee, their lordships adjourning until Thursday next.