The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-06-03

made IN the Commons WHICH may pooaoiy ueie'' 'ne
BILL Whether these amendments were made by The
ministry the opposition, we do not know but we pre-
sumo by The latter, as the bill itself ministerial
measure The debate in the Lords, which was received
BY the last steamer, will be found below.
HOUSE OF LORDS MONDAY, MAY7.
NAVIGATION LAWS.
The Marquis of Lansdowns moved the second reading
of the bin 10 repeal the nayig CATION laws, and having
pressed his respect the feelings and honest preudces
OF those who opposed TO him on the question. con-
tended that the penanenee ana security OF ne national
present knowledge OF the subject afforded, and according
TO all sound reasoning based upon H. be subject TO any
danger from the proposed BILL or be impaired in any re
spect by its provisions. In rapid sketch OF the history
OF the navigation laws from the time OF Richard II to
the present day, he showed how those laws. while they
acted as AN impeachment To commerce. had long ceased TO
be of any use to the navy OF the country and entering
upon the statistics of the shipping trade, proved that
BRUSH shipowners might confidently rely upon being able
10 maintain their ground against the competition OF for
egn shipping ii the House looked At the colonial part
of the question, it would find that the true interests of
The colonies and especially of the West Indies called for
the repeal of that remnant OF the navigation laws which
still remained in force In his conscience he believed
that this might be done with perfect safety; nay he
convinced that monopoes were the greatest obstacles TO
commercial prosperity. Hear He therefore earnestly
mplored the House 10 let this bill be read second time,
and ended by declaring that the noble lord ISanley]
had announced that he prepared tor the
of its rejection. so the government was equally ready TO
abide by the result. [Hear. hear.l
Several lords rose to reply, but they all gave way 10
Lord Brougham who. in speech OF three hours length,
opposed the measure He observed: 1t said that
these navigation laws bat the fragments of system
Possibly but they splendid fragments deserving
of very different treatment from that which this
and its supporters sought to deal it, Under that sys
tenn was fostered colonial trade, employing million
and half OF tonnage, 10000 and odd seamen, and
capital producing of five than four millions
per annlm. This system was to be knocked on the
head Why No good reason was assgnable. Great
changes had no doubt taken place; and It was these
the arrangements Of navigation laws, and for Hus
kissOn to extend those notifications, but yet saving the
principle. Let suppose that these modifca
lions were effected without considerable sacrifice on the
part OF our shipping.
Upon referring to the returns of our shipping for the
six years before 1922, and the six years after 1922
not liable to suspicion, they made without
any reference to project he found that tonnage had
fallen Off in the latter period, 1900 vessels Of 100000
and upward tonnage, falling OH which did not
cover from till fully sixteen years afterwards The OBJ
ject Of the navigation laws had been the formation and
maintenance OF a mercantile navy-the great point as
Adam Smith affirmed. 10 which every nsuar dominion
should apply itself by all reasonable means The
chant navy was the foundation OF the military navy
without the the other could not possibly exist We
TO give up 10 the American, to the Frenchman, to
the Swede. to the Dutchman, to any one, all
mercal advantages all our own colonial trade, and all
we were to retain was the expense OF army navy, ord
&c. for the defence and retention of colonies the
carrying trade with which, at all events, would not pro-
duce single shilling The bill, word, proposed
TO give the Qutd without asking the quo.
ANY one who considered the relative numbers and the
different habits of the two parties concerned, and who
took along with facts and figures, could scarcely
fail to- to the conclusion that impossible for
this country, without having protection, to enter into
successful competition with the United States and the
Baltic, either in building ships in sailing them He
had received support comfort, and aid in his argument
from his noble friend himself This very bill continued
the monopoly Of the coasng trade BY providing that all
and that threefourhs of the should also be Brit
ish. But why were they to retain the proportion Of
three -fouhs OF British sailors in coasng vesses For
fOr
they knew very well how much depended on having
those seamen.
He begged their lorshps to pause before they leopard
ed the shipping interest There four millions of
tons of shipping navgated by 23o 600 men, and forming
nursery for the navy What had been the consequence
of having such body of men, navy which rode tr
umphant on the seas. Who could predict that three
months hence Europe would be in profound peace
Should they when they might have struggle for exist
ence break up the nursery for the royal navy AT all
periods such step would be most mpolitic then, it
altogether unsafe. He called on his noble friends,
the advocates OF this measure, TO show any
which made necessary for them 10 take this step this
year rather than the next why they should take this
plunge into gulf flom which return was absolutely i'm
The noble marquis had limited that if the measure
rejected certain consequences would result with respect
to himself and his colleagues If this ha! been meas
ure OF minor Importance he should have listened readily
TO the appeal OF his noble friend for he desired change
whatever in the government But when he found that
those for whose benefit it alleged that this
propounded declared they would receive no benefit
at all from it; when he knew that this measure i'm
medaely and greatly increase slavery and the slave
trade he said tins was not question which he could
make any compromise; and Englishman, and as a
peer OF Parliament he iet bound say tina, he opposed
the further progress of this bill
Earl Granville defended the bill and the Board of
Trade returns He contended that the whole merit the
measure lay IN the question whether could could
not compete successfully with foreigners in ship build
ing and ship nav gation He thought there doubt
but that could.
Lord Colchester moved, amendment, that the bill
be read that day six months. He supported the navga
ton laws because they were maured and long consid
cred system Tor the encouragement of British shipping
and of British The noble lord entered into a
variety of details 10 show that British shpowne and
British navigator could not compete with The foreigner
who paid lower wages, and who not subject 10 such
heavy taxation
The Duke of Argyle looked at the question from three
points OF viewthe abstract principles of free trade, the
intrinsic merits OF the navigation laws themselves, and
the political situation OF the country-and to the
conclusion OF supporting the bill.
The Earl OF Peterborough opposed the measure be.
cause, though might possibly in degree increase
the wealth OF the country it would greatly undermine
most essential and dearest national interests Noble
lords spoke frequently Of British naval supremacy but
there British naval supremacy the present mo-
ment lHear Should go TO war to- morrow, we
should have to fight for supremacy. This was not a
time TO make experiments that would peril the maritime
strength of the country The sole object of this measure
was to increase our wealth disregardfa of higher and
greater national considerations A policy pursued upon
nrsnr ,vl~ L. ~ = y