IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—Monday, April 30. The Navigation Laws.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 357, 20 September 1849, Page 2

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.— Monday, April 30. The Navigation Laws.

A great number of petitioni having been presented liy the Duke of Richmond, the Mdrquis of Londonderry, tlie Earl of Harrowb", Lord Stanley, and several other Peers, asjairut the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and one by the Marquis of Londonderry, from Manchester, signed by '148, m favour of the repeal. The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the second reading of the Navigation Bi'l. He said that he knew he had opposed to him on this occasion the feelings and prejudices of i hose who feared that the passing of this bill would be detrimental to the maintenance of that force upon which this country relied, and ought to rply, for the preservation of its maiitime power; and he would feel it incumbent an him to diiabusc thooe who entertained those feelings and prejudiced, and to show tn them tli.it this bill would have no such injurious rflVct a< tlit-y appiehcnihd. lie believed time many of their Loidships, and moit of those who petitioned the iloii<ic on this matter, n ere under the impression that the commerce of this country was clothoi

with a complete suit of protective armour ; but the Navigation Laws afforded to our commerce a garment of shreds and patchei, as incongruous and ragged as it was possible to conceive, and one that gave no real protection whatever. The noble Marquis traced the history of the Navigation Laws and the reciprocity tiealies, and contended that, by superior energy and enterprise, the British merchants and the British shipowners were able to compete successfully with all other nations in the world. A great itep towards free trade in shipping had been taken when this country departed from the rigid principles of the Navigation Laws, by enteiing into reciprocity treaties with foreign powers ; and the results of these treaties, as they affected Biitish tonnage, clearly showed that neither the British shipowner nor the British seaman had anything to fear from foreign competition. Our foreign fcuunage successfully competed, not only with the shipping of the United States, where, though timber was cheap, labour wai dear, but also with the shipping of the Baltic itatesi where both labour and timber were cheap and abundant. Trade being then no gainer by what remained of our Navigation Laws, and neither the navy nor the mercantile marine having anything to dread from ther total abolition, there were very cogent reasoni why they should be abolished without <Jeiay. The attitude of foreign powers with respect to the subject) and the wants and wishes of the colonies —particularly those of Canada, whose vital interests were involved in the issue of the bill — urged them to the immedi'ile removal of the restrictions winch still reru-iined a clog upon the trade and shipping of the country. He warned their Lord-hips not to d-lay till it was too late. The system could not much longer be sustained, bolster it upas they might. Let them now yield, before concession became useless. Should the House refuse to pass the bill, not only would the condition of the country, in regard to all its trading interests, not be better thin now, but it would be infinittly wori>e. He trusted, therefore, that their Loitlships would agree to the second reading of the measure. " The noble Lord opposite" (Lord Stanley) exclaimed Lord Lansdowne, in concluding his speech, 11 has announced that be is prepared for the rouse* quences of the rejectien of this ; and I aKo announce, on the part of the Government, that we too are prepared for the consequences of the rejection of ii.' 1 Lord Brougham said that in the course he was about to take on this qu< stion, he wai solely influenced by a regard to the highest interests of the country. He bad been, within a few hours, taunted with inconsistency in lefusing to place the crowning capital on the jiillar of Fiee Trade. Accustomed as he was to extraordinary evolutions, that taunt, coming fiom th quarter it did, was one that caused him the utmost astonishment. In fact, he gloried in that taunt. But his answer to H was, that the Navigation Laws had notbmg to da with Free Trsde, The noble and learned Lord proceeded to deal wilh the statistical returns prepared under the diiection of the Board of Tr.ide, and relied on by the advocatei of the bill as arguments in its favour, and demonstrated the unscrupulous manner in which these returns were " cooked ; " showing, in some instances, figures one hundred and fifty timei more than the true figures. The noble President of the Council talked ot this measure as a removal of fragnren's » hut the Navigation Laws were splendid frugtnenti, that tould not be treated with that contempt with which their Lordships were asked to tieat them. The nobLe Maiquis who moved the second reading bad advoided to touch upon the gist of the whole question —the object and policy of the Navigation Liw«, wh cb, through all their modifications, were preserved. Thai object and that policy were to encourage tbr formation of a meuantile navy as the only nire foundation for oui military navy. The noble and le-irn-ed Loid surveyed the question as it boie upon oui g*eat oloniai ship-building and conime<cuil inteie<t«, showing hrtt the repeal ot the Navigation Laws would work incalculable damage to these great and vital mleies s, and lie Wriimd their LorJships not to lay rude hands heedlessly upon them. This was no time for makmg so swerp.ng a change as that proposed. Tneir Lordships could not take the step the Government would induce them to take, because it was a step which, if ouce taken, they could not retrace. A shadowy threat of consequences had been held out by the Proid nt of the Council, and if this were a measure of minor impostance, that cons deration would have gie it weight wrth him (Lord Brougham), especially at the present critical tune; J.ut alter the fullest congelation he could give to the question, he felt compelled as an Englishman, as a peer in Pailiament, and at an honest man, to oppose ibe further piogress of tins bill. Earl Granvi le defended the bill, and ihe Board of Trade returns. On the motion of the Earl of Cnrliile, the debate was adjourned. The HoujO rose at a quarter past twelve o'clock.

Tuesday, May 1. Navigation Laws. — Adjourned Debate. Some pc itions having been presented against the Itepealot the Navigation Laws, The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Navigation Bill was resumed by the Earl of Oarlis'e, who urged their Lordships to agree to the bill, iilthoughhe admitted tint in recommending them to do so be run counter to sonne of his early i>reju lices and dispositions. Should this injure peril the continuance of our maiitime greatness, he and thoie who brought it forward would de erve to encounter, not only i efeat but ignominy. But his fiim conviction was that the tendency of the bill would be (o increase and create commerce, while commerce would piomtit'. our mercantile niuiine, which was the best pledge an I guarantee ot our naval greatness. He agread«ith Lord Ellenbcvough that wealth was not the sole good of a state ; but the wealth that this bill was calculated lo increase was tint species of wealth which wou'd promote the givatness ot the nation and secure the peace of the world. The noble E*rl pointed out in detail the injury that he alleged wai done to trade by the restiictions of these laws, and expressed his confident expectation that their repeal would stimulate exertion and lead to more economical management in the several branches of comnieice and enterprise connected with ship-building and ship-navigation. Such had been the result of eveiy abolition of monopoly yet tried, and nurli he had no doubt would be the result of the repeal of the navigation monopoly. Earl Nelson leltsurpiised that the advocates of this bill made to little account of the feelings of the country as expressed in the petitions against it presented to Parliament. He felt satisfied with tin* in that this measure would, if passed into a l,iw, prove most de. tiimental to the naval gieatness of the country. He cued the opinion of hia great unc c, and refuncd to the victories of Trafalgar and Copenhagen, to sho^r the vast importance, of our Navigation Liws in supplying and manning our fleets. He appealed to the right reverend Bench to assist in rejecting a bill, the opeiatiou of whijh would, if cairied, be to fostei and eucomage fchesiaV'-ttade. Lord Whai nc'iffj wa3 in favour of further rclaxat : om of the Navigation Lsw?, but he thought that object might have been better obtained by gniujj the Gov-

eminent a power of concession instead of that of retaliation. As he was in favour of the princ'ple of the bill, he was prepared to vote for the second reading. The Marquis of Londonderry opposed the bill. Earl Grey denied that the existing laws afforded any practical benefit to ship-owners. All the arguments that had been made use of by noble Lordi opposite had been urged before when Mr. Huskisson proposed his relaxations, and they had been all at that time completely confuted. The difficulty he (E,irl Grey) then found himself in was to discover substantial arguments against the measure with which to grapple. He con tended that the restrictions imposed upon trade by theie laws were capricious and absurd. These capricious restrictions upon our own shipping, and the shipping of foreigners, constituted the present Navigation Laws, and our shipping and commercial inter ests were deeply concerned in the removal of all such crippling regulations. The noble Earl proceeded to insist that the repeal of the Navigation Laws was essential for the prosperity of the colonies especially of Canada. He could not assent to tbe proposition that this question was entirely seperated from that of Free Trade ; and it was manifest that the people of Jamaica and the West Indies did not regard it. Having repealed the Corn Laws, in 184G, their Lordships were bound either to retracs their steps and restore protection to Canada, or to assist that colony in getting rid of the restrictions that formed a cloa; upon her commerce. She had now a free trade in corn, and, so long as that was continued, it was only fa|t to give her free trade in ships. He did not say that projection might be res'ored, but no distinct pro* position for its restoration had been submitted to Par« liament ; and, until it should be restored, everything should be done to compensate the colonies for that which was taken from them. At all events they could not be left as they were, if we wish to preseive the confidence and affections of the North American colo« nies. He believed that our North Ameiican colonists were sincerely attached to British connexion, but he was not prepared to say that their effection would be proof against the rejection of this bill. The noble Lord conc'uded by telling their Lordships to take warning from the past, and not to treat Canada as they had tieated those American colonies which had sepi crated themselves from the British Crown. The rejection °f 'his measure was represented as a proof of reaction, and of a return to the policy ot protection. He felt perfectly satisfied that a return to protection was impossible ; but he knew that much mischief might be produced by re-opening the question, and therefore he entreated their Lordships to agree to the second reading of the bill. The noble Earl's speech was of great length, and was not concluded until near half-past one o'clock. Lord Stanley oouldnot, at that period of the night, follow the noble liail through the numeroua topics of his diicursive speech. The question which the Housa had to decide was not whether they would judiciously amend, as tlity had frequently done before, but whether they would altogether abolish, laws that, for two hundred years, were looked on as the basis of our national greatness and of our naval power. To that question he would address himself. The noble Earl had designated tbe Navigation Laws as disgraceful statutes and the relics of h barbarous age ; but Mr. Huskisson, whose'disciple he professed to be, declared them to be regulations founded on the paramount duty of every state and the highest grounds of political necessity; and Adam Smith, whose disciple the noble Earl also was, was of opinion that, though these laws originated in national animosities, they hsd produced all the beneficial effects of laws founded in the deepest wisdom. Between these conflicting authorities he left their Lordships to decide. The noble Earl bad attempted to cast ridicule on the petitions prese ted on this question. But it was rcmaikable that all political cLsses — Whigs, Tories, Radicals, Protectioniits— aqivcd in ca'ling for the rejection of this measure. It was remarkable, 100, that there was not one large Fhipping- town in the kingdom that did not petition the r Lordships against the bill ; whilst there was not one consiih rahle shipping town that had petitioned in its favour. Then merchant alter merchant had been examined before their Lordships' commitee, and not one of these had any comphint to make of the grievancei alleged to be caired by thes<* laws. The benefit which the comumer would derive from the reduction of freights had been urged as a r ason for removing the navigation regulation; but lhe consumer would actually obtain no benefit from the tiifling reduction that could be effected. The case of Canada had been stiongly urg d ; and he confessed that, looking at Canada alo e, he considereJ it formed an exceptional case, and there were it ong grounds in favour of relaxation with respect to that colony, on account of the peculiar circumstances in which we had placed her. fhe noble Earl had boasted, on the au'hority of his friend?, that Canada waspeifectly loyal, and fi.led with off c ion for the mother country ; and, as an answer to that boast, Lord b'auley quoted a letter of the 14th March last, from the same loyil adviser of the Government in Canada, in which it was stated that a feeling in favour of annexation with the United State* was all but unanimous in Canada ; and in wh'di it waß likewise declared that no country like Great Britain could expect to retain colonies like Canada under a commeicial Free tiade policy. So much fcr the noble Earl's Canadian autliOiity. Trinidad had been represented as requiring the repeal of the Navigation Laws, but Trinidad had asked for no such thing, and the name of that colony had been most unfairly used to bolster up the bill then under consideration. Lord Stanley tv-ned his regards to the foreign aspect of the question, which he examined minutely. Theie were 80,000 shipwiights in our dockyards; should these be discouraged and driven to foreign yards, as would be the effect of this measure, an incalculable injury would thereby be inflicted on our maritiine*streugth. This was the measure which, without necessity, and on the recommendation of a dwindling majority in the House of Commons, many of whom voted against the will of their constituents, their Lordships were called on to sanction. The question of a. raying class against class had been raised, but it was not raised by their Lordships, who had no personal interests in the matttr—who had no nrrtive for their conduct but the benefit of the labouring classes. This meaiure might be cairied by a bare majority, obtained under pressure and extraordinary menaces ; but their Lordships deceived themselves if they supposed that the country would be satisfied to let the question rest there. Ho depply regretted that, while struggling for the honou and glory of the country, he should be chilled by the f. cling: «hut the illusirious Duke, who had so often led to victory, would stand aloof from this great constitutional fighr, or would throw his great influence into the rank- ot their opponents. Whatever might be the fate of this measure, the whole question of the policy that dictated it would be agaiu raised. Reaction had commenced, and nothing their Lordships could do would >jive a greater impetus to that reaction than the passing of this fatal measuie. The Marquis of Lamdowne emphatically denie 1 that he had used any menace ; hd limi uerely echoed the declaration made by Lord Stanley himself, that he was prep, rod lor the consequences of the rejection of

the bill. The noble Marquis replied to the general arguments metl in the debate, and at the close of his jcmarks their Lordships divided, when there appeared for the second reading of the billPresent , ..165 Proxies 68 173 Against it — Present .. 119 Proxies .. 44 163 Majority for Ministerial measure 10 The Home then roge at five o'clock on Wednesday morning, having just sat 12 hours.

Friday, May 4. writ of error in the case or william sm itu obrien and others. The Lord Chancellor, LorJ Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Lord Lyndburst took their seats at tea o clock. The Judges who were present on the preceding day also sat to assist their Lord-hips. The case for the appellants having been brought to a close. Tke Lord Chancellor (after consulting with the Judges) said : I have just been consulting the learned Judges, and I think it my duty to state to the House the result of the consultation, that your Lordships may decide what course you are to take. The learned Judges having heard the argument on the part of the plaintiffs in error, they are unanimously of opinion that the error cannot be maintained, and that the judgment of the Court below must be confirmed. That is also my owri opinion, and therefore there is no advantage in heaiing any further argument. I do not know what course counsel may, however, think lit to pursue. Lord Lyndhurst : lam entirely of the same opinion. Lord Brougham : I also entirely agree. Lord Campbell: am quite of the same opinion. The Lord Chancellor: The question put to the Judges is, whether thejplaintiffs in error have maintained the error as assigned, and the learned Judges ore of opinion that they have not. The Judges here retired, and after a ehort absence returned into the House. Lord Chief Justice Wilde said that he was authorised by the lesrned Judges, in answer to the question which had^been put to them, to say that they were of opinion that the plaintiffs had not maintained the errori assigned. The learned Judge then read from a paper the opinion of the Judges upon the various points urged by the learned counsel at the bar. The Lord Chancellor then laid that their Lordshipi having heard the opinion of the learned Judges, and the reason why they had formed that opinion, would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the judgement of the Court below mutt be confirmed, and he would therefore move to that effect. Lord Lyndhurst, Brougham, and Campbell alio concurred ; and the question having been put was carried unanimously. The House then adjourned.

Thursday, May 3, writ or error in the case of william smith obrien and oihgks. Thuriday being the day fixed to hear the arguments in support of the writ of error brought by Mr. Smith OBrien to overturn the verdict of the Jury, and the sentence of the Judge who tried Mr. Smith OBrien, and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland in respect to that trial, the Lord Chancellor took his seat in front of the wooliack at ten o'clock. Ths following Judget were also present : — Lord Chief Justice Wylde, Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice Pattcson, Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Buron Rolfe, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr, Justice Eile, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Kenyon, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the Earl of Wicklow, and the Bishop of Mancheiter were also present. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Napier (of the Irish Bai), Q.C,, and Sir Coleman O'Loghlen, appeared for the appellants. The Attorney-General for England, the AttorneyGeneral for Ireland, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Urleiby, appealed for the Crown. Sir F. Kelly opened the case for the appellants, but the arguments were strictly technical, and therefore devoid of general interest.