§ On the Motion of MR. LABOUCHERE, the Navigation Bill was read a first time.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he had intended to have proposed that the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for that day fortnight, as he conceived that there would be abundant time in the interim for the country to consider a measure that did not materially differ from the Bill of last year; but as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) that it would be inconvenient for him to attend that day, he begged to move that the second reading of the Bill be fixed for Monday, the 5th of March.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOcomplained that no sufficient reason had been assigned for such a long postponement of the Bill.
§ MR. HERRIESsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had told them the other night, that it was intended to lay certain papers on the table connected with this subject; and if such were the case, as he hoped it was, the postponement suggested was surely not too much to ask for. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) would not be induced by any pressure from behind to alter his resolution.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he did not think that the postponement from Friday to Monday was a matter of any very great importance.
§ MR. WAWNwished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to state what concessions he was disposed to make to the shipping interests of 761 this country, in the event of the navigation Jaws being repealed?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be time enough to state what he was prepared to do upon that subject when the second reading of the Bill came on.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOasked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) when the papers promised by the noble Lord, which were alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) would be laid upon the table of the House; as they would be enabled to judge, by a perusal of them, whether the postponement of the question was made for the purpose of giving time for their presentation and examination, or merely to suit the convenience of an individual?
§ MR. HERRIESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was quite distinct in the reply he had already given. It was not on account of the papers that the question was postponed, but in order that the opponents of the measure might have time to consider the Bill founded upon resolutions that had been permitted to be passed without discussion or delay.
§ MR. HUMEhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer the question put by his hon. Friend (Mr. Wawn). It would be well that the country should know, for instance, whether the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to take off the duty on timber, so as to put the British shipbuilder on the same footing as the foreigner.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that such a course would be very inconvenient. The Government would state what they were prepared to do when the discussion took place.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that with regard to the papers referred to, it was the intention of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to lay them on the table of the House almost immediately.