NAVIGATION LAWS. (Hansard, 17 June 1822)

The Earl of Liverpool
rose to move the second reading of the antient Commercial Statutes' Repeal bill, the Importation of Good's bill, and the Navigation act Amendment bill. He observed, that these three acts completed the revision of the Navigation law, and the statutes relative to foreign trade. The first bill, though it did not repeal all the ancient statutes relative to commerce, did repeal no less than 300 of them. This repeal, however, was not made by sweeping clauses: for each of the ancient acts was substantially recited or specially described. The bills before the House would rid the Statute book of many enactments now useless, and remove many difficulties with which the trade of the country was embarrassed. From the circumstance of so many statutes being 1120 grafted on our navigation laws, the legal questions connected with foreign trade had become a science, and persons got a livelihood—certainly a fair and honest one, but at the same time one far from being advantageous to the commerce of the country—by informing merchants what they could or could not do, according to law. The present bills repealed numerous statutes which had given rise to these difficulties. Under the system of regulations now brought forward, the departure was as little as possible from the old. The great object of the navigation act had been to give a preference to British shipping. Commercial navigation had been justly considered as the great nursery of our naval power, and therefore the policy of the country had always been, to hold out every encouragement to it, by restricting trade in foreign vessels. Their lordships were, however, aware that there had been exceptions to this policy. From the leading principle of our navigation laws, it followed that there ought to be no trade with the British colonies except in British ships, and no goods imported from any part of America, Asia, or Africa, except in British ships. This was accompanied by a second principle, which allowed all European countries to transmit goods to this country in their own ships. Considerable changes, however, having taken place in the political relations of the country, it had been found necessary occasionally to depart from the first of these principles. The first important infringement took place in 1786, when the American Intercourse act was passed. By that act, the United States were placed on the same footing as European states. This alteration was occasioned by the independence of the United States, after which the trade with America could never again be regulated on the narrow principle of a colonial trade. The same course of policy was now extended to South America, and the states in that continent might, like the United States, import goods in ships of their own. Thus a commercial intercourse would be opened with the independent parts of South America. With regard to Asia, Africa, and the colonial parts of America, the law would, generally speaking, remain unaltered, and goods could only be imported from those countries in British bottoms. Foreign ship might, however, bring goods, not for home consumption, but for exportation. They 1121 might also, under certain conditions, bring from countries in Europe articles not the produce or manufacture of those countries. The result of the whole of the arrangements was, that the principle of the navigation laws had been adhered to as closely as possible; keeping always in view the great object of rendering this country the entrepôt of the merchandize of the world, and extending our own export trade. With regard to exportation, it might be truly said to have no limits, except the means of payment possessed by foreigners. The limited state of those means was the real cause of the distress our manufactures experienced. That limitation operated as a serious check on trade. It was obvious that if adequate returns could be obtained from abroad, an unlimited extension might be given to our commerce. This consideration had induced the abandonment of those narrow and contracted notions on which many ancient commercial statutes had been founded. The doctrine was no longer maintained, that to limit the trade of other countries was advantageous to our own. Indeed, precisely the contrary was the truth. Any measure which tended to increase the wealth of foreign nations was calculated to produce an increase of our own. The increase of the trade of foreign countries offered the best security against the distress of our manufacturers. On these principles the bills had been introduced.

§ The Earl of Harewood
did not object to the principle stated by the noble earl as to freedom of commerce tending, by increasing the wealth of other countries, to augment our own, but thought, that to carry such a principle into full effect the means ought to be affoded to our own manufacturers of entering into competition with those of foreign countries; for instance, with regard to the woollen manufacture, the duty imposed upon foreign wool tended to increase the price of the manufactured article, so as to prevent it, in a great degree, from entering into that competition.

§ Earl Bathurst
called the attention of the House to the Colonial Trade bill, and the West Indian and American Trade bill. The noble earl described the state of the law by which the trade between the United States and the West Indies was at present regulated, and the departures which had been made from the principle 1122 of the navigation law with respect to colonial intercourse. As the law now stood, American ships could carry the produce of the United States to foreign colonies, and that produce could afterwards be introduced into the free ports in the West Indies. Thus the articles wanted reached our islands through a circuitous channel. The object of the present measures, therefore, was, to permit that trade to be carried on directly, which was now carried on indirectly. It was, however, proposed to lay such a duty on the produce of the United States, as would give a fair preference to the produce of our own American colonies.

The Marquis of Bute
said, that when measures were proposed which would give additional encouragement to the manufacture of sugar, it was to be feared that they might also increase the slave trade. He therefore wished some measure to be brought forward for the better registration of slaves. When an enactment for this object was proposed, it had been argued, that it was a matter which ought to be left to the colonies themselves. The legislatures of several of the colonies had indeed passed laws for the registration of slaves, but he doubted the efficiency of those acts. He was prepared to contend, that the parliament of the United Kingdom was competent to enact a general law for the registration of slaves. Such a law was strictly a measure of trade; and he never had heard the power of parliament to regulate the trade of the colonies disputed.