LORD STANLEYsaid, in reference to the Bill for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, he would lay upon the table those Amendments which it was his intention to propose when the Bill went into Committee on Monday next. He had no intention, of course, now to enter into a discussion as to the precise nature of those amendments; but he thought it would be convenient to their Lordships if he stated, in a few words, the course which he proposed to take. Their Lordships having decided, by a small majority, that they would enter into a consideration of the details of the measure for the amendment of the law, the object of which was the encouragement of British navigation and commerce, he had felt it to he his duty to examine and consult with others whose opinions on the subject were better than his own, as to whether it was possible for them to assent to any and what provisions of the proposed Bill; and, on the other hand, to consider what modifications could be introduced into the existing law, which would not he inconsistent with the maintenance of that law, nor opposed to the interests of the navigation of this country, while at the same time they would be so framed as to afford relief to British commerce. He must confess, on looking at these clauses, it appeared to him that the amendments which he proposed to move were of such a nature as altogether to alter the frame of the existing Bill. The first principle to which he would direct their attention was this—whereas the Bill of the Government proceeded on a principle of absolutely destroying the existing navigation laws, and then reenacting a small portion of them, and, further, of acting upon a principle of retaliation in the case of foreign countries which refused to deal with us on terms of reciprocity, by enabling Her Majesty to impose upon them such restrictions and prohibitions as would countervail the disadvantages to which British trade or navigation was subjected by the laws of 636 those countries: now, his principle was exactly opposite—namely, he would maintain the principle of the existing laws; but he would provide that in certain cases in which they received from foreign Powers an intimation of their desire to trade with us on terms of reciprocity, Her Majesty should be authorised to dispense with certain provisions of the Bill, in favour of those nations that would meet them in a reciprocal spirit. He should, therefore, have to propose the rejection of all the repealing provisions contained in the first and second clauses of the Bill. The principle of his amendments to which be had adverted, which he intended to submit, must, he thought, either by its adoption or rejection, influence materially their further proceedings in respect to the Bill. He would therefore take the earliest opportunity of bringing the question fairly before the House. He would propose, that all, after the word "that" in the first clause of the Bill, should be omitted, and that words should be inserted, carrying into effect the principle to which he had adverted—namely, that of enabling Her Majesty, in cases of reciprocity proposed or granted, to dispense with or relax the existing law. The modifications of the existing law which he proposed to introduce, he would immediately afterwards, if he were successful in carrying that Motion, submit to their Lordships' consideration. But the question of repealing these laws, which would be raised upon the consideration of the second clause, would be mainly determined by their adoption or rejection of the principle he proposed to lay down. He would propose to introduce such modifications as would in the first place have reference to their coasting trade, or that which related to Europe; and, in the next, to the more extended trade with Asia, Africa, and America. He proposed to maintain inviolate the support that was at present given to the British shipbuilding establishments, by refusing a register to foreign ships. And he proposed to maintain the apprenticeship system in their coasting trade. In their intercourse with their colonial possessions he proposed to maintain the principle of the existing law, subject to such relaxations as the responsible advisers of Her Majesty might think fit to grant in certain cases; these cases to be specified in the Bill.
§ EARL GREYsaid, it would be convenient for the House to know whether the amendments of the noble Lord would be such as to inform them clearly what were 637 the precise restrictions upon their own shipping, quite irrespective of foreign nations. He meant to say that a large proportion of the restrictions in the existing navigation laws had nothing whatever to do with reciprocity or non-reciprocity. He hoped that the noble Lord would put his amendments in such a shape as would enable the House clearly to understand what was the state of the law which he meant permanently to maintain, what restrictions he intended to continue, what to repeal?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that when the noble Earl came to read the amendments, he hoped he would be able to understand them. In answer to a question of the Marquess of Lansdowne, his Lordship said he did not consider it was an established practice, or that a noble Lord was bound to give any notice whatever of his amendments. [Earl GREY: Hear, hear!] He was not disposed to alter his opinion in consequence of the significant cheer with which the noble Earl had condescended to honour his observations. He repeated he did not think it necessary to give notice of such amendments as he intended to propose when a measure to alter the law in regard to the most important interests of the country was proposed, and was only carried upon a second reading by a majority of ten proxies. It was not, he thought, a very unreasonable time for a person wholly unconnected with the Government to take a day to consult with those parties whose interests were all at stake as to what modifications might be safely introduced into a measure of this character; he did not think that the noble Marquess could therefore taunt them with any undue delay. On the contrary, he feared it might be possible that many persons whose interests were deeply involved, might not have a sufficient opportunity to consider the effect of the alterations now proposed in a law which had so long been considered the main support of the British mariner.