to run that risk, which he for one feared must take place if the measure were carried. It was a great interest to tamper with, and involved not only capital and industry, but the national defences.
Mr Gladstone.
Burdens to be removed from Shipowners.
The debate was adjourned to the 13th of March,
when it was resumed by Mr. Gladstone, with his
usual ability, in an elaborate speech. He supported
the second reading of the Bill, as furnishing the only
opportunity of inducing the House to agree to a
change in the Navigation Laws. He denied that this
change would be the destruction of the shipping interests,
and thought it was a fitting time for effecting
numerous alterations. Mr. Gladstone, however, differed
from many who supported the measure. His
doctrine was still that they should not abandon the
path of experience. In his opinion, it was only on
principles analogous to those of Mr. Huskisson that
we could safely depart from the system of navigation
we had so long pursued, interwoven as this had
been, for centuries, with our national policy. There
were several demands the shipowner might fairly
make upon the Legislature when about to be deprived
of protection. He was entitled to the removal of
every peculiar burden by which he was now hampered.
If we exposed him to unrestricted competition
with foreigners, we should give him a drawback,
or a remission of the duties on the timber he required
for the construction of his ships. He should also be
relieved from the restraint with respect to the manning
of his ships. There was another compensation
to which the shipowner was entitled. By repealing
the Navigation Laws, he would have to undergo competition
from the Baltic, sharp as far as it went, and
