and that, instead of affording him any real protection, they were detrimental to his best interests. He further showed that the Navigation Laws were unfavourable to the development of the warehousing system; and, afterwards, dwelt at great length on the colonial part of the question and on the claims of Canada; asserting, also, that we could only perpetuate the connection between the mother-country and the North American colonies by engaging the confidence and participating in the affections of their people. The Navigation Laws were, he remarked, among the proximate causes of the revolutionary struggle which had ended in the independence of the United States. He concluded with an impressive appeal to the House not to peril the interests of the country by rejecting the Bill.
Lord Stanley.
Admits need of modifications.
Lord Stanley,[1] on the second night of the debate,
rose at a quarter-past one o'clock, to answer Earl
Grey, then Colonial Minister. After alluding to the
recent Free-trade policy, with which this question
was not connected, his Lordship asked whether they
were prepared to abolish a system which, for two
centuries at least, had formed the basis of our national
greatness and the foundation of our naval strength.
He had no objection to the modifications the Navigation
Laws had undergone, nor might he object to
some further modifications now. But it was not on
the modification of these laws that the House had
now to decide, but upon the momentous question of
their entire abolition. Were they prepared for such
- ↑ The late (1875) Earl of Derby had been called up to the House of Peers during his father's life, and sat as Lord Stanley. His speech was also published by Ridgway.
