Accordingly Lord Stanley on the 18th May gave notice that he intended to propose the rejection of all the repealing clauses, i.e. the first and second, and, in point of fact, make the principle of the Bill one of conditional legislation. He proposed, farther, to enable British ships to bring the produce of Asia, Africa, and America indirectly, and to modify in the same spirit the clauses relating to the European trade. It should be remarked that the alarming news of an extensive rebellion in Canada had reached England since the day of the second reading, and a growing desire was felt that this great question of repeal should be finally settled one way or the other.
Proceedings and debate in committee.
Lord Stanley's amendment.
In committee on the Bill (21st May), Lord Stanley
brought forward his amendment, Lord Wharncliffe
having given notice of one of the same or nearly
similar tendency. The object of Lord Wharncliffe's[1]
amendment was that, until her Majesty should be
fully satisfied that foreign countries would grant
full reciprocity and commerce to this country, her
Majesty should have no power to abrogate or repeal
the Navigation Laws, so far as they affected the
ships and commerce of those countries. Lord Stanley's
aimed at the same object. His Lordship said
the distinction between his measure and that of the
Government assumed this shape. Should we proceed
to repeal, and then to re-enact a small portion, yet a
portion, of the Navigation Laws which was the most
burdensome to the British owner and the least
advantageous to British commerce? or should the
repeal be made conditional, by an enabling clause
which conferred on the Queen the requisite power,
- ↑ It occupies a whole column of 'Hansard.'
