NAVI G, 
Navigation Laws. In examining the reafon of com¬ 
merce’s palling fucceffively from the Venetians, Genoefe, 
and Hans-towns, to the Portuguel'e and Spaniards, and 
from thefe again to the Englilh and Dutch, it may beefta- 
bliflied as a maxim, that the relation between commerce 
and navigation, or, if we may be allowed to fay it, their 
union, is fo intimate, that the fall of the one inevitably 
draws after it the other: and that they will always either 
flourilh or decline together. Hence fo many laws, ordi¬ 
nances, ftatutes, See. for its regulation ; and hence, par¬ 
ticularly, that celebrated a(l of navigation, which an emi¬ 
nent foreign author calls the “ Palladium, or tutelar 
deity, of the commerce of England which is too im¬ 
portant not to be here mentioned: as it is the Handing 
rule, not only of the Englifh among themfelves, but all'o 
of other nations with whom they traffic. 
Navigation-A Bs are thofe ftatutes which have been 
palled at different times by the legiflature of this country, 
for the proteflion and extenlion of navigation. 
But, by the Navigation-Aft, particularly and empha¬ 
tically fo called, is meant the ftatute 12 Charles II. c. 18. 
entitled “ An Aft for the Encouraging and Increaling of 
Shipping and Navigation.” All fubfequent laws on this 
fubjefl are but comments on this, modifying or ex¬ 
plaining its different regulations, but leaving untouched 
its general and fundamental principles. 
Before we proceed to examine the foundnefs of the 
principles on which the navigation-afts are grounded; 
the neceffity or expediency of their firll enaflment; the 
immediate confequences which refulted from them ; the 
permanent benefits which they are faid to have bellowed 
on this country ; and the policy of their continuance on 
the llatute-book; it may be proper to give a brief and 
rapid Iketch of thei^hiftory. 
The firll afl, which had avowedly and exclufively for 
its objefl the augmentation ofthe navy of England, was 
paffed in the reign of Richard II. By the Hat. 5 Rd. II. c. 3. 
it was enafted that none but the king’s liege people lhould 
fhip any merchandife out of, or into, the realm, and only 
in Ihips of the king's liegeance, on pain of forfeiture. 
This ftatute was palled at a time when the navy was 
greatly diminiffied ; but its effefls do not appear to have 
anfwered the expefiations of the legiflature ; for by the 
6 Rd. II. c. 8. the former ftatute was greatly modified, 
the merchants being,obliged to give Englilh Ihips the pre¬ 
ference only in cafe they were able and fufficient. In 
1440, the decline of the Engiifli navy was again com¬ 
plained of; and the commons propofed the enactment of 
a law of fimilar import and force with that of 5 Rd. II. 
c. 3. but it was rejefted by Henry VI. In the reign of 
Henry VII. however, two afts were palled for the en¬ 
couragement and proteflion of Englilh Ihipping, viz. 
1 Hen. VII. c. 8. (1485.) and 4 Hen. VII. c. 10. (1489.) 
Henry VIII. alfo paffed a law for the fame purpofe in 1541. 
32 Hen.. VIII. c. 14. In Elizabeth’s reign (1562), the 
carriage by fea of corn, wine, and other articles, and the 
taking, curing, and carrying by fea, of fifli, were regu¬ 
lated with a view “ to the maintenance and increafe of 
the navy.” And, in 1593, the fame fovereign granted 
particular privileges in cafes where goods were carried 
in Englilh veffels. It appears from Rymer’s Fcedera, 
(xvii. 414.) that James I. in the commillion of enquiry 
which he iffued, exprefsly direfted the attention of the 
commiffioners to the fame fubjeft. Thefe laws, however, 
were either evaded or relaxed, for Charles I. found it 
neceffary to revife and confirm them. 
We art now arrived at that ftatute, which is juftly re¬ 
garded as the foundation of the navigation-aft of Cha. II. 
This ftatute was palled by the commonwealth-parliament 
on the 9th of October, 1651. In the year preceding, in¬ 
deed, the fame parliament had Iketched a faint and rude 
outline of the navigation-aft 5 the fugar-iflands Hill ad¬ 
hering to Cha. II. the ftatute of 1650 prohibited all Ihips 
of foreign nations from trading with any Englilh plan¬ 
tations without licenfe from the council of ftate. The 
V T I O N. 635 
ftatute of 1651 arofe partly from the fame caufe, and 
partly from the circumltance that the Englilh merchants 
ufed to freight Dutch Ihips to bring home merchandife 
from America and the Weft Indies, as they could be had 
at a lower rate of freight than native Ihips. Til! this afl 
paffed, it appears, that, notwithftanding the exillence of 
former unrepealed afls for the protection and increafe of 
Engiifli Ihipping, all nations in amity with England actually 
did import into England what commodities they pleafed-, 
and in what Ihips they pleafed ; and, as the Dutch, at that 
period, were the principal carriers of Europe, moil ofthe 
merchandife imported into this country was imported by 
them. The law of 1651 enafted, that no commodities 
(colonial or of any other defeription) lhould be imported 
into England, unlefs in veffels folely owned, and com¬ 
manded, and principally manned, by Englilh fubjefls 3 
and, where the commodities were foreign, unlefs they 
were entirely conveyed in fuch veffels from the place 
where the commodities grew, or to which they were 
ul'ually, in the firll inftance, tranfported by fea. There 
were fome peculiar exceptions, and one grand and general 
one; viz. goods originally produced in, or firll tranfported 
by fea from, an European ftate, might be imported thence 
into England, in veffels owned by the fubjefls of that 
ftate. The title of this afl was fuited to the defign which 
it had in view ; it was, “ Goods from foreign parts, by 
whom to be imported (Scobeil’s Afls, 1651.C.22. p. 132.) 
and the confequence was, that the Dutch were cut off 
from the carrying-trade with our colonies, and their im¬ 
portation of fifli into this country was laid under great 
rellriflions and heavy burdens. 
Before the paffingof this law, great jealoufy exilted, and 
frequent difputes had taken place, between this country 
and Holland; thefe were greatly increafed and embittered 
by it. Afling in conformity with it, our Ihips of war in¬ 
filled on their right to fearch Dutch veffels; and in feveral 
inftances made prizes of them, where they found that 
they contravened the afl. The war which broke out in 
the fubfequent year, and which was carried on with great 
rancour and obllinacy, arofe, partly at leaft, from the 
navigation-afl of 1651. 
The reftoration-parliament were fo clearly and ftrongly 
convinced of the neceffity and benefit of the navigation- 
afl, that they fanflioned it, firll in 1660, and afterwards 
in 1662; the firll of thefe ftatutes, 12 Charles II. c. 18. 
(as has been already obferved,) is that which is emphati¬ 
cally called the navigation-aB; and its principal difpo- 
fitions are thus fummed up by Adam Smith, Wealth of 
Nations, ii. 192. 
Firll. All Ihips, of which the owners, mailers, and 
three-fourths of the mariners, are not Britilh fubjefls, are 
prohibited, under pain of forfeiting fhip and cargo, from 
trading to the Britilh fettlements and plantations, or from 
being employed in the coafting-trade of Great Britain. 
Secondly. A great variety of the moll bulky articles 
of importation can be brought into Great Britain only, 
either in fuch Ihips as are above deferibed, or in Ihips of 
the country where thole goods are produced, and of 
which the owners, mailers, and three-fourths of the mari¬ 
ners, are of that particular country ; and, when imported 
even in Ihips of this latter kind, they are fubjefl to double 
alien’s duty. If imported in Ihips of any other country, 
the penalty is forfeiture of Ihips and goods. 
Thirdly. A great variety of the moft bulky articles 
of importation are.prohibited from being imported, even 
in Britilh Ihips, from any country but that in which they 
are produced, under pain of forfeiting fhip and cargo. 
Fourthly. Salt fith of all kinds, whale-fins, whalebone, 
oil and blubber, not caught by and cured on-board 
Britilh veffels, when imported into Great Britain, are 
fubjeft to double alien's duty. 
This aft differed from that of 1651 in its fecond dr¬ 
afting claufe, which did not permit any but Englilh fub¬ 
jefls to be faflors or agents in Englilh colonies. Before 
this time the Dutch were the principal faflors or agents 
