[54] Mr. Lefevre, of the Board of Trade, said he did not know the reason of this; but as a matter of fact, Venice, Spain, France, and the Hanseatic League had Navigation Laws _before_ we had, and would not have our goods _except in their own ships_. So necessity, not wisdom, compelled us to make this allowance. CHAPTER V. Progress of the changes in the Navigation Laws—Reciprocity Treaties—Austria, July 1838—Zollverein States, August 1841—Russia, 1843—Various anomalies, &c., then in existence—Curious effects of Registry Laws, as regarded individuals or corporate bodies—Ship _Equador_—Decision of the Queen’s Bench, December 1846—Further details: owner to reside in the United Kingdom—Naturalisation of goods brought to Europe—Waste of capital caused thereby; and obstructions to trade—Story of the cochineal—But the Navigation Laws not always to blame—Special views of the Canadians—Montreal, its shipping and trade—Navigation of the St. Lawrence—Free-trade with the United States desired by the farmers of Canada—Negotiations proposed—Canadians urge the abolition of Protection—Views of Western Canada—Canadians, really, only for partial Free-trade—Improvements of their internal navigation—Welland Canal—Cost of freight the real question—Loss to Canada by New York line—General summary of results as to Canada—West Indians for Free-trade as well as Canadians—Divergent views of capitalists at home—Liverpool and Manchester opposed. [Sidenote: Progress of the changes in the Navigation Laws.] [Sidenote: Reciprocity Treaties.] [Sidenote: Austria, July 1838.]