The Press.
London, England, 1856-11-29 00:00:00

MR. COBDEN ON MARITIME LAW.

A LETTER from Mr. Cobden, M.P., to Mr. Baxley,
was read at a late meeting of the directors of the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Cobden
asserts that Mr. 3farcy's remarks upon the Paris
declaration against privateering, and his offer to carry
out, the principle fully exempting private property on
the ocean from seizure by Government-armed
cruisers, as well as by privateers, has not attracted
the notice it deserves from our commercial country.
Mr. Cobden, then, in order to show the necessity of
our accepting Mr. Marcy's proposal, put the case of
a war with France, or the United States :
We will suppose—and it is no great stretch f the imagi-
nation, after all that diplomacy his achieved during the lest
three years—that we are at war with France. I remember
hearing the late Mr. Samuel Gurney state, in the presence
of the Prime Minister of the time, as the result of careful
inquiry, that the amount of British property in ships and
cargoes afloat averaged from K 1,000,0001. to 100,000,0001.
sterling. It would be a liberal estimate to put down the
amount owned by France at from 20.000,0001.t0 30.000,00 W.
We should thus have nearly four times as mach private pro-
perty exposed to the depredations of Government cruisers as
our enemy. But under the new maritime code, which admits
the competition of neutrals, it may fairly be questioned

1135

whether a merchant ship under either of the belligerent
flags would long continue to find it profitable to keep the
sea. Railroads, which transmit the heaviest commodities
500 miles with little detriment to their exchangeable value,
have virtually put an end to blockades. France, in case of
war, could use the ports of Belgium, Holland, or Germany,
through which channels her commerce, even with England,
might be carried on in neutrals; for, once on board an
American or Dutch ship, French exports or imports would
be safe from molestation. The same applies to British
commodities, whether imported raw materials or exported
manufactures; they would be liable to seizure only when
on board a British vessel. Now, I ask, would it be pos-
sible fur French and English ships and cargoes, which
would be subject to a charge of ten or twenty per cent., for
assurance against risk of capture, to compete with the
neutral flags which would be free from any such burden?
And bear in mind that our loss would be fourfold that of
ur enemy, owing to the larger amount of our tonnage ex-
posed to this unequal competition.
Or, let us suppose ourselves at war with the United
States. It may be estimated that the value of American
property afloat on salt water (a large part of their naviga-
tion is upon the interior lakes and rivers) does not exceed
the half of ours. Unless their late proposal were previously
adopted, the old system of privateering would be in force
on both sides, to which we should offer two-thirds of the
prey to their one-third. But the rights of neutrals which
were proclaimed at the Paris Congress would admit all the
European flags to bring and carry to and from England
and America the produce of both countries without risk of
capture during the 'var.
Again, I would ask—could a vessel bearing the British
flag keep the sea under these circumstances, with 501) or
1,000 armed American vessels cruising against our com-
merce? It is clear that nobody would charter an English
vessel, and pay a heavy insurance against capture, when a
neutral ship could be had free from any such charge. The
practical effect, then, of the alterations made in our mari-
time law at the Paris Conferences, if we go no further,
would be, in case of war with a naval power, to transfer
the carrying trade even of our own ports to neutral bot-
toms. It is then our interest especially, and beyond all
other countries, to go forward in the path to which the
Americans have invited us.
Mr. Cobden concludes :

It is impossible to foresee all the consequences of inch
a revolution in the rules of war. It is, I believe, the first
time in the annals of the world that the powers of bellige-
rents will be restrained and defined in the interest of indi-
viduals by written international law. Who can tell in what
other direction the precedent may be followed? Wars
will henceforward partake more of the character of duels
between Governments than of the old contests of nations.
Private citizens will cease to be held responsible, or liable
to injury, unless they become participators in the strife.
There will no longer be plunder. and prize money to add
the stimulus of cupidity to the passions of hatred and
revenge; and we shall have one pretence less kr con•
stantly increasing the burden of war navies in proportion
to the growth of foreign commerce, on the plea of protect.
ing our mercantile marine. These are some of the obvious
consequences of this proposed innovation upon the tradi-
tions and precedents of the last century.

THE REDUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AND INCOME
TAX to 7d. in the pound was considered at a public
meeting, held on Monday night, at the London
Tavern. Sir James Duke presided. Mr. Alderman
Sidney proposed the following resolution :
That the present enormous charge of lfid. in the pound
levied on incomes is, from the mode of its assessment,
most oppressive and unjust ; and, as the understanding at
the time of passing the acts of Parliament by which th•
tax was increased was that they were to continue in
force for one year after the termination of the war, and
no longer, this meeting is of opinion that those acts of
Parliament ought to be repealed from and after the Bth of
April next.

He then gave a sketch of the history of the modern
income tax :
At the termination of the war in 1416 the income tax
was so strongly felt to be oppressive that the Government
of that day recommended its entire repeal, and from the
year 1816 to the year 1842, though we had various Ad-
ministrations, not one of them had thought it right or
expedient to lay anything upon the shoulders of the people
in the shape of property or income tax. In 1'42 Sir R.
Peel proposed to reimpose an income tax. Sir Robert
defended the measure, not upon the ground of the justice
of the tax, because he confessed it was unequal in its
pressure and in its operation ; but he told Parliament that
it was only for a temporary purpose. A tax of 7.1. in the
pound was then imposed for three years, but in 1845, in-
stead of keeping his word, Sir Robert Peel found further
necessities for continuing the tax. In 1445 the tax was
continued, but many other duties were taken off, the tariff
was lightened, and the country appeared satisfied with the
tax three years more. In 1848 there was another Ministry
in office, and Sir Charles Wood, who was then the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, admired the working of the
ncome tax so much that he modestly proposed to double
it. The consequence was that meetings were held through-
out the conntry, protests were made, petitions were sent.
to Parliament, and in the end Sir Charles withdrew his
proposition, and simply proposed the continuance of the
tax for another year at 7d. In IA-19 Parliament consented
to swallow the tax for three more years, and in 1852 Mr.
Gladstone endeavoured to make its working more equal,
and showed that it. could be repealed altogether in 1860,
when the long annuities fell in. We bad thus had the
tax for fourteen years, and we were to have it by statute
for four years longer.

The tax as et present levied was unjust and op
sivc, and unequal in its operation. The a