The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-30 00:00:00

CL. 18.

The states of the union propose for the protection
of the interests of the union, and at their joint charge,
to nominate consuls in foreign ports.

CL. 19.

In respect to the measures to be adopted by the
states of the union, regarding neutrality, quarantine
regulations, protection in cases of vessels stranded,
&c., the laws to be observed thereby shall be reserved
for consideration.
Berlin, March 27, 1847.

THE SYSTEM OF DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES,
AB CONTAINED IN A PROJECT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF
A GERMAN UNION FOR NAVIGATION AND TRADE, SUB-
MITTED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF SEVERAL OF THE
NORTH SEA STATES OF GERMANY.

The confused and antiquated system of prohibitory
import regulations adopted by England, and
usually comprised under the " Navigation Laws,"
has, in the course of the present century,
been imitated by several other nations. These
nations hoped, by introducing similar laws,
to attain an equal degree of commercial power, or at
least, by adopting a system of retaliation, to put a
stop to England's usurpations. It was, however,
considered necessary in some measure to yield to the
growing knowledge of the subject which prevailed,
and which was decidedly opposed to all prohibitive
systems; and differential duties were therefore sub-
stituted for prohibitions. The importation of the
products of certain countries in foreign ships was
not actually forbidden, but it was rendered difficult
anddut.es. almost impossible by the imposition of higher
These navigation-laws of modern invention
have been introduced successively into France, the
Netherlands,Sj having realised
Portugal, and Belgium, without,
however, as y
grealised the end proposed ; for
these countries have not obtained more favourable
En
terms for their ships in
hgla.nd or in other foreign
countries, nor is their shipping interest in a very
flourishing condition. Yet ipPlnotwithstanding this, there
is in Germany a growing clamour for
daily
introduc-
tion of similar measures, and
a increasing
navigation-
laws.
first in
v
desire that Germany also should have e i
laws. The views expressed and developed,cmaner
the public journals and pamphlets of l
afterwards in the debates of the Chambers andyin and
counsels of influential statesmen, could not fail to
.xercise an influence over the Government authori-
ties, and the memorial of April, 1845, from the
Prussian Department of Trade, made public by
means of the press, may be considered as compris•
-
ing those views of the subject which are most
likely to prevail when the matter comes to be taken
into ultimate consideration, Several projects, more
or less in accordance with these views, have since
then been debated, without being any nearer their
execution. The question has, however assumed a
more definite form by being embodied in the sketch
of a treaty, which, divided into paragraphs, entitled,
" Proposals for the formation of a Union for German
Navigation and Trade" (Vorschlage fur die Einrichtung
eines Deutschen Schufffahrts-und ilandels-Vereins),

has been laid before the Governments of Hanover,
Oldenburgh, Bremen, and Hamburgh, for confiden-
tial preliminary discussion. As in the other state.,
the :result of these discussions seems to have been
generally in favour of the project, it behoves us the
more clearly to develope and explain the prepondera-
ting reasons which in our case may lead to a different
result. We must enter into details—we must consider
our relations to every foreign country in particular ;
nay, we must dwell upon the statistics of various articles
of commerce, even at the risk of rendering the
general survey of the question more difficult by the
minuteness of our inquiries. It will no longer suffice
simply to indicate the danger with which the destruc-
tion of commercial liberty threatens the sea port trade
of Germany ; least of all will this suffice, in opposition
to a projected treaty, which adopts the principle of
commercial freedom as its starting point, and as its goal.
The projected treaty proposes that the German
states shall not only mutually bestow equal rights
upon the shipping and the produce of their respective
states, but that they shall grant the same rights to
the ships and produce of foreign countries ; but with
this reservation, that should the foreign states not
adopt an equally liberal system, measures of retaliation
must or may be adopted against them in German
ports.
Now, as by the carrying out of the first and most
important principle here laid down, in point of fact
nothing would be altered in the actually existing re-
lations, the true nature of the proposed change must
be sought for in the additional reservation, the execu-
tion of which would be opposed to the system of com-
mercial freedom. Further, as it clearly follows from
the first proposition, in connexion with the said re-
servation, that when countries treating us unfavour-
ably shall desist from so doing, Germany shall like-
wise desist from her measures of retaliation against
them, it is evident that to establish commercial free-
dom as the basis of Germany's relations with foreign
countries is the ultimate object of the treaty. But as
long as this object is not attained the proposed system
will in its operation act, not in accordance with, but in
opposition to, commercial freedom.
Herein lies the danger—this is the main substance
of the question, to show the doubtful character of
which we have entered into the following explana-
tions. The louder and more unanimously public opi-
nion in a great part of Germany (if we are to con•
sider certain journals as its true organs) pronounces
itself in favour of measures such as those alluded to,
the greater claims has our report for a just degree
of attention and an impartial examination. For pre-
cisely in the one point most important to commerce
does the projected treaty coincide with the various
other schemes that have been propounded ; and this
point we shall also here designate by the sufficiently
significative, though not quite correct title, " A Com-
mon Navigation Act for all Germany."
This title hardly requires explanation; it means a
general system of laws and treaties relative to the
footing on which ships and their cargoes shall be
placed in German ports, but only so far as relates to
their admission, or rather to the duties to be im-
posed. But this system is not to be copied from the
English ; like that of France, Portugal, and Belgium,
it is to be a protective not a prohibitive system. But
already the observation forces itself upon us, that the
system is nevertheless one of commercial restriction ;
and in order to avoid all misunderstanding, we beg to
be allowed to preface our inquiry—which in its
tendency will be thoroughly practical—with a short
and seemingly more theoretical definition of the views
contained therein.

Commerce will open the safest channels for itself
when allowed its free choice; it will be most pros-
perous when left undisturbed to pursue its natural
course. To such freedom of trade a moderate duty
is by no means opposed, for without imposing any
restraint upon commerce, the latter seems merely to
lighten the burden of direct taxes for the tax-
payer. But a system which goes beyond this,
which, besides the financial object, has a view to the
interests of industry ; which not only aims at filling
the coffers of the State, but endeavours to direct
trade ; which forces the merchant to choose one
market instead of another ; which obliges the im-
porter to freight one ship in preference to another,
and induces the consumer to purchase 'one class of
goods instead of another ;--such a system is one of
commercial restriction, and like all other coercion, it
weighs heavily upon those immediately concerned,
and acts prejudicially against the development of the
general interest ; those not so immediately con-
cerned, and who do not at first feel the pressure
of the burden, do not, however, escape it. In
general, a minority of the citizens of a state profit
by burdens imposed upon the majority. The
smaller the comparative number of the former, the
greater and more evident will be the dispropor-
tion. To protect the small number of persons inte-
rested in maritime trade, the whole mass of consumers
must pay the higher duty as well as the higher price ;
to favour a small number of shipowners, merchants
must submit to pay higher freights ; for the advan-
tage of the comparatively small number of merchants
who obtain their goods direct from distant regions,
every one in the country must forego the cheaper
goods which he might perhaps obtain in the nearest
European market. This is the nature of the system
in its most obvious features.

Hitherto the protective duties of the Zollverein
were limited, with some few unimportant exceptions,
to imposing a heavy charge equally upon all
foreign manufactures, so as to secure native fabrics
against all competition in the German markets.
What the Governments in the interior, in their
wisdom, considered right to enact relative to this
subject, we will not here comment upon. The states
on the coast, however, which are more dependent
upon trade than upon manufactures, retained that
freedom in their relations with foreign countries
which is so necessary for their commerce. But if
the system is to be extended to navigation also, it I
must assume a new form. In this case differential
duties must be added to high but equal duties.
Foreign productions must not only be taxed, because
they are foreign, but they must be differently taxed,
according to the ships by which they are imported.
The consumer is henceforward not only to be re-
stricted in his choice between native and foreign
produce, but the merchant is to be equally restricted
in his choice of a place whence to procure his goods,
and of the means of importing them. The more
complicated the system becomes, the more burden-
some will be the restrictions. The differential
system will be manifested, partly in the charges on
vessels (double harbour dues, extra impositions on
particular flags), partly in the rate of duties (higher
import duties). The difference of duty is to be re-
gulated with reference to the flag under which the
goods are imported, the place from which they are
shipped, and the country in which they are produced.
The protection afforded by differential duties is
intended to operate in favour—first, in favour of
German shipping; secondly, of German trade; thirdly,
of German industry. These three points must be
separately dwelt upon in the sequel.
Further, the purpose of this protection is—
I. Directly and immediately, though not tempo-
rarily, to render foreign competition more difficult as
regards foreign shipping, trade, and produce.
2. Indirect ly, and, as the ultimate object proposed,
to compel other nations, from whose markets we have
hitherto been excluded, or into which we have been
admitted on disadvantageous conditions only, to allow
us the means of entering into fair competition with
their native industry.
It has been observed above, that this latter purpose
is, undoubtedly, in accordance with the principles of
free trade, but that the former is in direct opposition
to those principles. The one will, in consequence, be
obliged to yield to the other. In the same degree as
the fulfilment of the latter purpose is approached, the
efficacy of the measure, with regard to the former,
will be diminished, until at last, when the ultimate
object shall be attained, the former must be entirely
abandoned.

The memorial of the Prussian department of trade
above mentioned, as well as the projected treaty now
under consideration, represent the establishment of a
universal system of commercial freedom, with regard
to the intercourse between Germany and other coun-
tries as the chief aim and purport of this measure,
but notwithstanding this, the most numerous as well
as the most important reasons in favour of the com-
mon navigation act, adduced and explained in the said
memorial, as also in various pamphlets and public
journals, all relate to the state of affairs as it will
be previous to the attainment of the ultimate object;
all dwell upon the benefits which the shipping in-
terest, the trade, and the manufactures of Germany
are to derive from the system of differential customs
duties. We have, therefore, to take into consideration
two questions of different import. First, we must
consider what effect the new system will produce on
the several commercial interests of Germany, before
the attainment of the so oft-mentioned ultimate ob-
ject, and whether the advantages to be derived
from it are likely to of the evils which it
may occasion. Secondly, we: must consider the
ultimate object by itsel t. The proposed investiga-
tions may thus properly be brought under two
heads. Whatever, then., remains to be said of the
new project can be co rnprised in a third division.
The whole must, however, be preceded by a prelimi-
nary survey of the MP xitime relations of Germany
with the most important commercial powers, as those
relations are establishe d by laws and treaties, and as
they will in reality a ppear when the projected treaty
shall have been put i .nto excution.
If the working
cif the new system is to be consi-
I.
dered somewhut •detailit
be viewed as actual ly in
operation,cee sandsar
thatnecessary that
et shouldsh e
ud
picture to ourselves as clearly as possible, the results
as to the state of the customs which so complicated a
system of leLrislat ion would bring about. At the same
time, we must p resume that the reservation contained
in the projected treaty, relative to the restrictions to
under be jawed )n foreign ships and ports,

certain conditions, has actually been enforced, where
there are no treaties in existence which could pre-
vent it. In the projected treaty, (sec. 9) the expec-
tation is expressed, that foreign states will afford to
the ships of the countries which have conformed to
the treaty, the same privileges as are granted to their
ships in the German ports ; and further (sec. 10) that
the ships and produce of the countries belonging
to the union will not be placed on a more
unfavourable footing in foreign ports than those
of any other nation. Should any foreign state, how-
ever, not realise these expectations, the states of the
union reserve to themselves the power of placing the
ships and produce of such country under a disadvan-
tage, by the imposition of differential duties (sec. 13).
Similar disadvantages may be imposed upon any state
which, by particular privileges, monopolies, or other
such measures, shall place obstacles in the way of the
shipping and commercial interests of the states be-
longing to the union (sec. 14). If other states should
treat the indirect imports of the ships of the union
less favourably, a differential duty is reserved for the
ships of such states, as also for the imports of their
ports (sec. 12); and, finally, when foreign states treat
ships and produce belonging to one state of the union,
but coming from another, as coming from a third
state (not belonging to the same country) (sec. 8),
then the imposition of double harbour dues and extra-
ordinary tonnage dues is reserved for the ships of such
foreign states (sec. 11).
Supposing these reservations to be actually en-
forced, and the existing customs and navigation laws
of the more important commercial countries to be
still in force, the system of customs in our German
ports would assume pretty nearly the following
aspect:—
Great Britain, according to the general rule, ad-
mits German ships into her European ports only
when laden with German produce, or coming from
German ports ; and into her colonies only when laden
with German produce and coming from German ports.
The exceptions to the first rule, namely, with regard
to such goods as were not included in the so-called
" enumerated articles," were according to the
former English tariff, of two little importance to
be taken into consideration ; as matters now
stand, they may, however, become of importance
for instance, with regard to flour, cattle, and refined
sugar. In accordance with the above-mentioned
reservation, we should thus have to impose higher
dues upon English vessels, as well as upon all produce,
not British, imported under the English flag, and all
produce, not British, coming from British ports would
also be subjected to differential duties. As, inasmuch
as regards vessels and goods coming from the different
German states England does not consider these states
as belonging to one country (though of late
many favourable exceptions to this rule have
been admitted), we would also have to impose
double harbour dues and extraordinary ton-
nage duties upon English ships in our ports. But
as such an alteration in the shipping dues
would be contrary to the treaty concluded between
England and Prussia in 1824 (which treaty must not
be confounded with that of 1841, to terminate which
it is understood notice has already been given), as
also to existing treaties between England and
Hanover, Mecklenburgh, Oldenburgh, and the Hanse
Towns, such treaties may at once be abrogated.
Here we immediately meet with a difficulty : the
British treaty with Hanover, concluded in 1844, is
binding until 1854, and the difficulty is increased by
the circumstance that this treaty contains a clause by
which the contracting parties mutually bind them-
selves not to grant to the subjects of any other state
any diminution of charges, or any advantages, privi-
leges, or immunities relative to navigation and trade
which shall not immediately be extended to the sub
jects of the other contracting party also (except when
the concessions shall be coupled with conditions stipu-
lating the granting of a fair compensation).
Although we do not mean to enter into long dis-
cussions and explanations of this clause, we are
obliged to admit that the kingdom of Hanover can-
not avoid placing English ships in future, i. e., until
1854, in every respect on an equal footing with
German ships. It will thus only be the indirect im-
ports of non-English goods from English ports, with-
out regard to the flag under which they are imported,
which will not come within this clause, and which
can consequently be subjected to the imposition of
different duties by Hanover. It is further clear that,
supposing the existence of a German navigation
union, the essential condition of which is to ensure
the uniform treatment of foreign flags by all the
states of the union, the most important German ma-
ritime power on the North Sea, cannot at the very
outset desire to act differently from the principles
followed by the other states with regard to the Eng-
lish flag, the most powerful of all ; it follows, there-
fore, that in this case that which is right by law in
Hanover, must also be considered so in the other
states of the union. The whole of the retaliatory
measures against England, i. e., against that state
whose navigation laws gives the German shipowners
the most grounds for complaint, will thus be limited
to imposing an additional duty in German ports on
non-English products imported from England.
The Netherlands levy no higher tonnage duty on
ships belonging to German states which practise re-
ciprocity than they do upon their own, but all im-
ports under the national flag are favoured with a
deduction of duty, amounting on most goods to 10 per
cent, and on some to still more; but as all foreign
flags are, according to the general rule, treated alike,
this is a case for which the projected treaty (section
13) has reserved no retaliatory measures. In so far,
however, as according to the treaties which Holland
has entered into with Great Britain, France, North
America, Belgium, and Russia, ships belonging to
these countries, and trading direct between their own
' country and the kingdom of the Netherlands, enjoy
this same advantage of a diminution of duty, which
German ships do not enjoy, and from which even
Russian ships will be excluded at the expiration of
the treaty of 1837 ; in so far there would be reason
to impose a differential duty in our ports upon
imports under the Dutch flag. As regards the Nether-
land colonies, all foreign ships trading with these
are subjected to the higher import and export duties
than are levied upon ships belonging to the mother
country, when trading direct with the colonies.
Though no reservation relative thereto has been made
in the projected treaty, this circumstance might justify
the union in placing Netherland ships in German
ports under the disadvantage of differential duties, if
such justification were not rather to be sought for
(according to section 14) in the monopoly enjoyed by
the Handelsmaatschappy. For imposing higher duties
on non-Dutch products coming from Dutch ports
there seems to be no grounds, inasmuch as there i 3 no
corresponding regulation in the Dutch laws; such
grounds could therefore only be sought for in the
preference given, in accordance with the above-men-
tioned treaties, to the vessels of those particular
countries, coming direct from their own ports. The
preference given in Java to the productions of the
Netherlands would hardly (and according to section
13 of the projected treaty certainly not) justify the
imposing of a higher duty in German ports on the
produce of the Dutch colonies, as has, we understand,
been proposed by Bremen; for the produce of Ger-
many is not there treated more favourably than any
other third country (Belgium partly excepted).
The customs laws of Belgium, which, with respect
to shipping dues and the refunding of the Scheldt
duty, place most German vessels on the same footing
as her own, make, on the other hand, with regard to
the duties on goods, a difference three or fourfold
in favour of the Belgian flag and of direct importation,
as also of importation from non-European ports, and
thus afford sufficient grounds for charging importa-
tions into Germany under the Belgian flag, and im-
portations of non-Belgian produce coming from Bel-
gium, with differential duties. As yet, however, the
treaties of Belgium with Hanover and with the
Zollverein form an obstacle to this proceeding. The
former treaty, which, if notice to determine it were
not given in February last, will be in force at least
until February, 1849, contains the above-cited clause
from the treaty between Great Britain and Hanover,
which secures the Belgian flag against being in future
placed under disadvantages with regard to the ships of
other nations ; and the latter treaty (between Belgium
and the Zollverein), which will be in force until 1851,
likewise contains this clause, in addition to two others,
which must also here be taken into consideration. The
first of these, which will remain in force until 1851,
secures to Belgian ships and their cargoes imported
from Belgium, "the same bounties, compensations,
duties, and other privileges of this kind," which may
be granted to the national ships. The second, notice
to terminate which may indeed be given in 1848,
places all Belgian vessels trading directly between
Belgium and the states of the Zollverein, and without
reference to the country of which their cargoes may
be the produce, on an equal footing with Prussian
vessels. Under the circumstances thus established by
treaties, it seems that at present it would not be
feasible to impose differential duties on Belgian ships
coming direct from Belgian ports, and it even seems
doubtful whether it could be effected on those trading
indirectly between the two countries. We should
probably be obliged to place Belgian ships on an
equal footing with our own, and only the non-Bel-
gian produce imported from Belgium would be sub-
jected to differential duties.
France follows, with regard to her customs, the
same system as Belgium—that is to say, she makes
differences in the customs dues in favour of her own
flag ; and, besides this, she imposes on German vessels
a high tonnage duty from which French ships are
entirely, and the ships of some other countries partly,
exempted. With regard to France, therefore, all the
reserved differences as to shipping dues and customs
duties might at once be imposed, particularly as the
existing treaty between France and Mecklenburgh is
not in any essential point opposed to it.
The same may be said of Spain, where indeed the
difference in the shipping charges is very insignifi-
cant; but where, oil the other hand, the difference

between the duties paid on goods imported under the '
Spanish flag, an i those imported under foreign flags,
and between the duties on direct and indirect impor-
tation, is so great as almost to exclude German ships,
as well as all indirect importations.
Portugal has also established her own navigation
act by a Royal decree of 1841, according to which
foreign ships are only to be placed on an equality
with,the ships of the country when they import the
produce of their own countries. The produce of
Mecklenburgh, imported under the Prussian flag,
pays an additional duty of 20 per cent. The treaties
with Portugal, entered into by some of the states of
the Zollverein, such as Mecklenburgh and Olden-
burgh (in 1844 and 1845) have effected no ameliora-
tion herein, but they afford a remarkable proof of
how little heiitation has been evinced in acknowledg-
ing this new navigation act, though not one practical
benefit can be derived from it. Here the expectation
expressed in section 8 of the projected treaty, that
foreign states would consider all the states of the
union as forming one and the same country, becomes
of great importance ; and the reservation regarding
the levying of doutle harbour dues and extraordinary
tonnage duties, would here come into force, as on
the Ist of January, 1848, notice may be given to
terminate all these treaties mentioned above, which
might otherwise interfere with this arrangement. In
addition to this, differential duties would be levied on
non-Portuguese produce, imported into German ports
under the Portuguese flag.
With Sardinia there exist treaties by which Prus-
sia is bound till 1852, Hanover and Denmark till
1853, and the Hanse Towns till 1854 ; and which will
prevent up to those dates all additional differential
charges on Sardinian shipping. The duties on goods
are also, according to these treaties, to continue equal,
the German States having, however, reserved to them-
selves the right (Prussia and Denmark from 1848,
and Hanover from 1849) of imposing differential
duties on olive oil, corn, and wine imported in Sar-
dinian vessels from the Mediterranean, if Sardinia
does not before that period abolish her duties—an
exception which, during the course of the present
more general considerations, may be left out of view.
Naples allows a discount of 10 per cent. on the
duties on direct imports under her own flag, and un-
der the flag of certain favoured nations importing
their own produce; advantages in which German ships
(those of Austria, Prussia, and Holstein excepted)
have not as yet participated. In retaliation, imports
L in Neapolitan vessels would also be subjected to dif-
ferential duties.

In Tuscany the national flag is favoured, inasmuch
as double anchorage dues and double fees for permis-
sion to clear out are imposed upon foreign ships.
Some foreign flags are, however, by reciprocity trea-
ties or by declarations, placed on an equal footing
with the national flag; and it would probably not be
difficult for the German states to obtain an exchange
of similar declarations.

The other states of the Mediterranean give the
German states no cause for complaint, and conse-
quently afford no grounds for retaliatory measures.
In Russia the ships of the German states are, in
virtue of an interchange of declarations, placed on an
equal footing with Rnssian ships.
In Sweden and Norway the same is done, in
accordance with existing treaties; but Sweden allows
a discount of 15, 20, and 33/ per cent. (according to
the distance from which they come) on the duties on
all direct importations from non-European pro-
ducing countries; a measure which certainly oper-
ates to the detriment of such produce when coming
from European ports. For such an instance as
this the treaty has not reserved any retaliatory mea-
sure ; however, should one be adopted, it cannot
consistently be other than the imposition of differential
duties on non-European productions imported from
Swedish ports, whereby it must be taken into con-
sideration that, even as it is, such importations seldom
or never take place.
The United States of North America act on the
principle of complete reciprocity, so that the differen-
tial shipping charges on the additional duty of ten per
cent. imposed on goods imported under foreign flags,
are not levied on ships belonging to such states as
declare and prove that in their ports North American
ships enjoy the same right as their own. The German
States can, consequently, at once place their flags in
North America on an equal footing with the national
flag, and have in some instances already done so by
treaty; as regards the United States, therefore, no
cause for differential duties exists.

The treatment which the ships of the German States
meet within other transatlantic countries, does not
afford grounds for complaint; they are there generally
placed on an equal footing with the national ships;
and German produce enjoys equal rights with the most
favoured nations. Here again, then, there are no
grounds for retaliatory measures.
Finally, we have to mention Denmark, though no
decided opinion has been pronounced as to the pro-
priety of inviting this state to join a German anion
for trade and navigation. To distinguish between all
or some of the German ports of, the monarchy and
the Danish ports, would he attended with much diffi-
culty, as no difference is made between the ships of
Holstein and those of Denmark Proper. But for the
purposes of the present section of our inquiry, this
question will only he taken into consideration in so
far as Denmark, should she join the union, would
probably, by existing treaties with France, be pre-
vented for an indefinite period from placing French
vessels, with regard to shipping dues, under any dis-
advantages not participated in by her own vessels.
Should Denmark not join the union, her vessels would,
nevertheless, in virtue of existing treaties, which
cannot immediately be abrogated, enjoy in German
ports equal rights with German ships.
Judging from this rapid survey of the relations of
Germany to each foreign state in particular, and
supposing, as we have in the first instance done, that
the reserved conditions have at once been carried
into effect, matters would, under the new navigation
system, stand thus : in all German ports there would
be levied,
1. Higher shipping dues, i. e., double port charges,
and extra tonnage duties on Dutch, French, and
Spanish vessels.
2. Higher duties (regulated according to the flag)
on all goods imported under the Dutch, French,
Spanish, or Portuguese flags.
3. Higher customs duties (according to the port of
shipment, without distinction of flag) on non-British
produce coming from Great Britain, of non-Belgian
produce coming from Belgium, on goods from France
not French produce, and on • goods not the produce
of Spain or Portugal, bnt coining from the ports of
the Peninsula.

In this statement of the practical workings of the
new system, we have left out of consideration such
measures as are not explicitly mentioned in the pro
jected treaty, but which are pointed out by those
who are in favour of the treaty as necessarily result-
ing from the other measures, and are warmly recom-
mended by them.
It has been remarked that the end to be gained by
the imposition of additional duties on the indirect
importations of certain countries, or on the indirect
importations of certain commodities, might be evaded,
if these importations were allowed to pass untaxed
through the ports of such states as may not have
afforded any grounds for complaint; and if a similar
distinction between direct and indirect imports were
not to be made on the land frontiers also. It is re-
commended, as the least evil, to treat all such im-
portations as if they were indirect. Supposing that
it were possible that the union could answer its pur-
pose, even if it should not comprise all the German
states, or at least if it should not immediately com-
prise them all, then the retaliatory measures would
also probably be applied to those German states that
had not acceded to the union. It is sufficient to
allude to those grievances; they could not, however,
be passed over in silence, as it will be necessary, in the
course of our statement, to refer to these proposals also.
(To be continued.)

INSTITUTION FOR THE ADULT DEAF AND DUMB,
RED LION SQUARE.—Yesterday, at a meeting of the
committee of management of the institution for provid-
ing employment and religious instruction, and teaching
trades to the adult deaf and dumb, it was stated that the
secretary, James G. Simpson, Esq., had received various
applications from reverend and other gentlemen in the
provincial districts, interceding for the admission of
afflicted youths into the institution, to be instructed in
the trades of shoemaking, tailoring, &c.. The cases in
several instances were understood to be of a very de-
serving nature, but owing to the pressure upon the funds
of the charity, the applications were compelled to be
deferred or refused, although principally of an urgent
character. An earnest hope was expressed that the co-
operation of the affluent would not be wanting during
the coming winter, to enable the committee to meet at
least the more urgent demands upon the institution. It
was mentioned as a singular fact, that during the recent
great prevalence of the influenza, when scarcely a single
house was free from the epidemic, that not one of the
several inmates of this charity, either male or female,
had been in the slightest degree attacked.-
PRESENCE OF MIND IN A BOY.—A few Sabbath
nights since, a lad of about Dine or ten years old fell
asleep in the parish church of Cley, Essex, during Di-
vine service, and did not wake until some time after the
departure of the congregation. On awaking he found
himself alone and in the dark ; summoning up courage,
he groped about to find the door, in order to try and
bolt,e b
wandicnhotwosturlednghtahvetopf
errm nextliberatedo this,
however,ilndaa he
tried a window with as little success ; nothing daunted,
the youngster thought of the bell, the rope of which
he soon discovered, and thereby did "a tale unfold" to
the clerk and sexton, who soon came to his rescue. The
boy's family, alarmed at his absence, were about pro-
ceeding to the church in search of him, when the bell
told th tale of his imprisonment. How many "children
of a larger growth" would have died with terror ?
Local Paper.
A frightful accident occurred a few days ago in a
sugar refinery in the Faubourg d'lsle of Saint Quentin;
a young workman fell into a vat full of boiling sugar.
Lie was immediately dragged out by one of his fellow-
workmen, bat was so much injured that he died two
days afterwards.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.'
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 29.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)
IN RE CITHEY.

The bankrupt, a merchant in Philpot-lane, City,
came up on his last examination, and passed without
opposition.
Mr. Lawrence appeared for the bankrupt.
IN RE LEWIS.

W. H. Lewis, a honnet•maker, on Ludgate-hill,
came up for his certificate, and obtained it without
opposition.
Mr. Lawrence was solicitor to the fiat.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A boy about twelve years of age, named William
Lipley, was brought before the Lord Mayor and
Alderman Hughes, charged with having stolen a
piece.of beef.
From the statement of Spittle, the city officer, it
appeared that the prisoner belonged to a most dan-
gerons gang of little boys, who were very much prac-
tised in robbing females in Bishopsgate-street and
Leadenhall market, and whose diminutive size gave
them facilities unknown to children of larger growth.
The witness had frequently turned the prisoner out
of the neighbourhood and threatened to bring him
before the Lord Mayor, and mentioned some of his
former misdeeds in order to procure for him a most
unwelcome addition to the usual punishment in a
sound flogging, which the City magistrates have long
considered it necessary to revive against customers of
the class. All expostulation however had proved un-
availing—every day the prisoner was to be seen,
with his active associates, at the heels of women, who
were sure, upon reaching home, to miss their money
or parts of their. dress. The prisoner was known to
be expert at the game, but he was seen distinctly ap-
propriating the piece of beef, which he slipped off a
block in the market, and was taking to get made into
soup.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you say this boy is an
old hand at thieving ? The Officer—Certainly my
Lord ; he has often been in custody. When I caught i
him, I asked him where he supposed he should at
last go to ? "Goto I" said he, " why to the gallows
to be sure."
The LORD MAYOR—Did you say so, prisoner?
—The boy—Yes, the man's right enough. I did
say so.
The Loan MAYOR Well, if something be not
done to prevent it, I am of opinion that you are right
in your conjecture. We are determined to send you
to prison for fourteen days, to live upon bread and
water, and to be well flogged before you are set at
liberty.
The prisoner then, without exhibiting any appre-
hension, left the bar. Although he will not meet
Jack Ketch, of whom it seems he often speaks, on the
platform, he will certainly meet that functionary
armed with the lash, as the hangman is about to
resume his old favourite method of infliction imme-
diately amongst the juvenile incorrigibles.
George Lee, a rough, down-looking fellow, who
had been lately pardoned, was charged with having
stolen a watch, to get at which he had broken two
large panes of plate glass, value 51., in the •shop of
Mr. Mitchell, of No. 30, Cornhill, watchmaker and
jeweller.
The shopman of Mr. Mitchell, at about a quarter
past five o'clock, heard a crash at the window, and
saw that two panes had been broken, and that one
watch was missing from the tray. The offence was
scarcely committed before the prisoner was in the
custody of a policeman, who seized him, and took the
missing watch out of his trousers pocket.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you anything to say,
prisoner? Prisoner—Nothing at all.
On the prisoner's person was found a certificate
from the proper officer, stating that the prisoner, who
was sentenced to be transported in the year 1842,
had received a free pardon from her Majesty on the
3d of December, on which day he had been discharged
from the hulks with 4/. 4s. 6d. in his pocket, to which
he was considered entitled on his discharge.
The LORD MAYOR—Prisoner, what were you found
guilty of on the former occasion ? Prisoner—The
same sort of thing—a watch.
The LORD MAYOR—Had he any money about him ?
The officer—Not a farthing.
The LORD MAYOR—Why, prisoner, you had not
the excuse of no money to plead here, for you were
in possession of 4/. 4s. 611. at once upon leaving the
hulks. The prisoner nodded assent.
Some gentlemen of the trade and neighbourhood
said they had still to lament the want of adequate
protection.
The LORD MAYOR said the evidence of the promp-
titude with which the apprehension of the offender
was made by the policeman was quite satisfactory,
and he did not see how it was possible to prevent a
man who provided himself with a stone from smashing
a window.
It was represented upon the part of the jewellers,
that there was a marked. disproportion between the
punishment to which the last person convicted of
smashing windows and stealing watches was ad-
judged and the offence, and a hope was expressed
that the evidence in the present case would not prove
weak. is
The LORD MAYOR said the prisoner was sure to be
convicted, and that the former conviction being exhi-
bited against him there could be no doubt as to his
removal from this country.
The prisoner was then committed for trial.
A lad named Henry Deniard, who was in the ser-
vice of Mr. Marks, a broker, was charged with
having robbed his master of two looking-glasses.
The prisoner had put the glasses into a bag and
was taking them to a place of sale, when he was met
by a policeman, who suspected that all was not right,
and found upon questioning him that all was the other
way. The prisoner not liking the position iii which
he stood, made a rapid movement towards a crowd
of persons who were able and willing to render
assiatance to an individual so unfortunately circum-
stanced, but the attempt was vain. Tne officers
afterwards found that the prisoner had previously
disposed of a looking-glass which he had also stolen
from his master.
The prisoner told a rambling story, one word of
which did not obtain credit, in excuse for the rob-
bery, and said he was in vain importuned by a r3lative
of the master to take away the property for a long
time, and when at last he did take it he meant to do
nothing with it but to return it to the real owner
immediately.
It was quite clear to everybody that this attempt
to cast the blame upon another boy was a most out-
rageous violation of truth, and an act of the grossest
villany.
The prisoner was at once committed for trial.
A young woman, named Catherine Hamilton, was
charged with having committed a desperate assault
upon a respectable female.
The prosecutrix never beheld the defendant before
she received a blow which levelled her. A policeman,
hearing screams and seeing a crowd, ran to the spot,
and asked who knocked the lady down ? "It was
I," said the defendant, who looked as if she had es-
notwithstanding the presence of the numbers of per-
teahepesdamfremnsorat."maTd -h,
action
anwdaslslul
igitedve
thoetrhme owroer oaf,
sons around and the policeman. The defendant seized
the prosecutrix by the hair, and dragged her along.
The poor woman was attacked with convulsive fits,
and it was some time before the fury could be sepa-
rated from her. The assailant had been all the morn-
ing paying court to the bottle.—Committed for trial.
GUILDHALL.
CHRISTMAS-BOXES FOR POSTMEN.—An elderly
person of the name of Gordon was placed in the dock,
charged with attempting to obtain money under the
pretence of being a postman.
James Green, a postman, stated that he understood
the prisoner had called at several places in the City,
and representing himself as a postman, asked for a
Christmas-box. On seeing him yesterday he gave
him into custody.
Henry Taylor, clerk to Mr. Lochner, proctor, 13,
Great Carter-street, stated that the prisoner had,
about eleven o'clock yesterday, applied for a Christ-
mas-box. He told him that the Post-office authorities
bad abolished the practice of Christmas-boxes, and he
was therefore surprised that any claim should be made
for one.
Other persons gave testimony of a similar nature.
An inspector from the Post-office said that the pri-
soner had been in the service of the Post-office, but
had been discharged about eleven months ago.
The prisoner solemnly assured the magistrate that
be was not the person.
The case was remanded.
Thomas Ridgway, a tailor, was finally examined
on suspicion of having passed a bad half-crown, by
sending a little girl into a baker's shop to purchase a
loaf. The prisoner was apprehended half an hour
afterwards, near the spot, being pointed out by the
girl to a policeman, who followed the prisoner as far
as Sermon-lane before he stopped him, the prisoner
running, or walking fast, over the intermediate
distance.
Mr. Wontner, on behalf of the prisoner, explained
that his conduct in this respect arose from his having
come out in his working slippers to buy some trim-
mings, and a fine rain beginning to fall.
was countervailed by the evidence of a little boy who
miAsseftderthaelcohnagrghe eaoribsnegrv,
observing gIAhl
that
the
ergmirs Gin's
recoicn ditiis-
on
was employed in the same manner by the same cul-
prit, and who said that the prisoner was not the per-
son. The prisoner had received such an excellent
character that he thought no jury would convicthil
and he therefore discharged him.
about
thirty Douglas, a soldier-like-looking man, 03311:
thirty years of age, was charged on his own confes- 1
sion, with having surrendered to the poliee as a de- 1
serter from the 50th Foot, in 1835. He said the
regiment was now serving in India, and he had never
joined it.

While he was in the justice room he rescinded his
confession, and declared it was all untrue, and that he
was a labourer in the docks.

Mr. Alderman GIBBS, in the absence of any proof
that he was a deserter, committed him for fourteen
days as a rogue and vagabond for pretending to be
one, when, upon his own admission, he was not so.