The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-25 00:00:00

great as may be the demoralization produced by
the ballot in these and a hundred such boroughs;
there is no alternative; nolens, volens, we must
come to it, and to Triennial Parliaments also.

It is stated in a Morning Paper, that Capt.
NAPIER is going out to replace Admiral
SARTORIUS in the command of the Consti-
tutional fleet. We believe that Capt. NAPIER
has consented to co-operate with SARTORIUS
in the event of his being willing to retain the
command of the fleet ; but if SARTORIUS
should still wish to retire, as it is believed he
will, Capt. NAPIER will be appointed to the
command.

AL COMTE and M. PIRON have resumed
their negotiations with our post-office ; but as
nothing decisive can take place without an Act
of Parliament, it is not probable in the present
state of the session that if the parties should
agree on the terms of the arrangement there will
be any alteration in the conveyance of the mail
from London to Paris, until the ensuing spring

Frankfort papers of the 19th of May have.
come to hand, but they add little or nothing tu•
the information previously received from that
quarter. " Poland," they state, "is cast down
by the late revolution"--a melancholy truth—
but no news. It is said that Baron Von
ROTHSCHILD is going to leave Frankfort and
settle at Munich.

New York Papers to the 2d inst. have been
received. They contain an account of a fire
which broke out in that city, destroying four
blocks of buildings and forty horses. The news
from Mexico states that General SANTA ANNA
was elected President by a majority of 13 votes
out of 20. Public peace prevailed throughout
the South American Republics.

PRICE OF STOCKS, APRIL 30.—U. S. Bank Stock,
1111 111 i. Exchange on London, 107 i lOS ; Am-
sterdam, 40. On Paris, sf. 35c. 4f. 40c. ; Doubloons,
18 dol. 17 do. 50c.

At a time when the shipowners are again
endeavouring to raise a cry of their being pecu-
liarly distressed, and have prevailed on the good
nature of the Government to grant them a

Committee of Inquiry, it is important that the
public should know upon what foundation their
complaints rest. En the very nick of time Mr.

RICHARD Mooßsom presents us with a
pamphlet, entitled, " Thoughts on the Changes
which have taken place In the Navigation
Laws," &c. It contains, in a short com•

pass, as dear and interesting an exposition of
the past and present state of the shipping interest
as we could desire to see. He refutes in the

plainest manner the oft repeated assertions of
the ignorant declaimers in favour of monopoly
that the British shipowner is being ruined by
the reciprocity system, and that it is in the
power of the Government to retrace the steps we
have been forced to take by foreign Powers.
He begins by stating the notorious fact that we
were a great maritime nation before the passing
of the Navigation Laws, so much admired by
those who boast of their ignorance and hatred
of political economy, with much the same sort
of reason that a critic would boast of his igno-

ranee of grammar. Our Navigation Laws were
enacted with the view of destroying Dutch
commerce ; and, " up to the year 1783," we
quote Mr. Mooßsom's pamphlet, " the sum
and result of the Navigation Laws of Eng-
land were, that goods, the produce of Africa,
Asia, and America could only be imported
directly from the place of their production,
and in British ships ; European enumerated
commodities could only be imported in British
ships, or in ships of those countries of which
such commodities were the produce ; besides,
goods, when thus imported in a foreign ship,
were subject to a higher custom duty than when
imported in a British vessel ; these were
called the alien, or discriminating duties,
and their amount might be a shilling in the
pound, or five per cent. in favour of a British
ship. It is necessary to be borne in mind that
these discriminating duties alone are affected
by the reciprocity treaties. Prussia may, and
probably does, charge a much higher im-
post on a British article than on a similar one
of domestic manufacture. England imposes a
duty of 555. per load on Prussian timber, while
only 10s.per load is paid on that of Canada ; but in
neither of these instances is there a violation of the
principle of reciprocity, which merely provides,
that when an article of merchandise can be
legally imported, it shall make no difference as
respects the duty, in what ship the commodity
is conveyed." As has been said over and over
again, as long as foreign countries permitted us
to make articles coming in their ships pay more
duty than articles coming in our ships, we
acted perhaps for our interest in making them
pay more, but directly they began to retaliate
it was clearly our advantage to charge only equal,
duties on foreign and our own ships. The
manner in which we were compelled into a reci-
procity of duties by North America is very
clearly shown by Mr. Mooßsom :
" In 1783, our former colonies in North America,
rose to the rank of Independent States, and it speedily
became evident that one great principle of the navigation
law must be abandoned. It no longer depended upon
ourselves that the produce of America should be brought
to England in British ships alone. The Americans im-
mediately set themselves to work to counteract this pro-
vision. As an independent nation, i t was competent for
them to declare, that the produce of England should not
be received in the ports of America except in American
ships. They resolved, that all foreign ships, trading to Ame-
rica, should pay a dollar per ton duty more than was paid by
national ships ; and further, that goods imported in foi eign
vessels, should pay a duty of ten per cent. over and above
what was demandable on the same description of goods im-
ported in American vessels. I would here ask every unpreju-
diced man, if there was any thing unjust, any thing un-
reasonable, any thing of which we could properly com-
plain, in this proceeding? Was it not strictly a retalii-
tory measure? Was it not an act, in principle and
practice, copied from our own, and intended to be pro-
tective of American ships?
" The British Government instantly endeavoured to
render fruitless these proceedings of the Americans. The
two nations engaged in a warfare of discriminating duties.
Every additional impost pl aced on American vessels, in
British ports, was met by a counteracting impost on Bri-
tish vessels, in Americm ports. Wearied out, at length,
by such a harassing waste of national resources, the two
countries finally agreed on a treaty of reciprocity.
" In the year 1815, under the Tory Administration of
Lord Liverpool, a negotiation was begun at Ghent, which
terminated in this—that American and British ships
should, as to charges, be plac,ll on a footing of equality in
the respective ports of the two countries."
Other countries also very soon found out
that our dealings with them were for our interest,
and that we must continue to deal with them
even if they no longer submitted to have their
shipping placed on a footing of disadvantage in
our ports, which English shipping
their ports. Accordingly, in 1822 the Prus-
sian Government was not in
"Imposed on British ships discriminating duties, which
in a few years made Prussian execed British vessels almost