The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-10 00:00:00

lIE ZOLLVEREIN PROTEC-
TION VERSUM FREE TRADE.
(Continued from The Sun of Thursday.)

in treating of the subject which we now have
before.• ue—natnely, ths removal of the difficulties
with -v. nich she Loss of foreign countries impede the
clevciejomero, of our shippieg•tra.ie and the sale of our
orufactures, we must of course, uud even more than
in the .preceding sections, deal in conjectures and pro-
babilitaes only. Nothing is more difficult to predict
than the resolutions that will be c me to by foreign
Gove:enments relative to future measures. If, how-
ever, differential duties are to be used as the means of
obittiaing for ourselves the same rights as are enj,,yed
by the natives of different countries, we must be sure
•befurehand of the result, or we shall only call forth a
systsym of petty retaliatory custom-house warfare,
-whit .h embitters without effecting much good.
• Hitherto, having had to consider the differential
syste m merely as a means for promoting our ship-
ping trade and commerce, we have dwelt exclu-
sively upon those measures appertaining to it which
'would be likely to affect those two interests ;
now, however, that we have to deal with it in
its character of a retaliatory measure, we have further
-to take into account the third point, which we -have
not yet had under consideration—namely, the addi-
. tional duty to be imposed upon goods, according to
• the country in which they toe produced. That diffe-
rential duties of this latter description, by impeding
importation, and by necessitating a most burdensome
. system of control, must exercise an injurious fltu-
. ence upon commerce and trade, and,
i even
. cannot exercise a beneficial influence on them, s self-
evident, and even the advocates of the system cannot
look upon this part of it in any other light than that
of a necessary evil to which they submit in the hope
. of forcing foreign powers into concessions which will
. ultimately outweigh its evil effects. But it is exactly
this kind of differential duty which is especially di-
• rected against particular, countries, that is most likely
~ to excite to retaliation ; and nothing could be more
dangerous than to have recourse to measures against
a' e; •untry like England, for instance, the consumer of
great quantities of German produce, which might
lead: to the exclusion of these products from her ports.
~S.raong the countries against which the differential
system is to be applied with a view to removing the
;.n-c.,etliments placed by them in the way of German
I‘a-vigation, commerce, and industry, Great Britain
pre-eminent. But here we must make a dis-
inetion as to that part of England's navigation and
t.;-!...stoms laws which is connected with her colonial
ImEcY• Germany will certainly not pretened to force
ht-e: into making any change herein. Germany,
• winch posseses no colonies herself, will not certainly
enter into so unequal a conflict with a country whose
colonial possessions are the most extensive in the
World. ' Besides, it is not all contrary to the princi-
' Navigation
from which the different projects for a German
Navigation Act emanate, that the mother country
and its colonies should be considered as one and the
same country, that the trade carried on between the
two should be placed on the same footing, as the
' coasting trade of each particular country, and that
the produce of each should be treated in the ports
of the other the same as home produce; the English
• cannot, therefore, be denied the right of reserving
the trade between Great Britain and her colonies for
Ilritish ships alone, or from treating British product
- more favourably than foreign produce in their colonia•
. ports. We have further to consider with regard to
this point, that by the prolongation of the charter of
• the East India Company until 1854, the regulation
of the customs and navigation laws of British India
whiCh act very unfavourably as regards the admis
lion of foreign. ships and foreign produce, are with-
drawn from the immediate influence of the burnt
• Government, at least in as far as' relate's to changes
• to be introduced in the existing state of things. In
British West india colonies, also, the legislative
assembly possesses an authority with regard to cus
toms regulations, which would probably be exercised
in opposition to the central Government, should the
latter be inclined to make concessions in favour re
German ships and of German produce. According to
the draft of a navigation Act which we are here dis-
cussing, the projected navigation union does not ex-
. .pect greater advantages for its own produce in fo-
, reign countries, than that it shall enjoy the same rights
• . as the produce of the most favoured foreign nations,
•, • euid that its ships shall be placed on the same foot-
• infs. as the home shipping of •the foreign states,
a; far as regards trade between the poits of these
• states and foreign. ports. The object to be attained
:'hy retaliatory measures on our side is therefore the
• zlioval of restrictions placed upon the importation
• into England of non-European produce from German.
Ittoirts, as also of the hinderances opposed to the im-
portation of goods in other ships and from other ports
• tail those of the producing country. The abolition
• of the first mentioned restrictions would indeed,
ler existing circumstances, be 'of little advantage
German commerce, belt the removal. of the last-
. - sntioned hinderances would, on the other hand, cer-
. '• to;aly be of the greatest importance to German
nro,igation ; the German flag would, under these
. te. ominstances, no longer be excluded from the carry-
• • s in.:: trade between England and ether non-German
• •oonntries. That German shipowners would be able
• P vrLil themselves of this advantage has, been proved
~he experience of the present year, during which
• • t,;,0 Navigation Act has been suspended as far as re-
:- - 14; 3to the importati©n of articles of food. But the
4'. its of the current year have also laid bare the
y nature of the navigation-laws. Bad and de-
..ctive in their nature, they originated in jealousy
)then commercial countries -; were first reduced
connected system to serve as a hostile measure
_first the Netherlands ; afterwards extended
n a view to purposes of colonial policy; then con-
• ,soOdated through the influence of an all-powerful
; ued aristocracy ; and they are now perhaps only
y 'Aso ntained out of regard for certain individual inte-
' •`: Y. 3 called into existence by them, but which will
uPomately be thrown into the background by the
. •peosisure of public distress; and the art of the legisla-
' , e will be made to yield to the force of circumstances.
rom the earliest period, indeed, it has always been
."' 's'itsing to the' force of circumstances, and not to the
▪ r. taliatory measures of foreign state's, that modifica•
tions and relaxations of the English navigation laws
, have been conceded. If we look through the long
ries of such modifications, from Cronswell's Navi
oo'ion Act (1651) down to the latest in 1845, the Act
'of Parliament of 1823, empowering the Government
to abolish all the still existing differential shipping
e;,,•rges (imposed by the Navigation Act of CharleS 11.
'• . , iii i 661), in every case where reciprocity could bt
"• '•
seisared, is almost the only example of such modifica
' -•• *lob' being brought about directly by foreign influ-
, . eetelo, This change was at the time attributed to
' retaliatory steps taken by Prussia ; but these
, gttr-ps did perhaps only afford a welcome pretext tt.
'ff..e`en lightened statesmen of the day. At that time
stood very diGrently from what they d..
, lion'. 'The retaliatory means resorted to by Prussia,
• • and ,which rn;ght have been imitated by other coun-
• ' tries, were then really dangerous to English shipping
interests, \while to Prussia, who could view them as a
• temporary evil only they were less so. But the mea-
-1 sures now proposed, particularly if they are to be
! ' limited to restricting indirect imports from England,

. -
are'
net such as could force Great Britain into such
inbdifications of her Navigation Act as would almost
be tantamount to their repeal. With regard to our-
, ''.:eYps, however, the consequence would be, that we
- •:P1.1.0,11, la `find ourselves permanently entangled in a
-17_:strti-, of differential duties, which in other conti-
- •• ,44,,vntal states. has proved itself inadequate to promote
'it °Nvn commerce, or to iniluce England to make
•1 ' "flee2sions. Besides, England has repeatedly made
:exceptions: itt favour of German states—namely, in
• 1 824 in
,f.._ you, of the Hanse TownS,* in 1838, and at
i : a later nate also in favour of Austria, Prussia, and
• 'ether German states,t and finally again in favour of
tT-in Hanse Towns
••• ' • • --- ls been. ,+ yet ini. none of these cases had re-
a
resorted to to force her into the treaties,l
e : ~,the present is , tallspension of her Navigation Act
j
;any: way connected with measures'determined upon
' '• ' ' b'y foreign states. -NT
, —ow it ma y be predicted with
on.l confidence, tnat the ' effects of the suspension
.;r4rd not pass away; without leaving, some traces be-
ay sten, . .
on the, contrary, the experience
' ....
hind them, but that,
...... .
.ef, ~ri year,will prove soirresraßably
the advantages of
been elves considerably
that the advo-
. • :_fre.- ti•aiie over the prohibitive
of their wishes.
: a ;cares of, the former will find t
• . advanced. towardst the accorn lishuise-,
of a parliamentary • - : The aibpoiritmen . Y. Committee has
d, and there are
' ' ben al:ready attained, airesd-
Y published
• ' -thr,e folio evidence u° volumes Pon the subject,
gathered 'from the' "
, ~ . lips of those who are well an.
uainted vi
th the matter. We cannot, of course,
judge of the,ultim
l .
ate result of an inquiry which enter,
, • ,
pto the rave t minute details, before we shall be in pos.,
• , .
the evidence and the report
~setsion of the; conclusion of
the circumstantial
. , of the committee ; but. in reading
- . minutes of evidence already published we certainly per-
,
ceive tvie impression, that belief in the utility of the
i - iittiigation laws has been shaken in almost all classes
and in all I iirections, and that the flourishing
the shippio'q interests and of the
transatlantic
state of
trade
'of those states which act upon principles of free tradei
' '-Will furnish the chief argument in favour of the a)-
• • rogation of the ii.rohibitive system. Should, however,
• . the inquiry which has been cotnrhenced not lead at
once to an essential change in the system, this will
' 14c.r solely owing to , the protestations• of the ship-
• . fiwners, that with° ut this protection the shipping
-, - ,iaterests- and . the shi'pbUildera, of England must sue-

* v the article sta Ging that a Lribecluilt
in
Brerne u, coming- from Hamburgh, and manned with
Germs: as not natives of .Lubeck, shall, notwithstanding
be conth.lered as a 'Lubeck ship, and as if coining from,
its own e, auntry.
t By tb e articLe stating that ships belonging to one of
these cOun tries, coming from outports not helongiiag to
the same state; shall nevertheless be considered as
coming fro. a/ their own country.
t By allri a ling the import of German non-Hanseatic
Products from the Rause towns into her colonies.