The Sun.
London, England, 1803-02-28 00:00:00

TO ruE EDITOR
stir,
BEI NCk.a 43ily Reader of_ your valuable Puldica
tion, I observe, in the 'Paper of the rBth inS6nt,
a note signed VE AX; introducing to you a Letter,
under the signature AMATOR PATR IX, designed,
as VERAX declares, as a reply to my Letter to Mr.
H t LI„ in your Paper on Saturday the z zth instant.
I hope you will permit me, in return, to tender you
some further rernarki relative to the Tonnage Duty
on Shipping, requesting you "will have the goodness
to give them an early. insertion.

WE SUN.

NE ARC HUS.

SECOND LETTER.
TO MR. JOHN HILL,

CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF SHIP-OWNERS,
FOR THE REPEAL OF THE TONNAGE DUTY ON
SHIPPING.

DEAR SIR,
When I took the liberty to address you, on the
6th of February, on the subject of the Repeal of
the, Tonnage Duties on Shipping, starting Some
ideas in opposition to that meastire, I was in hopes
to do good-by examining the subject in a rather tiew
point of view, and that, if wrong, I should have
been set to rights in friendly guise, the same by
which I attempted' to convert you to my opinion.
Judge, therefore, of my surprise, when I observed
in the Sun Paper of the tBth February, an Address
to the Editor of the Sun, .Signed VE R AX, request.,
ing the insertion of a Letter by AMATOR PATR IX,
dated the loth December last, as a reply to my
Letter to you of the 6th Februaty, which appeared
in the Sun on the foregoing Saturday. 1 began
reading the production of AN Toil PATR I/E with a
good share of curiosity, but found no objedion.of
mine replied to or investigated, which certainly
could not be done, if the date of the Letter be not
fictitious. Tu call it a reply is clearly a misnomer.
This novel method of replying ism tainly a very
curious one, but it is to he hoped that few will con.
sider it a fair mode of proceeding. It is also obvi,
ous that the favourers of the Repeal have not found
it very convenient to answer,
.much less to over-

come the plain reasonings and fads adduced in
NEARCH us's Letter to you, my dear Sir, and there.
lure they favour. the Public with a Letter, accord.
ing to the assumed date of .which the Writer could
not know a syllable of NEAR CHiIS'S objections,
and, of course, could not answer thcmi except. it
was written in the prophetic spirit of anticipation.
_ However, .NEARCHUS must be excused from let_

ting this pass, and thinks it incumbent openly to
declare to you his confirmed opinion, that his argu.
ments, why the Tonnage Duty ought not to be re_
pealed, but modified, and, in that state, they he.
ing even capable of increase, are
_founded in sound

reisiatt44 and good.policy., Nothing appears easier
than, fur yourself, or some good Lawyer either, con:.
. versant with the business in.hand, to make a most
flourishing plea on in copious a subjeft as the mari-
time interests of Great Britain, and ANIATOR PA-
'ratites Letter is ex:l6lly a produalon Of
,tbis kind.
-.Elie proposition That a dtka
..may be inju-
rious, is not denied ; but all Taxes are so in some
degree, and it is no rule Ships should ,be excepted
from all diredt Taxes, and houses and lands continue
to pay them. It is said Ships are sUbjed to indi-
reel Taxes, by all the building materials paying
duty. I hope English Oak dues not. However,
it is granted many materials do. pay. And pray,
don't the materials, of which houses arc construCl.
ed, pay ? Are there not duties on brick, on stones,
on slates carded coastways ; and are not 7-Bths -of
the houses built with foreign timber, every inch of
which has .paid duty, and even freights to these.
vessels who claim exemption from all (fired taxa-
tion ?- Do not iron, glass, and sundry other mate-
rials used in house-building, pay heavy duties ?
That the -Tonnage Duty on Shipping is a new tax,
is no argument that it be a bad one, 4VIanY-new
Taxes have been created by the 'necessities of the
times, which have been found to be judicious, though
our Ancestors never dreamt of them. Moreover,
as .I stated in my former Letter to you, though the
Tonnage Duty is a novelty amongst. us, it is not
so in other Nations ; as for instance the Dutch,'who
have had it this half century and upwards. Their
desire to encourage Navigation, and knowing its
value; is probably coeval with the British systems
on this head,

The cry of the Carrying Trade being in danger
to be lost, is another specious argument, which,' if
sifted to the bottoin, comes to nothing. The Car..
rying-trade, in the real acceptation of the word,
means carrying goods on freight from a Foreign
Port to a Foreign Port. Now how can the Cairy-
ing-trade, thus, understood, ever be injured by 'the
Tonnage.DutY, which is only payable on Vessels
arriving in, and sailing from a British Port? If a
Vessel thus, for instance, should, for two or three
years, trade in the Mediterranean, and never return
to Great Britain in that period, she would not have,
a farthing Tonnage to.pay all this time. Foreign-
ers pay, in most places in Great Britain, higher
Pilotages, Dock dues, Li,g,ht-money, end Sundry
other Port charges, at a higher 'rate than British
Ships, which is a preference which must tend to keep,
the 'Foreign Ships back, and counterbalance any
advantage they .may possess in point 'of occasional
cheapness. Moreover, according to the Act of
Navigation, which is since the Peace restored to its,
former ativity, Foreign 'Ships can .come loaded only,
from the Countries to 'which they belong, which na
turally circumscribes their employment, and gives
the British Ships a due superiority. They are
eluded of our Colonial Trade, both the. East and
West Indies of course ; and British Ships have par.,
ticular, advantages in Duties on certain goods.,,
which insures, them preference there again.- 'Li' the
heat of argument, these assertors for the repeal
quite forget that. -not 'British Ships alone pay
the Tonnage. Duty,. but. Foreign Vessels also; that
things, arc; therefore on a par ;-tbat.we raise thus a
Revenue on the earnings. of 'Foreigner., and that,
on relinquishing. this TAX,. we shall give,over to
draw thia benefit from,those Foreigners, which fre-
quent our Ports. NEARCHUS has already exposed,.
in his former Letter, the absurd idea of letting Fo-,
reigners continue to pay this Tax, and abolish it on