The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-15 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONAL
PAPERS.

SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS ON BRITISH SHIPPING.—
(No. 545. 11. C.)
One of the most important points to which the
evidence of the witnesses examined was directed (as
we remarked in a former article on the Shipping In-
terest, and its prospects), regarded—
" Reasj.9rocity Treaties," and one of the main causes
assigned by them for the depression in the value of
shipping property which has been for many years
taking place. This evidence applied to them under
five principal heads :-1. Generally ; 2. Their injurious
effect upon British Shipping ; 3. How far observed by
Foreign Powers ; 4. No effect to be attributed to the
Treaties—whether or not they ought to be further
carried out; 5. Whether the Government could have
avoided entering into them. These are all of them
important matters in relation to the existing aspect of
our shipping interest. Mr. Hall, of London, having
observed that "no duties have been taken off ships
excepting under the reciprocity treaties"—and having
answered affirmatively to the question, " Whether he
would have similar treaties for the reduction of duties
on goods ?" proceeds—" I have no doubt they would
be met in a similar spirit on the Continent. When
the first reciprocity treaty was proposed in this
country it was with Holland. M. Fagel was Minister
here. Mr. Huskisson was at the Board of Trade ;
and when M. Fagel represented to him that it was
impossible for Holland to enter into a reciprocity
treaty with this country, having the Navigation Act
in favour of British shipping, Mr. Huskisson said—
" That is the fundamental law of this country, but
we have no objection to your passing a similar Act to,
protect your own." But M. Fagel replied, "Those
very items in the importation of which you protect
British shipping are the very articles which we are
exporting. Let us put a similar number of articles in
our Navigation Acts, and we are ready to meet you."
Mr. Geo. F. Young thus speaks to their injurious
effhct upon British shipping and upon the freights, as
exemplified by both the North American and Baltic
timber trades :—" The stipulation under which Ame-
rican ships were placed, strictly speaking, on the
principle of reciprocity, was long antecedent to the
passing of the Reciprocity Duties Bill : it was part
of our concurrence in the treaty of peace after the
la,t war with America. That was followed out in
the case of the American trade, by the loss to the
British shipping of a great proportion of the direct
carrying trade between the United States and this
country, which ever since has been continued to be
engrossod in a very large degree by American ship-
ping. I am hardly prepared to say whether this
degree is increasing at the present moment; I am
inclined to think it is not—the importations both in
American and English ships having increased ; and
I am not aw.are whether the proportions of that
increase are in favour of American or British ton-
nage." " The same effect has principally fol-
lowed in the trade with those countries with which
we have made treaties of reciprocity ; but as I con-
sider those treaties now to form part of the per-
manent policy of this country, I regard the system
in no other light than as a cause of permanent
pressure from fox eign competition upon British
tonnage in certain trades, which deprives it of a
great portion of the' navigation in those trades, and
causes a re-action upon other branches of maritime
commerce which I will take the liberty of illustrat-
icle of timber the competing
ing. In the great art
produce of the British Colonies or North America
and the Baltic are so newly adjusted in price, in the
British market, that a :very small variation will
transfer the demand from the one article to a corre-
sponding production of the mother part of the world:
and thus, the Baltic timber .being now, in a great
degree, imported in Baltic sh ips at a low rate of
freight, which the cheapness of kroduction and navi-
gation enables them to accept, drives the British
abipowner, engaging in the same tr:ade, to take the
same rate of freight in that trade, inassnuch as there
cannot be two prices for the same commodity in
the same market. This" re• acts upon the American
trade by preventing any rise in the freight of
American timber ; because any such rise would in-
crease the cost of American timber in this market,
and induce the consumers, in preference to paying
that rate, at once to have recourse to the Baltic
timber. Thus, I consider this particular alteration of
our navigation system to be a cause of permanent
pressure upon British tonnage. This, being in ope-
ration, has during the last few years been greatly
aided by the concurrence of a variety of other cir-
cumstances leading to the same result. Among the
most prominent, I have no hesitation in saying, is the
over-production of ships. But I hope I shall be al-
lowed to explain why I have arrived at the conclu-
sion that that over-production has not been the result
of any improvident act on the part of the British
shipowners, but is almost wholly, if not entirely, the
oonsequence of the freedom of admission of North
American colonial-built ships to the privilege of
British registry." The same witness proceeds to ex-
press a strong opinion that no further competition of
foreign shipping should be admitted ; but that these in-
jurious effects of reciprocity treaties should operate as a
warning against future errors of the same nature;
especially, seeing that all the countries with which
we have contracted these treaties can navigate more
cheaply than ourselves. Mr. Somes concurs in the
views of Mr. Young as to the disastrous influence of
the reciprocity treaties on British shipping. He
holds that no further infringement upon the present
protection of that interest should be allowed; and
that the same cause injuriously affects all other
trades. Mr. Chapman thinks that these treaties have
diverted shipping from some branches of commerce
into others, and thus proved an active cause of com-
petition ; but Mr. Tanner, allowing that they are a
cause of the depression complained of, remarks that in
1839 and 1840 our shipping was in a comparatively
flourishing state.
It is important to notice, on this last point, the dis-
crepancy between the unqualified evidence to depres-
sion for the last five years, given by Messrs. Young,
Snsnes, &c.
On the depression of freights, Mr. Anderson says,
that though it was partly owing, during the last
three years, to the generally bad state of trade, it was
mainly attributable to the operation of these treaties ;
and that it was particularly in the interval from
1826 to 1829 that this effect began to be felt, allowing
for the action of the general distress then prevalent
throughout the kingdom. The same cause, he states,
had largely operated to produce all the main fluctua-
tions experienced by the shipping interest since 1820.
The fact of our being, as to the northern ports of
Europe, an importing, rather than an exporting,
country, makes the system of reciprocity disadvan-
tageous to us.
We are disposed to attach the more value to the
evidence of this gentleman, on account of the great
candoir and sound sense with which the whole bearings
of reciprocity treaties, and, incidentally, of " discri-
minating duties," are set forth in the following
answers to questions (2,004 to 2,036):—
At the time of the reciprocity treaties, would it
have been a very great detriment to our shipping if
heavy discriminating duties had been imposed in
foreign parts ?—No Ido not think it would.

Will You explain how that could have failed to
operate to the detriment of British shipping ?—I am
giving my opinion by what occurred in Dantzic ; at
the pole of Dantzic the duties were very heavy.
There were double charges on British shipping at one
time before the reciprocity treaties, and Dantzic lost
all its trade, and was reduced to a state of beggary,
and the ships were laid up and rotting, in conse-
quence of their laying on higher duties than the
neighbouring ports.
The result was to drive our shipping out of Dantzic ?
—We had Memel to go to.
SupioqE_ they had adopted the same principle in
Memel Ve should have gone to Prussia.
Suppose they had done the same. thing everywhere.
Suppose those foreign Powers determined to retaliate
our Navigation Laws at that time, and had inflicted
severe discriminating duties in foreign ports, would
that have been no detriment to British shipping ?
No. We should have had to go to the British
Colonies, and to the southern ports of the United
States for timber. That would have been a great
detriment to the country, generally, as it would have
raised the price of timber.
You speak of having a resource in a trade with the
United States ?—Yes.

Are you not aware that the United States were
among the very first Powers to commence that retalia-
tion ?—I know that very well. The United States
were the first Power with whom we had the
treaty of reciprocity in 1814.
Was not-that treaty in consequence of a determina-
tion of the Americans to inflict heavy discriminating
duties in retaliation for the Navigation Laws ?—I do
not remember. I know the date of the treaty from
having since referred to it ; but at that time I was
at sea.

If that were so, would not the course adopted by
the United States' Government hare operated very
much to the detriment of British shipping ?—lf our
Government had imposed countervailing discriminating
dutiiis on their shipping, which would have been a fair
retaliation, we should have been pretty much in the same
situation as before.
The retaliation was on the side of the Americans :
we had discriminating duties before the Americans
imposed duties by way of retaliation ?—I do not
know anything about what the tonnage duties were
on ships in 1814.
We ha:} under our Navigation Laws
discriminkting tonnage duties in our l s a?—
that time,
aware that we had before 1824. por I am not
That was the principle of the Navigation Laws 9--
I don't think there were any discriminating tonnage
&Wks on tbreign shipping in 1824, previous to the en-
tering into those treaties.
Was it not one of the main provisions of the Navi-
gation Laws that a higher tonnage duty should be

placed on for, sign vE ssels than on British ?—lt was
not a duty on, shipping: it was a per tentage upon
the duty on rorergn imports : upon the goods, not
upon the shippi:
The duty, w •Irether imposed upon the tonnage, or
upon the goods, was a discriminating duty upon fo-
reign shipping ?. --Certainly ; upon goods imported in
foreign shipping.
Which was in' tended to operate to the disadvantage
of foreign shipping in our ports ?—lt was intended to
operate to the advantage of British shipping, in pre-
ference to the shipping of foreign countries.
That being the case, if the American Government
adopted the same system by way of retaliation against
us, do not y,Du think that that must have operated to
the detriment of our shipping interest?—lf the Ame-
rican Government had imposed no other or higher du-
ties upon the :merchandise of this country, imported
into the United States, than this country imposed
upon the goods of America, imported in American
ships into this country, it would have been perfectly
fair, and there would have been no disadvantage ex-
cept a rise of price in the two countries.
In that case, how should we have been better off by
maintaining the discriminating duty than by that
duty being dispensed with on each side ; that is, had
there been mutual concession instead of mutual re-
taliation ?—There is no other difference as to America
than that which existed in the way of duties. The
question, as to America, I would not consider as
placed on the same footing as the question with re-
ference to those countries which can navigate so much
cheaper than British shipping can; for we can navi-
gate with the Americans very fairly, and there can be
no objection to putting the shipping on the same footing.
The question is not whether we can compete with
those countries upon an equal footing, but whether,
under the circumstances of the case, we might not be
placed in a position of quite as much disadvantage
with reference to them as we are by the reciprocity
treaties ?—With America, I think, we might.
Supposing that, in our trade with the Baltic, by a
process of retaliation, the discriminating duties had
been made to press equally both in the foreign ports
and in the ports of this country, how should we have
stood in a better position as to competition with the
shipping of those countries than under the reciprocity
treaties ?—The protecting duties on British shipping
were not on the ship, but on the merchandise. Then
if the Prussians, or the other countries, had imposed a
similar duty on goods imported in our ships it would
have amounted to next to nothing; their imports from
this country being so small compared with the ex-
ports from their country to this, it would not have
had so injurious an effect.
That may be true supposing the protecting duties
confined to goods ?—That was the case in this country
previous to the treaties being made.
But the intentions of the Prussian Government were
not to confine them to goods ?—I am aware that they
were not.

Assuming that the intention of the Prussian Go-

vernment -sas this—to enact laws which should ac-
complish as effective a discrimination in their ports,
between their own shipping as ours, as we had esta-
blished in our ports between our shipping and theirs—
what should you say then ?—That it was a very un-
fair thing to do. I merely put it upon this ground,
that I think, in common fairness, between the coun-
tries, the trade should be so regulated as that the sub-
jects of both countries, taking into consideration their
relative situations and their liability to expenses, over
which they can have no control, should be placed in
the same situation as to the benefit to be derived from
trade.

What power have we of giving effect to any
such arguments as those you have mentioned in the
case of foreign countries P—We have no power but
that which the Americans resort to, of non-inter-
course.

In your opinion it would be detrimental to the
shipping interest of this country if all other coun-
tries adopted the principle of our own Naviga-
tion Laws ; namely, to prevent our having any inter-
course with them in our own ships ?—lt would be
difficult, no doubt, for this country to contend with
the whole world combined against her, which is a
state of things, however, very unlikely to occur, con-
sidering what has been the course pursued by this
country towards others.
If you followed out your own principle of those
Navigation Laws, and imposed such duties as would
prevent any competition with you, supposing other
countries to pursue the same principle with respect to
you, would the shipping of this country be then on a
better footing than it is at present ?—That is an ab-
stract question, which I cannot very well answer.
But we never did that. The discriminating duties
imposed by us in favour of British shipping were to
so small an amount that one reason for abrogating that
protection was, that the amount was so small as to
render it not worth preserving.
Do not you attribute much of the evil you complain
of to the abrogation of those laws ?—Yes.
A large portion of it ?—Yes, and I will give a
reason for my opinion in that respect. Although the
amount was small, and not extending to the amount
of difference which existed in the cost of navigation
between foreign countries and ours, it was 5 per cent.
upon the import duty, and when the duty was 21. 15s.
a load, it amounted to 2s. 9d. a load on timber. Though
that was not enough to make up for the difference in
the expenses of navigation, it was enough to give us
a preference in our own market, and enable us to get,
perhaps, is. to ls. 6d. a load freight for timber more
than foreign ships.
Have not you the protection of double lights and
pilotage ?—Those were taken off by the treaties with
each foreign country respectively.
Notwithstanding all, have you not beaten foreigners
since 1824 in point of tonnage ?—Certainly not in
profit. . _

Have you not in point of tonnage ?—I don't think
we have.

Suppose that those Foreign Governments had suc-
ceeded in accomplishing their avowed object of
making a complete retaliation, and of placing our
ships in their ports at as great a disadvantage in point
of competition with their own as their ships were
placed at in our ports, would you not, then, be in
precisely the same situation with respect to competi-
tion as you are now, with the additional disadvantage
of restrictions upon trade ?—lf they had so nicely
calculated the difference as to produce the same effect
as is now produced, I do not see that any great dif-
ference would have been the result. The only differ-
ence would have been that the infliction would have
been by the Foreign Governments instead of by our
own. On the third point—how far these treaties
have been observed by Foreign Powers,—great dif-
ference of opinion prevails. Mr. Cuming has no
reason to believe that British shipping in foreign ports
is not on a footing with other foreign ships, and Mr.
Hall inclines strongly to confirm this statement. On
the other hand, Mr. Straker shows that the reci-
procity treaties are not fairly carried out by reason of
the vexatious regulations of foreign ports. This wit-
ness further suggests that, as the intention of the
treaties is thus defeated by some foreign states, it
would be only fair to) restrict the privilege of
bonding to cargoes brought in British ships, which
would be an equivalent to their restrictions.
In our next notice of this " Report," we shall give
from the Appendix a list of the countries with which
treaties of reciprocity, with regard to shipping, have
been entered into, and the dates of such treaties.

IMPROVEMENTS in the QUEEN'S

PARK.

We are glad to notice that the cutting of the great
drain through the bog under Salisbury Crags is
making rapid progress. For some time past the work
has been attended with serious difficulties, from the
constant falling in of the sides and the continued pour-
ing in of water from the surrounding springs. The
drain has now crossed the road in front of the spot
formerly known as " Maggy's Hole," and has
entered the meadow, so long and justly complained
of as one of the most offensive nuisances in the
neighbourhood of Edinburgh—a nuisance which
in a very short period will happily no longer exist.
Probably none of the numerous improvements un-
dertaken in the vicinity of Edinburgh for a number
of years back, have excited the same degree of in-
terest with thos c now going forward in the Queen's
Park. Every fine day multitudes of well-dressed
persons may be seen promenading the footpath at
the finished part of the road to the south part of the
bog—all anxiously looking forward to its junction
with the portion already formed to the east of the
Palace, leading towards Jock's Lodge. This junction
will probably he effected in the course of the ensuing
spring, and will open up a part of what, when finished,
will be one of the most magnificent carriage drives
in Europe.—Edinburgh Paper.

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.

SOUTH SEA FISHERY.

Brothers, of London, June 11, 1843, out 23 months,
with 1,200 barrels ; Matilda, Bless, 17th, out 36 months,
with 650 barrels ; Henrietta, Henderson, Aug. 15, out
24 months, with 210 barrels ; Eliza Frances, Miner,
Sept. 7, out 11i months, with 230 barrels ; Kitty, Ben-
son, Dec. 4, out 18 months, with 500 barrels ; Pilot,
Blake, 9th, out 23 months, with 500 barrels ; Eclipse,
Hay, Jan. 22, 1844, out 27 months, with 1,200 barrels ;
Aladdin, Boon, out 20 months, with 1,900 barrels ; Alert,
Martinson, 16th, out 28 months, with 1,000 barrels ;
Kent, Jerman, 18th, out 28,1 months, with 1,850 barrels;
Mary Anna, Shey, April 8, out 8 months, with 200'
barrels ; Bermondsey, Stokes, at Aguarn in March,
I
8 months from Sydney, with 450 barrels, by the SurprisQ
arrived at Sydney, from the South Seas.

At an annual meeting of the Birmingham Law
Society, held on the 19th ult., the following resolution
was passed :—" It having been notified that certain soli-
citors in this town have sent in written tenders, com-
peting for employment by a building club, and on a
scale of charges greatly below those legally authorised,
this meeting feels it necessary to express its severe con-
demnation of such conduct, as derogatory to the honour
?Inhr
interests
tet the ltes goal ptrhoefespub
sio andand
th e calculatedsecurittoyof
endangerproperty,the
and to direct that this resolution be printed and sent to
all the solicitors in Butain" ghsra..—Birstisham Gazette.