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

DA VIDOE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.

Increasing success of Don Cxsar de Flazan—FirsiWejcof another
New Drama.
THIS EVENING, NO lEMBF,R 15,
Will be. performed a New Dr .ma, enti led DON CIE'3AR DE
Y,AZAN, su;!ported by the entire Company.
A fuse wh!cis, an entirely New Drama, THE SISTERS OF CHA-
TILLON, in which Messrs. Hicks, Neville, R. Shephard, Vale,
Johnson, Heslop, Mrs. It. Homier, Miss Terrey, Mrs. H. Vining, &c.,
will pert otm.
To conclude with a New Farce, entited A NM HT OF HORRORS.
Characters by Messrs. Va e, Lew,s, Johnson, Heslop, Mrs. Daly, Miss
Terrey, &c.

P‘ac'e's ~1:I Private Boxes to be had of Ur. Kerschner, at the Box
office from Eleven to Four.

ROYAL. VICTORIA THEATRE.
THIS EVENING, NOVEMBER
Will be performed THE WANDERING JEW, in which Messrs.
Seaman, Dale, and the Misses Harcourt wrl appear.
After which, PORK. CHOPS, in which Messrs. G. Wild and
Merbert will perform.
To conclude with SIXTEEN-ST/IWO JACK. John Rana, Mr.
T. H. ; Kit Clayton, Mr. 0, Wild.
Private Family Boxes, .£1 13,0 d. and XI Ils. dd.

TIIE WEATHER.—Suer OFFICE, Nov. 15.
IruumomETEß, Lowest, 48; Highest, '54; Noon, 54.
BAROMETER, W.S.W.
NioTa.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the
freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometers fair is
usually placed opposite 30, and rain at 29.

'HIGH WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Morning ... 4 minutes after SI Evening ... minutes after S.

Is that a recommendation that you think any ship-
owner would object to ?—I think not.
By Mr. LIDDELL—You would confine the power of
bonding articles imported to those which are brought in
British ships alone ?—I think it would be a benefit to the
British ship-owner; and I will go further, and say to the
British merchant. It would work in two ways : he
might import more goods, and thereby employ more
shipping; it would do away with the necessity of ad-
vancing the duties till the goods were wanted.
By Mr. CHAPMAN—In the case of a vessel laden with
corn, the duty having to be paid instantly if in a foreign
vessel, have you made any calculation as to the difference
that would be made in the freight of that vessel ?—No ;
I consider that, according to the present corn-laws, it
would be very difficult to make any calculation, for with
the sliding-scale you do not know what the duty would be.
By Captain GLADSTONE—Do you know anything of
the trade with the Brazils ?—Very little ; I never had
but one ship there.
Are you aware of any preference being given in the
foreign trade to foreign vessels over British vessels ?
In every trade that you are speaking of the Swedes, and
some other trades, have the preference."

Now, on turning to the' Return of Countries, in
which Treaties of Reciprocity with regard to Shipping
have been entered into,'" we find that Brazil executed
such a treaty on the 17th of August, 1827 ; Prussia
on the Ist of April, 1824 ; Sweden and Norway in
June, of the same year.
The witness last quoted has demonstrated how these
and other powers have acted to us under those treaties.

It is to be noted, however, that Mr. HALL, a ship-
owner and ship-broker, of London, takes a very dif-
ferent view of the mode in which these treaties have
been acted on. For these are his answers to questions
addressed to that point :--
By Mr. LumELL—Have you any reason to believe
that these reciprocity treaties are not fairly and ho-
nestly observed, in all cases, by foreign powers ? No.
On the contrary, I believe that our interest is so well
represented in foreign ports, that our Government would
be immediately made acquainted with any preference or
advantage which was shown to foreign shipping.
This answer would be of more moment if it fol-

lowed that Lord ABERDEEN, on receiving such infor-
mation, would adopt any effective measures consequent
upon it. Besides, what does Mr. HaLL's vindication
of the respect of foreign States for these treaties amount
to, when he is further pressed ?
Nevertheless it does appear that cases do exist in which
an undue preference is shown to ships of those (foreign)
nations ?—lt must be indirectly.
Is it not so in the case of salt in the ports of Prussia ?
I am aware of that; but I believe that has been remedied
in consequences of remonstrances having been made.
We have against this, not the " belief," but the
positive evidence of Mr. STRAKER to the contrary.
It is remarkable, too, that Mr. HALL himself expressly
admits " that reciprocity treaties are undoubtedly fa-
vourable to foreign shipping; whereas, in a state of
peace, it is impossible to favour British over foreign
shipping." If we add to these the other important
considerations that Mr. TANNER'S evidence proves,
that British ships in ports of Russia (which Power
entered into a reciprocity treaty with us in January,
1823), of Prussia, and of Holland, are charged duty
upon ships' provisions, whildh they have in store, in
such ports ; that at Marseilles, and in the Brazils also,
British ships have, according to Mr. NictioLsoN, of
Sunderland, their provisions sealed up, and are
obliged to buy other provisions in those ports, a prac-
tical hardship, the fact of which is confirmed and
exemplified by Mr. CUING also; we think we have a
right to assume that we have made out a case for that
contingent protection to British shipping, which the
unreciprocating parties to reciprocity treaties with us
must marvel at our having so long abstained from
enforcing against them; and which circumstances so
special would amply warrant us in making a marked
exception to the general principle and pervading
policy we shall at all times advocate, in the abstrac
of unrestricted freedom of trade.

From the commencement of the present century
the master difficulty experienced by the successive
Governments which have exercised office in that in-
terval—has been—how to deal with the Poor-law ?
The necessity which, from time to time, has been
felt to be so indispensable for amending its defective
machinery, or for simplifying the complexity of its
operation, or for controlling the enormous annual
demand for poor-rates in the whole annual rental of
the country—this necessity has been the impelling
motive of so many attempts at improving the Poor-
law, on the part both of Whigs and Tories. They
have encountered more continuous, exhausting, and
thankless labour in putting forth those attempts than
ever in the endeavour to govern Ireland or conciliate
their opponents to their scheme of foreign policy.
But the attempts themselves have proved but failures
more or less qualified by the advantageous working,
or otherwise, of particular details. There has been,
in all of them, a great defectiveness of system ; a
palpable want of unity in the action of their different
parts; and a discrepancy of principle between the
test to qualify for the relief to be extended under
such Acts, and the test for discriminating between
the claims of the various classes its recipients. From
this censure we can by no means exempt the 4th and
sth WILLIAM IV., c. 76 ; and the fact of these de-
ficiencies of system, and this discrepancy of princi-
ples, is strikingly corroborated by the Bill which
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was reluctantly compelled, at
the close of last session, to propound to the considera-
tion of Parliament, for the virtual further amendment
of the existing "Poor-law Amendment Act," just
cited, in no less essential a particular than the Law of
Settlement.

That Bill, our readers may remember, was merely
brought in and printed for distribution to Members.
It will be discussed at an early day after the re-
assembling of the two Houses. It purports to be a
"Bill for Consolidating and Amending the Laws re-
lating to Parochial Settlements, and to the removal
of the Poor;" and has already excited no little alarm
and displeasure among very large and influential
communities of the kingdom, more especially the
resident rate-payers in manufacturing towns and
districts. This is not to be wondered at. The altera-
tions it proposes to establish are described, in a
" Report" now before us, " of the Committee ap-
pointed by the Town Council of Leicester to con-
sider and report" upon the measure as "of the
most sweeping and startling nature, and, moreover,
of an ex post facto" character. "The Bill (the Com-
mittee add) entirely abolishes all settlements of
every description acquired before the passing of the
Act, unless the parties have been removed by orders,
or their settlement has been attained by writing,
under the hands of the majority of the overseers of.
the parish ; and it establishes as the only ground of
settlement—first, that of birth; and, if the place of
birth cannot be ascertained, then, !secondly, that of
the settlement of the father, as it would be, if living
after the passing of the Act ; or, if the father be not
settled in any parish in England, or if such parish
cannot be ascertained, or if the pauper were not
born in wedlock, then the place of settlement is the
parish in which the mother would—if living after the
passing of the Act—be settled. It will, therefore, be
seen that, at one blow, all existing settlements, with
the exception of that of birth, are swept away ; and
that this change applies not only to the future, but
affects all settlements already acquired by any other
means :than that of birth, or unappealed against
orders of removal, or written acknowledgments."
Now, to show how serious a question a sweeping
measure of this kind becomes—in connexion, espe-
cially, with,the opinion of so intelligent a body as
that which has produced the Leicester Town Council

Report, that " it may be safely predicted that should
this Bill pass into a law, it will give rise to as much,
and, in the first instance, more litigation, than has
taken place under the law which it is intended to
supersede ;" we may observe that, in its present form,
1t must necessarily exercise a most disastrous and
Idverse influence on the future prosperity of all

in Prussia is one instance ; the vexatious rules and re-
gulations that you are subjected to in foreign ports, and
the delays and various things you have to contend with.
By Mr. LYALL—A re not foreign ships subject to the
same ?—No.
The following answers of the same witness also go
to show that the intention of the reciprocity treaties
is thus defeated by foreign countries, and that it
would be only fair to restrict the privilege of "bond-
ing" to cargoes brought in British ships, as an equi-
valent for the restrictions enforced by such foreign
States :
By Mr. CHAPMAN—You have been long at Newcastle,
have you bonded warehouses there 7—We have.
For articles of import generally ?—Yes.
Do you not know that in the articles of corn, and tim-
ber, and cotton, and tobacco, if imported into the port of
Newcastle, the Government of this country has the
power, without contravening any reciprocity treaty, to
collect a revenue on those articles if imported in a
foreign ship, and letting them be bonded in a British
warehouse ; if this indulgence were granted only to
those articles when imported in a British ship, will you
state to the Committee whether that would not be an
advantage to the British shipowner ?—Certainly, I
think so.

• '•^4N,1.1" • •
Y.
_
40s-

SECOND EDITION.