The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-14 00:00:00

our Navigation Laws at that time, and had inflicted
severe discriminating duties in foreign ports, would
that have been no detriment to British snipping ?
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 have operated very
much to the detriment of British shipping ?—lf our
Government had imposed countervailing discriminating
duties 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 had under our Navigation Laws, at that time,
discriminating tonnage duties in our ports ?—I am not
aware that we had before 1824.

That was the principle of the Navigation Laws ?
I don't think there were any discriminating tonnage
duties on foreign 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 foreign vessels than on British ?—lt was
not a duty on shipping : it was a per centage upon
the duty on foreign imports : upon the goods, not
upon the shipping.
The duty, whether 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 intended 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 you 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 was 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 ?—We have no power but
that which the Americans resort to, of non-inter-
course.

n 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 P—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 2/. 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, ls. 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 F—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 tol 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,

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
spate 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
of the legal profession, and calculated to endanger the
jpterests of the public and the security of property,
and to dirt that this Moll-Mon be printed and sent to
all the solicitors in Birmingham77-4irp4ingicgtn Ga;effr.
We pitn state, from authority, that the anxiously
wished for Brevet will take place in January next,—
Limerick Chronicle,