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

tentAt 2'nn.

LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1844.

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 ?—We have.
For articles of import generally ?—Yes.
Do you not know that in the articles of corn, and tim-
ber, and cotton, and Obacco, 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.

Is that a recommendation that you think any ship-
owner would object to ?—I think not.

By Mr. LIDI;ELL—You would confine the power of
bonding articles imported to those which are brought in
British ships alone f—l 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. CIIAPMAN—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 he 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. LIDDELL—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.
ft 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
Ton ships' provisions, which they have in store, in
itich ports ; that at Marseilles, and in the Brazils also,
British ships have, according to Mr. IsTicuoLsoN, of
underland, their provisions sealed up, and are
,bliged to buy other provisions in those ports, a prat•
tical hardship, the fact of which is confirmed and
exemplified by Mr. CTJMING also; we think we have a
ight to assume that we have made out a case for that
contingent protection to British shipping, which the
.mreciproca.ting 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 abstract,
3f unrestricted freedom of trade.