The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-05 00:00:00

)31tITISil CATHOW BOAD.

Tuesday,'April' 3, 1821.
His Grace the Duke of.N.CatrorAc, Barl'Marshal, in the Chair.
Restilved—That the Members of this Board are impressed
with the deepest feelings of- gratitude towards the House of
COmmeni for the Bill- it has been please-d to pass for the re-
moval of the disqualifications under which his Majesty's Ro-
man Catholic. subjects now labour.-

Thaftlieir wannest thanks'are dne, and are:hereby given, to
the Right HonourableNVlttr,s3t CONY'SOHAMPLU:NKETT,
bY.00.111 the measure. was introduced.; -to .the ,Right Honour-
able Sir .f011:.4" NEWPORT, on. whom the charge devolved upon
the lamented event Winn subsequently occasioned the absence
of 111 r. P.t..uatx r ; the Right 'Honourable the Lord Nu-
GENT, wlitypresented. the Petition of the .British Roman Ca-
tholieS ;and to all those Members of the House of Commons
who have given:to this so wise, so generous, and so
zealous a support.:
That they do also entertain "a just sense of the conciliatory
spirit and eandour-which *as generally manifested-throughout
the late discussion..... L.. ,• • , • -

_
NORFOLK, E. M. Chairman.
ED WARD JERNINGFIAIII, Secretary.

TIMBER DUTIES.

SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE_LEADIG POINTS

OE THE QUESTION.,
is riot Great Britain essentially la maritime state ? Is not
a very large proportion of the power and.strength she enjoys the
consequence of her ,maritime strength ? Has not this strength
grown up to its height under the course of policy she has hi-
therto pursued in respect to het-Colonies and navigation ?.
Has not this course, of policy been; a restrictive one ? Is it
possible to legislate in favour, of -.the growth of any particular
interest without such legislation being of the restrictive kind ?
. Why do we prevent the inhabitants of London and its neigh-
bourhood from consuming inland coal, which they could get at
half thc'price of the sea-born coal ?
• 'Why do we say that the people of this country shall pay 50
percent. more for brandy than for rum ?
Has it ever been urged as matter of complaint against any
'country thafit favours its own productions, and encourages
its own shipping? and are not the products of our Colonies
our own ?

Why should wood alone, the most bulky of all our articles
of trausport3 be exempt from the operation of this course of
policy ?, • -

•
If such an experiment is to be tried, why is a moment to be
chosen for it when the shipping of the country is unusually
depressed.?. • • •
If we protect the grower of corn because he is liable to taxa-
tion and charges from which the foreigner is exempt, why do
we forget that the Ship-owner is in the same situation ; and
that the very act by,which that protection is ailbrded to the agri-
culturist at once deprives British shipping of employment., and
compels the British Ship-owner (who is a larger consumer of
bread) to ipay a much higher price for its . than he otherwise
Would do ?

'Why is Canada to.be favoured less than our West India
,Co-
lonies ? Has she not. shown great capabilities for' valuable in-
tercourse 3v.ith the mother .country ?
ColOnyallbrels so convenient and-so desirable facility
for emigration ? Has it not already been availed of to a large
extent in this way.? And 'under proper regulation may it not
progressively be extended alMost to an indetiniteainount ?
is not the effect of this and of 'the general encouragement of
the colony, to hind it closer to Great Britain, to note up a po-
PUlation attathed more and more to this country, and in so far
to remove the danser. Df separation from it ?..Was not Canada,
during the war with the United States, the means of. conveying
into that country large quantities of manufactured goOds ? ,
On a very recent occasion, when it was proposed in the
United States-to lay ull per cent. 'duty on all British manufac-
tures, was not the measure frustrated by the objection success-
fully urged,-tllat it would lead the illicitintroduction of them
through Canada ? If the rule is to beCome general; that every
thing should be got where it can be had best and cheapest, why ,
do we not extend the same rule to the Colonies thernsaves ?
But what is in truth-So cheap to the country as that which is
paid for in British manufacture and British freight, and which
takes no money out of the country ?
Are the Ship Owners and the Colonists to be punished for
over-trading ? If so, the labours, of Parliament will of course
be extended to other cases of the same offence, and where will
they end ?

If Canada is to be discouraged by having her produce left on
her hands, what is so likely to alienate the minds of the people,
and to pave the way for their union to..the United States? and,-
then, with the whole coast frOm Florida tolludion's Bay in the
possession of the latter power, what is. to becoMe of our West
India and Newfoundland trade in the event of any collision
hereafter with•that power ? In point of fact, ha. 4 not this over..
trading beenvery much .excitea by the continued apprehension
of duty which has prevailed fir the last two. years ? .Did tot

Government, inlaying on the duty on foreign wood. distinctly
announce the motives and the objects of the measure by public
declarations in Parliament, and by. a written Communication to
the Ship Owners ? What reasonable doubt could be entertained
that, while this course of may was realising all the objects
proposed by it, the protection it was pledged to afibrd would be
continued ?

What is to become of the seamen to be thrown out of
ploy ? Are they a class of, persons to whom other resource.i are
open, or must they go to rival powers to increase their maritime
strength ? •
• Ills suggested that a difference of 5 per cent. in the duty in
favour of British shipping is sufficient to enable it to maintain a
fair competition with the foreign Shipowner. Is it posiible to
discover in this difference any proportion between the actual
difference of taxation ? or does it .approximate in any degree
towards the protection afforded op the same ground to the agri-
culturist ?

If the increased import of foreign wood. is" possibly to pro.
duce an increased demand from the north.of Europe forOritish
mamifactures," will not the decreased import of Arnericri wood
• lead to as decreased demand from North A.merica., andin antueli
greater degree the one being certain to be. ,paid for wholly in
that manner, the' other very uncertain.
his said tactti" "-that means have been studiously pre-
pare the parties concerned for an alteration of -the present sys-
tem. ls there a word of`this in the evideirice before the Select
Committee ; and has not the Chairman of the Ship-owners'So-
ciety,fOrmallyfind publicly declared that no intimation was ever
received from Government further titan that a duty of 10s. 3d.
per load might possibly be proposed on American timber, that
sum having been added to the duty on foreign timber subse-
quent to the protecting duty being. imposod, and therefore form-
ing no part of the plighted protection ?