The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-16 00:00:00

. _
among them. The cohesive principle is wanting.
I They have nothing to combine for—nothing to rally
round—nothing to make a firm, vigorous, immovable
stand upon. To be sure they may set up the conve-
nient doctrine of Expediency, and enlist under its
banners, but then they will cease to be Conservatives,
at least in the sense in which they now understand the
term. Who shall assure them, then, when once they
have adopted this lax, accommodating doctrine as their
principle of action, that they may not be called on
some fine day to approve measures diametrically
opposed to the original genius of Conservatism—
measures framed in a Whig spirit, and emanating
from a Whig workshop, though brought forward by a
Tory Premier ? Who shall assure them that the
Ministry of their choice, and whom they took such
prodigious pains to instal in office at the last election,
will not, ere long, drag them through the dirt by
compelling them to abandon, wholly and for ever,
their favourite crotchet of Monopoly, and yield sub-
missively to the authoritative demand of the League
for a total abrogation of the Corn-laws ? Who shall
assure them that they will not be called upon to make
such large concessions on the subject of national
education, as shall throw Mother Church into fits of
absolute despair? If the Durham Conservatives
resolve as a body to stand by Sir ROBERT PEEL and
the Expediency-system, there is no end to the humi-
liations to which they will be subjected—no end to
the sacrifices of character and consistency they will
be expected to make—no end to the contempt which
will be shown them by their task-master, and the
abhorrence in which they will be held by the country ;
if they do not unhesitatingly, coute qui coute, stand by
the Premier, but prefer to maintain independent
opinions of their own, then it is pretty clear that they
will never be able to form a compact, numerous,
powerful, well-organised Association in the county of
Durham, for there will always be waverers and time-
servers among them who will have a direct interest in
sowing dissensions in their ranks, and endeavouring
to bring them round to the views of those in power.

In an article we published a few days since, on the
‘' Report of the Select Committee on British Ship
ping," we alluded to the " degree" of protection which
some of the witnesses conceive it to be both necessary
and politic to extend to that interest, and to the opi-
nions entertained by others, of the inexpediency of
attempting to establish any such protection at all.
We shall hardly be considered to favour the principle
of protection, who have so uniformly advocated the
establishment, to the fullest practicable extent, of free
trade in every department of commerce. Neverthe-
less, in order that we may not be misunderstood as to
the tenour of our former observations, it may be ne-
cessary to repeat the expression of our regret that the
British Government have not distinctly " protected"
British shipping, by acting on a system of retaliatory
policy towards the shipping of all States, which, hav-
ing entered into reprocity treaties with us, have
dishonourably departed from the spirit of such
treaties, by exacting heavier tonnage and other duties
on our merchant-vessels in their ports, than we, in
conformity with these reciprocal stipulations,
levy on their merchantmen in our ports. To
this extent we are clearly of opinion that ab-
stract principles should give way to practical exi-
gencies, when circumstances have intervened to
destroy the equal relations between the contracting
parties, on the assumption of which those principles
have been recognised and avowed by them. It seems '
to be mere drivelling to go on, in the bona fide dis-
charge of our own part of these contracts, towards
States which have openly departed from, and still
pertinaciously persist in violating theirs, towards us.
On every principle of equity the contract has been
annulled and determined by their own act and deed.
The notioa of a one-sided reciprocity is a positive
anomaly ; but to persist in it under an impression of
the necessity for doing so (even to the extending an
absolute premium to the grasping bad faith of the
other parties to such agreements), in order that the
abstract principle of "no protection" may be vindi-
cated, is a mere puerile pedantry. But is the case
we have put of this systematic violation of reciprocity
treaties an imaginary one ? Upon the question
whether it be, or be not, depends the propriety or im-
propriety 'of establishing, with regard to British
shipping, and in respect of the circumstances which
our hypothesis assumes, an exception to the general
rule, " that protection, in any branch of commerce, is
inexpedient."
Now, in the evidence of Mr. STRAKER, a ship-
owner and ship-builder, of North Shields, we find
the following important answers to questions, which
fairly put this point in issue :
By Mr. WASON—Can you suggest any remedies for
the improvement of the shipping ?—No great remedy
can I suggest. It is the opinion of every ship-owner
with whom I have conversed, that any further relaxation
would tend to aggravate the evil) therefore I do hope

the Government;ill make a stand where they can.
Do you think that the principle of reciprocity is fairly
carried out ?—No.

By Mr. CHAPMAN—In what respect ?—The salt trade
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—Are not foreign ships subject to the
same ?—No.

The following answers of the same witness also go

;o 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 2—Yes.
Do you not know that in the articles of corn, and tim-
ber, and cotton, and t)bacco, 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. 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 eliding-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 cue of salt in the ports of Prussia ?
lam aware of that ; but I believe that has been remedied
n 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