Star.
London, England, 1830-05-27 00:00:00

ed, that an intimation 141,1 (AI ~:rcn to me some days before of Mr.
I ltint's intention to request ire to take the chair at the Metropolitan
in teung, and that I had replied to theyarty so communicating this
intention, my disapprobation thereof; still my statement is per.
!telly reconcilable with truth. I have said, and I repeat, that "tt
was rtpresented to me that Mr. Hunt anxiously desired the intro.
'l..ction, in order to prevail upon me to take the chair." I have
•tatti. and I repeat, that in that petsonal interview which followed,
• • I df l refuse to lend myself in any shape to the object in view."
As to Captain Henley, I knew not of the existence of such a person
wail I read his name in Mr. Hunt's letter. And now, Sir, I trust
that my future silence will not be contrued into an admission of the
truth of any additional assertions proceeding from the same quarter,
for it must be evident that the party who has thus maliciously at.
tacked the possesses an advantage which I must disdain to employ.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient humble Servant,
BLANDFORD.

M'y 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD.
r:lrt,—Perceiving my name introduced into your columns touch-
n g the points In dispute between the Marquis of Blandford and
Mr. Hunt, I feel it a duty I owe myself, as well as the parties in
question, to trouble you with the following statement of facts,
which you will much oblige me by giving a place in your respect.
able Journal.

On the morning of the day in question, my friend, Mr. Blaquiere,
(one of the late proprietors of the Star paper), called at my house
in Bryanston-street, on business of a private and domestic nature,
whence we afterwards proceeded to the Star office, Temple-bar, and
wcre for a short time in communication with Mr. Bergner, when the
Marquis of Blandford wasannounced, and shown into an adjoining
room, the above parties at the same time accompanying him. Being
Absent about twenty minutes, they (Messrs. Bergner and Blaquicre
again returned to me, and both requested that I would do them
the favour to drive over to Stamford-street, and bring Mr. Hunt
ro the offirie, saying " The Marquis of Blandford wishes to see
him, and will wait his arrival, provided you find him at home."
Upon this I drove across to Stamford-street, and, finding Mr. Hunt,
delivered to him the message as it was given me ; but Mr. Hunt,
as he stated, having some other matter on hand, did not arrive at
the Star office till some short time after I had returned. On mak-
ing his appearance he was immediately introduced into the presence
of the Marquis of Blandford, with whom he remained something
more than half an hour, and on his return repeated to me, in the
presence of Mr. Blaquiere, the conversation which had taken place
between them, and which, in substance, is quite in accordance with
that published by Mr. Hunt himself in your columns.
The above, Sir, is the only part I have taken in this transaction,
and I refer to Mr. Blaquiere to say whether or no it is substantially
correct. Apologising for thus obtruding myself on the notice of
the public, and occupying so much of your valuable time, I have
the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. U. Service Club, May 24.

war. HENLEY.

MR. CAMBRELENG'S REPORT TO THE

AMERICAN CONGRESS.

There is something no less quaint than true in Mr. Cambreleng's
remark, that it has been the peculiar policy of die United States
to secure an enlarged intercourse with all the world for empty
ships of the most expensive construction. This remark expresses
most happily the impolicy of restriction and prohibition. They are
extravagant adventures of unprofitable speculation, which have not
even the defence of being unforeseen. "We must repeal our ton-
nage duties, reduce our taxes on ship.building, allow a drawback
equivalent to the duty on the materials," says Mr. Cambreleng ;
and if they must, how much more important is it for us ! Our
ship-owners complain of reciprocity system, but it is not that which
they ought to blame ; for if they look at the numbers of our ships,
if they look at the quantity of merchandise they carry out, if they
look at the increase of shipping and of merchandise, and at the evi-
dent tendency to further augmentation, they must see that it cannot
be either free trade or any trade whatever with which they ought to
find fault. If they will consider a moment, they must acknowledge
this themselves. Why do they continue voyage after voyage at
what they frequmtly denominate a dead loss ? The plain truth is,
that they are gaining all the time, but by a less per centage than
they ought, if a little more attention were paid to them by the ad.
ministration of the country. If, as we mentioned before, they had the
duty upon foreign oak timber taken off, it would be of the greatest pos-
sible importance. That on hemp, also, might be abolished with good
effect, aad if the scheme of our friend who proposed the abolition of the
former are adopted, viz. to lay a countervailing duty upon every ship
built, reducing by so much per annum till a gradual equalization
took place amongst the old and new vessels, we conceive the ship-
ping iuterest would find themselves much better off than they do
at present. That they are trading for a profit, we have no doubt
in the world; but we are anxious to see their profits increased.—
That they are so trading, they may deny; but we conceive the
official account of their numbers will render it impossible for them
to prove their denial. Before the free trade system begun to be
sated on, there war an inclination to decline in the tonnage of
British shipping; but with that system there was an immediate
increase. In the three years ending 1826, the tonnage entered in-
wards was 1,964,182, and in the three years ending 1829, it was
2,121,930, the last of which three exceeded every former year in
the history of British shipping. Our coasting trade has ametartnat
increased—our trade with foreigners in all directions has d
—the entry inwards of foreign vessels has considerably increased,
and yet this is the system which is to ruin the British nation ! It
is a common argument of the anti-reciprocity men, that the increase
is corsidered as a whole, and that the reciprocity countries, and
those which will not concur in such regulations, are not separated.
Now, any man who will take the pains to examine a list of the
tonnage, British and of all nations, entering British ports, will be
surprised to find that the increase in our favour is decidedly great
with the very countries which have most cordially joined us in the
reciprocity system. Between 1814 and 1828, there is much fluctu.
ation ; but when the tonnage of Prussian vessels entering British
ports in 1814 amounted to 107,555 compared to 38,672 British, in
1828 the British tonnage was 133,753, to 99,195. But what a silly
insubstantial argument it is to urge our not taking parts, instead of
the whole, into consideration, if we have reciprocity arrangements
with the majority, and find the whole augmented even beyond the
proportion of that majority !
Another argument against the free trade system is, that freights
are reduced, and it is urged that as the low freights of our ships
arc occasioned by the low freights of the foreigner, if we could in-
crease ours, we should add to the burden of the foreign navigator ?
Would this be of the slightest advantage? Would it not be more
destructive to us than injurious to the foreigner ? Would not a
rise in our freights from artificial causes throw more trade into the
foreigner's hands ? If we were to raise the freights of the foreigner,
would it not cause him to seek new channels of trade ? This ar-
gument, like moat of the positions of the restrictionist., is utter non.
sense. Freights, like all other prices, and like water, must have
their level. By greater activity of communication, and more free-
dont of intercourse, we may increase our commerce one with an.
other, but we do not increase it half so profitably by taking one
from another. The robbing system, that is, the restrictive system,
acts upon this principle : We will be rich by making every body
else poor—we will roll in wealth by impoverishing all our neigh.
hours ! But look, for one moment, at the absurdity of the position.
How could such a course succeed? Avarice and meanness are its
commencement, and ruin is its end. You cannot get wool from a
shorn sheep, and yet the restrictive system acts upon the principle
of profitting from the disadvantages of others—of accumulating
upon their losses—of acquiring continued and increasing receipt
from perpetually augmenting diminution ! The truth of the matter
is, that if you beggar your neighbour," you will not be far from
becoming wretchedly poor yourself; and you find a nation with
which you trade becoming wealthy, you have a strong likelihood of
becoming so along with it. For one country to attempt to become
powerful by destroying the commerce of another, is as ridiculous as
3t would be for the plough to determine to acquire celebrity by re-
fusing to turn over the soil. To attempt to be strong by weakening
others, is the most contemptible of all ambitions. To possess power
by reducing the power around you, is only to be a little less weak
Nan all the rest.

As to shipping, if we find trade in general increase, we must in
the end find our shipping trade increase also, and that with a con-
siderable profit—nay, it is out of the question to say that any trade
can be kept up, by no matter how much art or ability, if it have not
a profitable return. Freights are generally lower we admit; but
every thing is lower, so that a candid examination does not show
quite it much distress u the ship-owners would have us imagine.
And for the freights they have they are often themselves to blame.
How many of them were enthusiastic in the ministerial alteration
of duty in the importation of timber from the Baltic and from the
Cana u? Undoubtedly the Canada trade increased ship-owners
and increased freights; but what is it after all? The timber is bad,
the voyages are long, and the Canadian trade altogether is a propped
up-affair, an artificial thing, a mere hot-house plant, for the sake of
colonies of our own. The ship-owners may depend upon this, that
they will never finally prafit from what is to the British public an
unprofitable trade. The carriers of a bad article may have a good
price for the carriage, but the system cannot last; and they will be
surprised to find how a small freightage upon a good article will
increase upon their hands. Moreover we would ask—how can a
commercial marine prosper when the very principles of Its possessors
are opposed to its employment ? France has always been ambitions
of having fleets and able seamen, yet France for a number of years
has been eager to produce every thing for herself. You must have
',safer ships before you can possibly acquire vessels and gallon. But
behold the course of French government. It would make its own
iron, it would not buy cotton goods but would manufacture them for
itself, it would have no silk but its own, it would produce sugar from
beet root at Is. which it could have imported from the West Indies
foe Ad, and what was the result ? Iron goods, cottons, silks, sugars,