History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 3 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
Suppose, again, Russia, on the Black Sea, imposed a duty of 50 per
cent. on manufactures, we must retaliate by a duty of 50 per cent.
on Russian corn and timber. We must, in fact, have distinct treaties
and distinct tariffs, and there would hence result a most complicated
system of international commerce. Reciprocity meant that or nothing.
But, after thus stating his views on reciprocity of produce, Mr. Wilson
admitted that by imposing restrictions on foreign ships corresponding
with those imposed on our own, we should have the advantage of dealing
with the same interest, and the weapon would be more likely to be
effectual, in that those, for whose sake duties were imposed abroad,
would be subject to corresponding disadvantages in this country. But he
was wholly opposed to reciprocity even in shipping. He had shown what
variety of treaties would be required if the principle of reciprocity
was adopted with regard to manufactures and produce; and he felt
convinced that a corresponding or analogous difficulty would arise from
adopting that principle in the case of shipping. Very intricate and
complicated regulations would be required. Thus, supposing we found a
country disposed to give all, we ourselves would be obliged to give
all. But then it must be borne in mind that there were twenty countries
with whom we had already treaties, and to whom we were bound to extend
the advantages obtainable by the most favoured nations: and, therefore,
if, now, we gave privileges to any one country, we must extend the same
to all the other countries which stood in the same position.
Suppose, he said, that Hamburg were to give this country all that
it required, and that, in return, its ships were placed on the same
footing as British ships; what guarantee should we have that a third
country, which had given us nothing, would not derive the same
advantages as the shipowners of Hamburg, or that the sugar of Java,
and the coffee of South America, would not be brought to this country
in their ships? There would be no end of evasion. The United States
would reciprocate; Prussia would do the same; Russia and the ports of
the Hanseatic League would follow their example: what, therefore, had
this country to fear? It was admitted that we should not expect the
same reciprocity from France, Spain, or Belgium; but, in these cases,
should we be really worse off than we are now? At this moment France
and Spain had great privileges in this country. France had the right,
not according to treaty, but from the general policy of our Navigation
Laws, to send her produce direct to this country in her own ships.
She, however, availed herself to a very small extent of this privilege.
Nine-tenths of the importations of Spanish colonial sugars came
likewise in British bottoms. As far as regards the reservations at the
discretion of the Queen in Council, Free-trade unrestricted would most
assuredly be the rule and restriction the exception.
[Sidenote: Marquess of Granby.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account