THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH NAVIGATION REFORM. Az a time when

ideas are generally fixed upon the announcement of commercial reforms, and an early alteration is anticipated in the regulations which have for twenty-five years governed the relations between France and England, it may not be without in- terest to cast a retrospective glance upon the international stipula- tions to which maritime intercourse has been subjected, and to take an impartial view of their results for both countries. A short historical memorandum will facilitate the understanding of the subject.

Immediately after the promulgation of the English law, known under the name of Navigation Act [1651], which, by means of ex- cessive duties on foreign shipping, created a British monopoly in favour of the British trade, the same principle was adopted by all the other maritime nations of Europe, and carried on to such a point that, even in time of peace, each of them remained, as it were, in a state of fiscal war with its neighbours, thus extending national antagonism to its extreme limits. This state of things, in which France participated to a full extent, lasted till 1815 ; when the Americans were the first to perceive that this financial contest was exhausting public revenue, preventing the extension of trade, and ruining, in fact, maritime commerce generally, whether foreign or national. They therefore proposed to the Bri- tish Government to give their consent to a modification of the absolute and somewhat antediluvian provisions of the Navigation Act, in return for which the Americans were to grant similar ad-

- vantages to English ships entering the Ports of the United States. The proposal was fair, equitable, and willingly accepted ; and the first treaty of reciprocity signed on the occasion conferred the greatest benefit on the two competing navies. It is, however, astonishing to find that eight more years elapsed before the truth of that fraternal principle was again ad- mitted and put into practical application. This was in 1823, when Portugal followed the example. Shortly after, Prussia came in ; then Sweden, and Denmark ; and it was only three years later, in 1826, that the Prince of Polignae, then the French Am- bassador in London, was authorized to sign a treaty with England professing to be based upon the principle of a reciprocity. It is needless to enlarge upon the advantages generally result- ing from such a policy, as it is evident that commercial relations between the two stipulating parties must increase in a rapid proportion unless unlucky feelings of jealousy, or misunderstood rivalry, should give birth to ill-conceived interpretations of some dubious text, or cause the adoption of inopportune measures, all tending to reduce to a minimum the mutual benefit legitimately anticipated. And, unfortunately, such was the case with the execution of the treaty of 1826; and to whichever of the two countries it is to be attributed, the result was disastrous. The truth is, that the first blunder was committed on the French side. Instead of reducing the several duties levied in France upon English vessels to the rate of those paid by French ships, the improvident Government of Charles X. raised the taxes on the national flag to the amount collected from British ships! The French Government thus created a literal reciprocity, with- out in the least benefiting the national shipping interest. It is, in fact, superabundantly proved by official statistics, that if the number of French ships entering English ports has increased ten- fold since that time, it is almost exclusively owing to the wonder- ful augmentation in the consumption of coal. It is true that these taxes have been progressively reduced in France, but still without sensibly removing the bad effect produced by the Jesuiti- cal behaviour of the French legislators.

On the other side, if the hopes of the English Ministry had been frustrated by the increase instead of the reduction of tonnage duties, the British Government deceived the French negotiators in promising an equality of charge and a parity of treatment which they knew they could not secure. It is, indeed, a well known fact that, owing to a labyrinth of customs, charters, privileges, and exemptions of all sorts, England is, even to this day, governed in several places, either under Ras of Parliament so old that they exist merely by tradition, or under charters granted by ancient Kings, the originals of which our allies accuse us of having lost or carefully concealed. Here are customs the origin of which goes as far back as the feudal times, and which yet ride superior over the actual authority of Parliament ; there, some local corporation and the Court of Queen's Bench successfully compete against the House of Com- mons, enforcing laws which belong to a past tem.

As an instance, it is worth while to mention an act on ship- wrecks promulgated in 1846, which, recalling the exceptions

named in seventeen laws enacted under the reign of George

III., George IV., and Victoria, stipulates a reservation of the rights of her Majesty, her heirs and successors, of the Court of

Admiralty, the Lord Warden of Cinque Ports, two ancient

towns and associates ; a similar reservation of the rights, fran- chises, and privileges of the Trinity House Corporations of Dept-

ford, Stroud, Kingston-upon-Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; adding, again, new exceptions in favour of the Lord Mayor and the citi- zens of London, and at last ending in a complete exclusion of Scotland from the benefit of its provisions. In French ports, we are informed, an English vessel has to pay exactly the same duties as a French one arriving from England ; whereas in British harbours the same equality in the treatment of the foreign and national flag is not and cannot be enforced under existing circumstances. Practically, a French ship leaving New- castle for Havre, with a cargo of coals, pays two or three times as much as an English vessel ; the-latter happening, in nine oases out of ten, either to be owned by a member of the Trinity House of Newcastle, Deptford, Kingston, &c., or by an associate of the Yar- mouth and Lowestoff corporation, all of which are exonerated from payment of such imposts. Vessels registered in either of the Cinque Ports enjoy privileges in which French ships do not par- take. Those of Hull, Lyme, Weymouth, Stockton, and London are free from certain duties ; and similar regulations exist all round the shores of Great Britain. Indeed we are not sure that there is any port, bay, or creek in which privileges of some kind, granting exclusive favour to the national flag, are not enforced. Thus far claims and complaints made by the French and other Governments supposed to be entitled to an assimilation have been left unsatisfied.

On several occasions, when England levied a duty upon the expor- tations of coals, complaints were made that French vessels bound for Algeria were not allowed to enjoy the benefit of direct intercourse; and it was twenty years after the passing of the treaty, in 1846, before the Corsicans were recognized as French.

A tonnage duty is collected in all the French ports, Marseilles excepted, and the amount, we learn, is uniformly alike whether the vessel has left England bound for Dunkirk or for Toulon. In the former case, the taxes collected by the two countries are the same • but if the French vessel be bound for Havre or Cher- bourg, she will have to pay to the British receiver the charge for the lighthouses scattered all along the English coast, from New- castle to the Isle of Wight ; no such duty being charged in France. The difference is more perceptible if the vessel is bound for Brest or any other port out of the British Channel ; in which case charges must be paid for all the lighthouses as far as the coast of Cornwall. This is, strictly speaking, in accordance with the letter of the Treaty of 1826 ; but in France they complain that the interpretation of it has occasioned serious loss to their trea- sury. This loss is more striking again when an English ship is bound for Marseilles, in which, as a free port, no tonnage duties whatever are collected.

We have reason to believe that such anomalies as we have pointed out have recently been examined on behalf of both coun- tries, and it is most probable that the examination will lead to a considerable change at an early date ; both countries of course making reciprocal concessions.

Within the last few years public opinion in England has busied itself in overhauling various maritime charges ; associated ship-owners, chambers of commerce, influential Members of Par- liament, and leading journals, having urged upon the Treasury a thorough revision of the duties collected in the name of local cor- porations, and even in the name of what may be considered as private corporations. Our readers will remember that it is some three or four years since Mr. Robert Lowe, as representing the Board of Trade, introduced a bill into the House of Commons for the purpose of abolishing passing tolls and light dues ; a bill which would to a great extent have anticipated such concessions as we shall be invited to make under the new treaty. This bill was favourably received in Parliament ; it was arrested princi- pally by difficulties based upon the vested interests of local bodies. Even amongst such local interests, however, influential leading men were very far from being hearty or confident in the uphold- ing of local dues and imposts belonging to a past day. It might at one time have been comparatively just that bodies which main- tained lighthouses, improved roadsteads, or provided for maritime convenience at particular points in the coast should be reimbursed by the owners of those vessels which profited by the attention. At the present day, however, we recognize that the entire com- munity is interested in lighting the entire town in order to the general preservation of property and peace, and the freest inter- course for purposes of trade ; and we are by degrees beginning to perceive that the same rule applies with still larger proportions to the great highway of the seas. It is to the interest of this country, as of all mankind, that the coasts of England should be suffi- ciently lighted, sufficiently furnished with life-boats, and in short, equipped in every manner that can conduce to the facility of maritime intercourse. We are outgrowing the imperfect view which would have left such facilities to the support of local insti- tutions and interests; and the same time we are perceiving, daily with greater clearness and intensity, the absurdity of permitting usages which arose in a past age to interfere with the extension of the country in its international intercourse and its commerce. If there were reasons for the passing of Mr. Lowe's bill three or four years ago, those reasons have acquired tenfold force under the existing relations with France. If we were anxious to extend commerce by enlarging freedom of intercourse, our anxiety has all the incentive of a noble opportunity when the Emperor Na- poleon approaches us with a request that we should assist him in reconciling his subjects to a great proposition. Instead of hold- ing, with Lord Grey, that a political advantages flowing from the

commercial territory vitiate the arrangement as a mere matter of free trade, we hold that one of the greatest arguments in favour of free trade is, that it necessarily conduces to peace and cooperation.

Lord Palmerston has already stated that the arrangement with France cannot be carried out, and was never contemplated as being carried out, without the active and willing concurrence of Parliament ; but there cannot be the slightest apprehension that Parliament will be blind to the duty which lies before it.