IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ^1^ m, ^ liii 12.2 tu .3. Mm Ui Hii "f li£ i2.0 L25 INIU 11.6 Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 4^0 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques CC Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibiiographic|uaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba Mbliographicaily uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may algnif icantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackaid balow. □ Coiourad covara/ Couvartura da coutaiir r~n Covara damagad/ D D n Couvartura andommagia Covara raatorad and/or laminatad^ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pallicuMa Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua Coiourad mapa/ Cartaa giographiquaa an coulaur Coiourad ink (i.a. othar than biua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) r~| Coiourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou Illuatrationa un coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Bali* avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ Laraiiura aarrta paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la dtetorakMi la kHig da la marga intiriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ II aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa lore d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta. mala, loraqua cala Atait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont paa *t« filmAaa. L'Inatitut a microfilm* la maiilaur axamplaira qu'il lui a 4t4 poaaibia da aa procurer. Laa dAtaila da cat axamplairo qui aont paut-Atra uniquaa du point da vua Wbiiographlqua. qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dana la mithoda normaia da filmaga aont indiquia cl-daaaoua. D D D D D D D D Coiourad pagaa/ Pagaa da coulaur Fagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagiaa Pagaa raatorad and/or laminatad/ Pagaa raatauriaa at/ou pailiculAas Pagaa diacoiourad. atainad or foxad/ Pagaa dAcoioriaa. tachatiaa ou piquAaa Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa dAtachiaa Showthrough/ Tranaparanca Quality of print variaa/ Quallt* inAgala da i'impraaaion Includaa auppiamantary material/ Comprand du matAriai cuppi^mantaira Only edition available/ Seuie Mition diaponible Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by errata aiipa. tiaauaa, etc., hava been refilmed to enaure the beat poaaibie image/ Lea pagea totalament ou partiellement obacurciaa par un fauillet d'arrata. una pelure. etc.. ont At* film*ea i nauveau da fa9on A obtanir la mailleure image poaaibia. Additional commanta:/ Commentai'rea aupplAmantairaa: Oocktt titit page is bound in ai lait pig* in book but f HnMd m first pagt on ficha. Thia item ia filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document eat film* au taux da rMuction indiqu* ci-daaaoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X aox y 12X 16X 20X a4X 28X 32X Ihm copy fllm«d hun ham bMn rtproduoad thankt to th« QWMrMity of: L'oxomplairo fllmi fut raproduit grieo i la giniroahi do: quality loslMNty Htm Brunflwidc Mutwim Saint John Tho imagoo appoariiHl hoio aro tho posalblo eofialdoring tho oondMon of tho original copy and In kooplnfl filming oontraet spoclfieationa. Original ooploo in printod papor oovara ara fllmad boginning with tho front eovor and onding on tho loot paga %vith a printad or Hhiatratod improo- •ion. or tho book covor ¥vhon appropriata. All othor original coploa no fNmod boginning on tho firat payo with a printad or iiluatratad impraa- slon. and anding on tho iaat paga with a printad or iihiatratad impraaaion. Htm Bninmriek MuMum Saint John Laa Imagaa aulvantaa ont 4t4 roprodultaa avae la plua grand aoln, eompto tonu do la eondMon ot do la nottot* do i'oxompiair* fllni4. at wn conformiti avac laa eondhlona du contrat da fHmaga. Laa anawpl a l r a a orlglnaux dont la eouvorturo on poplar oat imprim4a aont fHmte an (sommonpant por io promlor plat at an tarminant aoit par ia damMro paga qui eomporto uno ampralnta dimpraaalon ou dlNuatration, aolt par ia taeond plat, aakm la caa. Toua laa autraa oxomplairaa origlnoux aont fllm4o an eommon^ant par la pramiAra paga qui eomporto uno omprolnto dimpraaalon ou dlHuatratlon ot an tarminant par ia damlAra paga qui eomporto uno tollo ampralnta. Tha iaat raeordod frame on aaeh mierofleho •hail eontain tha aymbol —^(moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tho symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whiehovor appliaa. Un dee symboloa suhranta apparaltra aur ia damlAra image da ehaque mierofiehe, eelon io eaa: Io eymbolo '—^ slgnlflo "A 8UIVRE". Io aymbolo ▼ signifio "RN". IMapa, piatae, eharta, ate., mey be fNmod at different reduction ratioa. Thoeo too large to be entirely included in one expoeure are fHmod beginning in tho upper loft bond comer, toft to right and top to bottom, aa many framee aa required. The following diagrama illiHrtrate the method: Lee cartee, planchee. taMeeux. etc., pouvent ttre fllmte i dee taux da rMuctlon diff4rants. Loraque to document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un aoui ciicliA, il eet film* A partir da I'angto aupArtour gauche, da gauche A drolto, ot do haut en bee, en prenent to nombre d'imegee nAcoaaairo. Lee diagrammee auivanta iiiuatrant to mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ;-..!., ^Saff^l^^tnjp^. i^*«tiKMw»i 'mm'aiiimiXip-' -. I - 1'! ; ) ■; • ■ li ;. ..o*; 11 -iui ; .!>';.■; 0. ..L ^ 1 ■ t '*^ ^ 7:''r( y:y:r 4 t.Tj;.:i.:iT i'^. s ^ I o 6 •8- B ^ U •.:,;v' ;ii/ . ' *-i J. • f ^.. r''f*-^^"-^»<'*»(!;j<».v., ■f^'-'itmf^,.. 3 q 9 I '*ii./ . -i/M j iM/ ... SECR CO) OF T Lond I|i)B^^]]B!;B i I ■ *-:.■ FROM THOMAS LACK, ESQ. SBCRBTARY TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVV COUNCIL FOR TRADE AND PLANTATION, IN ANRWin TO THE PETITION OF TBB OOMHITTBB OF LONDON 8BIP OWNBRBi 'ft'il THE REPORT THEREON, a SPECIAL COMMITTKI:: or London Ship Owners 4r Deputies from the Out Ports, aoth APRIL, 1827. LE 1 had u Deput and ot as the and t) on the presen Lords! to the respecl upon 1 legally D Shippl upon tl of sucl State: LETTER FROM THOMAS LACK, ESQ. TO GEORGE LYALL, ESa ti li Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade, Whitehall, 2]t,t March, 1827. HI SIR, The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, having iwd under their consideration your Letter dated 23d ult. stating that Deputations of Ship Owners have arrived in Town from Liverpool, Hull, and other principal Out Ports, with instructions to take such measures as they may deem exfiedieut, to obtain relief to the Shipping Interest ; and therefore praying that they may receive Their Lordships' decision on the Petition of the Committee of the Society of British Ship Owners presented in December last; 1 am directed to inform you that Their Lordships have nothing to add to the cumnmnicatiou which they made to the Committee of Ship Owners on the 27th of February, 1824, in respect to the maintenance of discriminating duties upon Foreign Ships, tqion the cargoes imported in such Ships, being articles which can be legally imported from the respective countries to which the Ships belong. Discriminating duties could afford no real encouragement to British Shippbg, from the moment they were countervailed by equivalent duties upon that Shipping in the Ports of the Foreign country. The imposition of such a countervailing duty, is within the power of every independent State ; and so long as its amount does not exceed the difference of duty imposed in this country upuu tlie Foreign Sliip, sucli uii exerciHe ul' tliut power could afford to this country no ju»t ground for renionHtrance or complaint. His Majesty's Government, however, did use such endeavours at appeared to them pro|H!r, to induce Foreign Powers to abstain from this system of retaliation; but, those endeavours failing, it syaa obvious that a {Hsrseverunce in a system of mutual retaliation would be of no avail in uffurding special protection to British Shipping; and could not but be prejudiciii' to the general interests of commerce, and the other great iritereHt'^ tliis country. It was under this conviction, that His Majesty's Government found themselves called upon to stipulate with Prussia and other Powers, (as it had, many years before stipulated with Portugal and the United States of America,) for the mutual ubrogution of all discriminating duties ; and to these stipulations the good fuith of this country is now pledged. Tlic fjords uf this Coininittue do not cull in doubt the fact stated by the Meniuriiilists, that British Siiipping experienced u considerable degree of depression iu tite course of the year 1820 : Their Lordships are persuaded that this depression is to be ascribed, in part, to tiie cause mentioned by the Memorialists, namely, " the improvident speculations in " British Ship Building in the course of tlie year 1825;" but Their Lordships conceive that there were other coincident circumstances, which must have contributed, in a still greater degree, |)erhaps, to produce thnt depression. The circumstances to which Their Lordships allude, are to be traced to the general spirit of over-trading, which prevailed in the year 1825, and to the consequent comparative stagnation which affected almost every branch of our foreign conmierce in the year 1826. If, by that over-trading, freight (us it cannot be denied) was rendered scarce and extravagantly dear in the year 1825, was it to be expected that it should not be affected in an opposite direction by the sudden and extensive revulsion which paralyzed thj spirit of commercial enterprize in 1826? Gould it be expected, when great losses were sustained in almost every branch of our foreign commerce, and of those maimfactures by which that commerce is supplied, that the Shipping Interest of Great Britain should alone continue in u state of unabated prosperity ? And cun it, with truth, be said of that Interest, that the nominal money-amount of capital vested in Shipping has, upon u fair comparison of the years 1826 and 1825, been diminislied in a afroiiter, or oven in an equal degre*', with the the nominal money amount of other capitalii embarked in otiier branrlir<< of manufacturing industry or commercial speculation ? Nothing can be more remote from the intention of The Lords of this Committee, in urging these general considerations upon the attention of the Memorialists, than either to underrate the difficulties of which they complain, or to intimate an indisposition to take any steps in their power to relieve those difficulties ; but Tiieir Lordships feel perfectly assured, that it cannot be the intention of the Memorialists to claim, in their own behalf, any special intervention of His MajoNty's Government, which should be inconsistent with national faitli, or detrimental to the general interests of the country. Their Lordships are not disposed to call in question the position laid down by the Memorialists, that " The Imw of Navigation has always *' sought to secure to British Shipping, a proportion of the carrying of " certain articles of European production, denominated the enumerated " article*." They also admit, that, " recenHy, some latitude in respect " to the importation of those articles into this country, was given to Foreign " Ships ;" — neither can they deny, that, by the Warehousing Act, some indulgence hut been shown to Foreign 8hipii, by ullowiug lii«m tu brii.g Goods to be warehoused for exportation, although the said Goods are such as cannot, from their nature, be admitted at all for home con- sumption ; or, if so admissible, can only be admitted when imported in British Ships. It is not affirmed in the Petition of the Memorialists, that cither the relaxation of our navigation system in re8|M>ct to the " enumerated lu'ticles," or the increased facility of warehousing above referred to, ban caused any injury to the carrying trade of this country. The Lords of this Connnittee have never yet seen aiiy .\''idence which tended to establish that any such injury had been occasioned ; whilst, on the other hand, they are satisfied that these alterations in the law, have greatly contributed to the accommodation and facility of commercial intercourse ; and that, incidentally, if not even sometimes directly, they must have become the source of additional em|»loyment to British Shipping. The Memorialists, indeed, do not ask for the re])eal of these indul- gences to our comnuTce ; but, as a conse(|uence to their bemg granted, they request that tlie privilege of warehousing the " enumerated urtirles,'' m for Lkome cuiMuniptioii, thoukl b« coiifuMxl to inipurUtioii* in British Miii|M ; Kod tlikt duties of Ciutoms or EIxoim iinpoMd u|>oii all suoii article!, ■hould be made payable, from the inonieitt ut' their entry, if imported in foreign veweU. The Lorda of thii Committee being adviied that this proposition could not be carried into effect, without a violation of tlie engagements by which Great Britain is bound to other States, it hocouMS unneceaiiary to enter upon the merits or expediency of the suggestion of the Mamorialista, in reference to the general commercial interests of thiii country ; or, to the retaliatory meanures which nuch a proceeding on our part might provoke on the iNirt of Foreign States. It i» enough to know, that, to adopt tiie suggestion, would be to violate public faith : and, in conveying thin knowledge to the Memorialists, The Lotds of thiu Comutitteu are witiHtied that it is unnecessary to say any thing more u|iou the subject. In respect to the next suggestion thrown out by the Memorialists,— " That it would be desirable either to increase the duty on Timber " imported from the North of Europe, or to reduce it on Timber from " the British Colonies in America and Africa," The Lords of this Com- mittee have felt it their duty to communieute with the Ohaneellor of tho Exchequer, and finding his opinion to be in entire concurrence with their own, they cannot hold out to the IVIcniorialists the sliglitest expectation that His Majesty's Government can either offer to Parliament any propo- sition, or assent to it, if proposed by otiiers, for altering the relative rates of duty u|M)n European and British American Tinilier, us Axed, after nmcli inquiry and investigation, by u Committee of the House of Commont) in tiie year 1821. Tiieir Lordships feel that there is the less ground for calling for any such alteration, as it is notorious, that, since that year, the annual importation of Timber from British America has very much increased ; and that even in the year 1826, notwithstanding the general depression of trade, the quantity imported greatly exceeded that of any antecedent year, with the single exception of 1825, falling short of the extravagant importation of that year, only in the inconsiderable amount of 12,000 upon 467,000 loads— or about one thirty ninth part of the whole ; while, on the other hand, the falling off in the importation from the Baltic, in the year 1826, us conipored with 1825, was from 286,871 to 156,078 loads, being u diminution little short of One Half. The Memorialists further state, that other measures, although of minor im|M)rtance, would give general mitisfactiori to the British Ship Owners. Aiiiuiig the iiieMuraa enumeruU'd by the MciiMiriklUu, there in one wliich would be at variauoe with «xi»ting Treaties; luunaly "a Regulation that timber, hemp, &c., delivered in perl'oriiumce of contractu for the supply of Ooveruiiient, should be imported exclusively in British Ships." This proposal, therefore, cannot be entertained. The other suggestions recom« mend the removal of certain (tecuniary burthens, to which the British Ship Owner is still liable. The Society of Ship Owners cannot but be aware that, in this way, nmch has lieen already done for their relief, not only in the abatement and rcmiHsion of taxes which peculiarly affected the Shipping Interest ; but uIno, by putting an end to Custom House Fees ; Quarantine and Levant Duties ; Consular Rates, and other charges which had btten long complained of as prcHNing heavily u|K)n the navigation of this Kingdom. Other meosureM huvc also been adopted since the Restora* tion of peace, for simplifying the regulations affecting the navigation and commerce of the kingdom, the result of whicli han l>een to afford facility and desiMktch in the entry mid ci«;urunce of vessels, ami greatly to diminish the risk of detention iind Heizure, tu which they were so frequen ly exfiosed under the former involved and complicated Nystem of our navigation and revenue laws. The Lords of this Connnittee do not advert to these improvements, as reasons tor not paying every attention to the further measures of relief now suggested ; some of which they lio|>e may be adopted ; but, in respect to others, such, for instance, us "the exempting from stamp duty, Policies of Seu luHuruuce," and, any further abatement of the duty u|)on hemp, (one half of which has been already taken off,) The Lords ot tliiti Committee apprehend that, in the present state of the revenue, it is not to be ex|)ected that the Cliuncellor of tiie lilxchequer could give his assent to measures, which, whilst they would lead to a serious diminution of the public income, are represented by the Memorialists themselves, as of "minor importance" to their inti;rests. The Lords of the Coiuiiiittee have thought it due to the importance of the Interests which the Memorialists represent, to enter into this full explanation of the grounds on which they find themselves compelled to decline adopting those sui^gestions which the Memorialists recommend, and upon which they prlricipully rely, as calculated to afford them relief. Whilst the Lordt) of this Committee trust that these reasons, upon due consideration, will upitear satisfactory to the Memorialists, they have only further to assure the Meinorialists, that they shall, lit all times, be 8 desirous to contribute to the advancement of the Shipping Interest ol Hu- United Kingdom, by forwarding any measures wiiich may appear to them likely to conduce to that object, without exposing to hazard the othf r great Interests of the country. I am, Sii, Your most obedient humble servant, THOMAS LACK. GEORGE LYALL, Es«. Chairman of the Ship Owners' Committee. REPORT Of the Special Committee appointed by the General Com- mittee of Ship Owners of London, and Deputies from the Out Ports, held at the City of London Tavern, on the 26th day of March, 1827, To n-lioin it was referred, " to take into consideration, and report on a Letter received from tlie Lords of the Committee of Hip Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council for Trade, in reply to a Memorial presented to their Lordships by the Committee of the Society of Sliip Owners, urging tiie dis- tressed state of the British Shipping Interest, and offering suggestions for its relief." Your Connnittee, sensible of the difficulty and delicacy of the com- mission entrusted to them, have directed their most anxious attention to the important document referred to tiieir consideration. Impressed w'lili great deference for the authority from which that document emanated, and conscious that their judgements were liable to influence from the personal interests involved in the <{uestion, it was not without reluctance they embarked in tiie examination ; but having been induced by these convictions, to weigh with additional circumspection tiie various state- ments and arguments by whicii tiie decisive refusal of Their Lordships to entertain the prayer of the Memorialists, is supiiorted, they are compelled, after the most deliberate investigation, to express their opinion, tiiat tiie conclusions at which Their Lordships have arrived, are mt justitied by the reasoning on which tliey assume to be founded ; and that the decision constitutes therefore a cast> of very peculiar hardship on the British Ship Owner, whose hopes of relief from tin? intervention of the executive Government, it iip[iears entirely to extinguish. V 10 lu expressing this decided opinion, iiowever, it is matter of sincere gratification, tiiut, being furniHhed witit tiie detailed reasoning ou which His Majesty's Government have founded their determinations, Your Committee, in justifying tlie opposite conclusions to wliich they have been led, are enabled, by directing attention to tlie specific jraints at issue, and by careful analysis of the arguments advanced in the letter of the Board of Trade, to bring fairly under view the case of the Ship Owners, which they are aware has been very generally misunderstood, and very extensively misrepresented. In presenting, consecutively, for consiilerution, th*^ several positions maintained by Their Lordships, the first, and one of the most imfmrtant is, that " discriminating duties could alTord no real encouragement to " British Shipping from the moment they were countervailed by equivalent *' duties upon that Shipping in the ports of the foreign country ;" that " the imposition of such a countervailing duty is within the power of " every independent State;" and that "as long as its amount does not " exceed the diflference of duty imposed in this country ujwn the foreign " Ship, such an exercise of that {mwer could afford to tiiis country, no "just ground of remonstrance or complaint." Your Conuuittee have no desire to dispute the correctness of this exposition of international equity ; but waiving the discussion of the abstract principle, they venture, with deference, but with firmness, positively to deny its applicability to the present case. ; Discriminating duties between importations on native and in foreign Ships, do not, as assumed by those wiio oppose them, constitute positive imposts on the Goods imported, but are simply protective duties to domestic freight, to which that protection cannot be extended in any other mode, without the absolute exclusion of the foreign Ship. Discriminating duties, if equitably regulated, involve no unfriendly principle; their object is not foreign exclusion ; (which is still an unquestionable right,) but domestic protection, a palpable and paramount duty. They are in fact, to maritime capital, precisely what a duty on the importation of foreign corn, is to agriculture; and on manufactured silk, and other articles of domestic production, to manufactures ; and as long as they are so regulated, as to afford to the native Ship Owner no greater protection than is equi- valent to the excess of expense incurred by him in the production and navigation of his Ship, beyond that incurred by the Foreigner, placing both, thereby, in a fair state of equal competition, they ought neither to give umbrage to tlie domestic consunier, nor to excite the jealousy of 11 ■#■* Foreign Powers. But liowever just in principle, and expedient in appli- cation, it cainiot ut the same time be denied, that it countervailed by equi- valent discriminating duties in Foreign Ports, a measure clearly and equi- tably within the power of every independant State, the imposition of such duties could afford no real protection to British Shipping, provided the employmetU of Tonnage in the exportationsfrom thit Country, equalled that engaged in the importatioiu into our Ports ; in which case the reciprocal abrogation of such duties could not fail to be mutually and equally bene- ficial. But if, in the Carrying Trade between this and any other country, the bulky nature of our importations require a very considet-ably greater Tonnage than can be employed in the import trade of the Foreign Nation, it is obvious that the result of a mutual abrogation of discriminating duties nmst be, to throw into the hands of the country importing the smallest bulk of goods, all the advantage of the more extensive employment to which her Shipping is thereby admitted on equality. Such precisely are the relative circumstances of the trade between Great Britain and the North of Europe, the importations from whence require at least twenty times the Tonnage tliat can be employed in the exportations to those countries. The right to impose iliscriniiuatiiig duties to secure to our native Shipping their just share of this dispro|M)rtionate trade, being admitted, and the expediency of Great Britain, if possible, exercising tiiis right demonstrated by the disproportion itself, it only remains in examination of Their Lordships' position, to trace the consequences of an endeavor on the part of any Foreign State to drive her into its concession by the im|)osition of countervailing duties. Had Great Britain (as their Lordships most erroneously assume to be the fact,) even imposed a duty on the Foreign Ship, a countervailing duty on British Shipping intlie Ports of the Foreign Country nmst have raised the cost of the commodity im{)orted, to the precise extent of that duty, since, wiiether imported in a British or a Foreign Ship, the amount nmst have been |«iid either to the British or the Foreign Government. A mutual perseverance in this system, by con- tiimally raising the price, would have reduced the consumer to Jiave recourse to other markets, if such could be found, wi»ere the article he re» quired could be procured unburthened with such charge. It is plain, tiiere- fore, that unless it could be proved tiiat every State from whence Great Britain could draw her supplies, had joined in a coalition to compel her to abandon the defence of her navigation, the consetptence of such an en- deavor must have recoiled on the Power by which it was attempted, in m % 12 the loss of the sale of tiie productions of tliat Power in tiie British Market, which would have been equally well supplied from other States. y But the case thus assumed, to meet the reasoning of their Lordships, is in fact hypothetical. Instead of imposing a tax on Foreign Tonnage, which would have applied equally to Ships, whether in ballast or with cargoes, and if countervailed, would have raised the price of the imported article as has been shewn, to the consumer, England adopted a milder, u wiser, and a more equitable course. She placed a higher duty on Oooth, if imported in a Foreign, than in a native Ship. By this regulation, not only was the Ship in ballast exempted from the impost, but as long as the amount of difference, was only equal to meet the increased cost in the building, equipment, and navigation of the British Ship, no actual preference was given, no reason for countervailing duty afforded, and no hazard in- curred of prices beiiig raised by the imposition of really countervailing duties, if attempted. For if, in the exercise of the right of every inde- pendant State, the Foreign Government had determined to endeavor, by retaliation, to compel us to iiermit to its Shipping a preference in our Trade, the imposition of a similar discriminating duty on Goods brought into its Ports, in a British Ship, could, if pressed to its utmost extent, plainly have produced no other result, than tiiat of confining the importations into each country, to its native Shipping. On the highly advantageous effects to Great Britain of such a result, from the far greater Tonnage required for her imports than her exports, it is obviously unnecessary for your Committee to enlarge ; but they cannot forbear earnestly entreating attention to the fact, that the course they have traced is tiie only one which is compatible with that fair retaliation which it is the unquestionable right of every independant State to exercise. But Prussia and the other States to which reference is made, did not confine titemselves to this course : aware that from countervailing the additional duty cliarged in this country, on goods imported in a foreign, beyond tliat payable in a British Ship, by im|H)sing a similar additional duty on goods imported into the foreign country, in u British, beyond that payable in a Ship of the country, the object they had in view could not be attained, they at once imposed a heavy charge on British Shipping in their Ports, not for the protection of their own Shipping from British competition, but for the express purpose of compelling this country to admit them into her trade, to the exclusion of our own citizens. That Prussia should have made such an attempt, can scarcely, to Your Com- 13 niittee be matter of surprise ; but, thut a British tioverninent should be found to treat the attempt as u measure of fair retaliation, is only to be explained by that want of just discrimination between duties on freight, on shipping, and on goods, which appears to Your Committee, to have fatally pervaded the whole question of " Reciprocity j^' and which is strikingly illustrated in the vei*y paragraph to which they are now re- ferring. Ill this paragraph, Their I^ordships speuk of " equivalent duties " on British Shipping in the Ports of the Foreign country," and subse- quently of " the duty imposed in this country, on a Foreign Ship." Would it be believed that ut the period to which their Lordships refer, no duty whatever was charged in British Ports on Foreign Shipping? Can it be conceived that Their Ijordshi|)s were unacquainted wit' the fact? Or knowing it, can the expression be justified, constituting as it does, aprimd facie defence of an act on the part of a Foreign Power, which instead of being, as Their Lordships infer, one of fair retaliation,Your Committee can view in no other light than that of insolent dictation, and unfriendly, if not hostile aggression ? On this part of the subject, and conceiving they have satisfactorily proved that tiie charges imposed by Foreign Powers on British Shipping, were not equivalent duties to countervail those to which the Shipping of those Powers were subject in the Ports of this Country ; but unprovoked attempts to exact from Groat Britain tlie surrender of an important {lortion of her carrying trade, without even the semblance of an equivalent,Your Committee trust they shall be excused Tor quoting, in sup- port of the principles tiiey advance, an expression of tiie late Right Honor- able Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a recent and interesting correspondence with a Foreign Minister. — " It has never yet been held a *' duty of international amity, any more than of friendship in private life, " to submit to unequal compacts; nor has it ever been held an offence '^ against sudi duty, that a nation, any more than an individual, should " decline to make uncomiiensated sacrifices." That enormous sacrifices have been made, the present ruinous condition of the Shipping Interest btars ample testimony. Wlicre, Your Committee confidenly ask, is to be found tiie equivalent compensation? On tliis branch of the subject, then, Yon- Committee presume to main- tain, in contradiction to the position laid down in the letter referred to them, that in the relative situation of this country, and those to whose repre- sentations (according to tlie letter of Tiie Ix)r(ls of Trade, of 27 Feb. 1824,) tiie al)rogation of discriminating duties was accorded, those duties would liave afford(Ml pnitoctioii to British Shii)ping, even under any imposition of really comitorvaiiiiig duties, in the porta of tliose countries: a retaliation which must have Icrminated most injuriously to tlie country making the u 14 atMinpt; uiid tliut uiiy endeavor to exuct iVoni this country nn iiiicoin- pensated sacriAce of its maritime Interests, by tlie imposition of arbitrary duties on its Shipping, for the purpose of depriving that Shipping of all protection from Foreign competition, must, if retaliated by the British Government, have terminated in the transfer of that trade to other countries ; and was in itself an imusual, unreasonable, and unfriendly demand, which a paternal Government was bound in justice to its subjects to have refused ; which national interest might have disregarded; and of which, national honor should have dictated the denial. In the next paragraph to which the attention of Your Committee has been drawn, an assurance is conveyed that " His Majesty's Government " did use such endeavors as appeared to them proper to induce Foreign *' Powers to abstain from this system of retaliation, but those endeavors " failing, it was obvious that a perseverance in a system of mutual retu- " liation, would be of no avail in aifording special protection to British " Shipping, and could not but be prejudicial to the general interestfl " of commerce, and the other great interests of the country," and that " from this conviction. His Majesty's Government found themselves called " upon to stipulate with Prussia and other Powers, for the mutual abro- " gation of all discriminating duties, and to these stipulations the good " faith of this country is now pledged." ■ J It is not for Your Committee, in the absence of all information as to the nature of the endeavors stated to have been used to induce Foreigi^ Powers to abstain from a system of retaliation, to call in question the arguments by which these unavailing endeavors may have been supported. They were no doubt, as affirmed, such as ap|ieared to His Majesty's Government, proper to effect the object ; but Your Committee trust they shall not be considered presumptuous in expressing their deepest regret, that on this failure of persuasion. His Majesty's Government did not deem it proper ut least to make the experiment, whether those supplies for which recourse had usually been made to countries so little disposed to accede to the remonstrances of His Majesty's Government, could not have been obtained from other nations, le!«s determined to insist on the displace- ment of British Ship[)ing, as tlie only condition on which tiiey would allow Great Britiiiii to Iwconie the purchaser of their productions. T<» Youi- Committee it does, indeed, forcibly ap])ear, that independent of the exhaustless supplies of Timber offered by our Canadian Forests, the Timber nnd Deals of Potersburgh and Riga might well have compensated for the dosing of the iimrkots of supply ut Dant/ie and Meniel; nor can \ lA Your Cuiiiniittiitf eiitertuiii u doubt tlmt tlie spirited upplicatiuu of thosf retaliatory inuuMur^H, Ironi wLicli it liu8 altctuly U^cn proved that Britinii in- terests could iiavc sustained no injury, would have spared Their Lordships the pain of tiie declaration, that unable tu induce Prussia, and other Powers, to abstain from acts wiiich they had used their endeavors to pre- vent, they had felt themselves called on to abandon those endeavors, and to pledge the good faith of the country to a system against which their efforts had been ineffectually directed. Your Committee can, indeed, scarcely imagine that, in the negociations which took place to induce Foreign Powers to abstain from the system of retaliation referred to, Great Britain could have assumed the humiliating tone of a suppliant. If then, aegociation for a mutual adjustment of conflicting rights, could not be brought to a c«mclusion mutually beneficial, it ap|)ears evident, that before an unconditional surrender of the principle contended for, was admitted, it should at least have btfen tried how fur the legislation of each country, for the advantage of its respective subjects, would have averted or modified the terms of concession. From all these considerations. Your Committee are again driven to dissent from the conclusion of Their lordships, " that perseverance in a system of mutual retaliation, would " have been of no avail in affording sjiecial protection to British Shipping;" and while they are totally unable to explain why the attempt, at least, was not made, they cannot avoid declaring their own decided conviction, that such perseverance would have terminated in the abandonment, on the part of Prussia, and the other States to which allusion is made, of their un- reasonable and insulting demands, and in securing the ascendancy of British Shipping in the carrying trade of the Baltic. Their Lordships next advert to the alleged depression of the British Shipping Interest, which they admit to be considerable, and which Your (committee are unfortunately aware is extreme. But in tracing the causes of this depression, some assumptions are made by Their Lordships, which if unquestioned, would place the case of the Ship Owners in a light very different from that in which Your Committee are satisfied it is entitled to be viewed. It is first contended, on the admission of the Ship Owners' Committee in their Memorial, tliat the depression is to be ascribed in part, to the improvident speculation in British Ship Building in the course of the year 1825. That s[)eculation bus aggravated the difficulties of the Ship Owner, Your Comnuttee do not dispute ; but if the fact be advanced to weaken his claims, by imputing his embarrassments to his own impro- vidence, the conclusion is both iwitenaMc and unjust ; — the Ship Owner, V'Z 16 tkougli the victim, wan not tlii> uiitiior of tliis spenilatioii ; — if any exceu oi' supply b«>yon(l tli«> cffiiirtuul doniand, press heavily on the Shipping Market, that exces!) will be I'uund to conflist entirely of North American built Shipn, which were not produced by Ship Ownern for the purpose of investment of capital in the carrying trude, but rouHtructed by speculative individuals for sule, and by Merchants interested in the Colonial trade, for remittance ; nor do Your Committee Hnd ditliculty in tracing the speculations of the former, to the direct acts of His Majesty's Government, in the reduction of the rate of interest on Funded Pro|)erty, and the stimulus given when the excitement first commenced, by the assurance, that tlic eifects of that excitement in the extension of our exports and im|)orts, was actually a proof of commercial pros|N5rity. And with respect to the latter, it should not be forgotton, that by the im|H)sition of a duty on Colonial timlHir, the importation of that commodity in its un- manufactured state was discouraged, while it could still be im|M)rted in its manufactured state, as a ship, not only free from duty, but with u drawback on all those articles of foreign production exported from this country for the equipment. A line of [udicy unusual in itself, and aftbrding strong inducement to the Merchant to seek payment for his ex|K)rted Goods by the importation of Shipping. Your Committoe mi'iely a«lvert to the.^e circumstances to prove, tiiat if the dirticulties of the Sliij) Owner be attributed to improvidence, it is not by His Majesty's Government such a charge should be attempted to be Axed on him. But Your Committee are enabled to press this argument to more conclusive demonstration, and merely glancing at tiie facts that Ship building has declined in a remarkable degree, during a succession of previous years, and tiiat in certain branches of our trade new Ships are indispensably refiuii-itt', without reference to the quantity of existing tonnage, tliey utlirm, tliat in British Ships there was actually no excessive production in 1825; that the tonnage built in that year, was only equal to the losses of 1824 ; and that the whole of the su[)eral)undancc consisted in the excess of British Plantation Sliips built in 1825, beyond the average quantity of that description of Siiips built during the eleven preceding years. To substantiate these assertions, it is only necessary to refer to the Parliamentary return ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16th March 1827 — from which it appears tiuit, tin; amount of tonnage belonging to the Britisli Dnqiire in 1824, was - . - 2,.'j59,.'>87 tons. The tonnage i)iiill during tiiut year, was - - - . 143,741 Which added to the preceding, would amount to - 2,703,328 C'lirriett on. It Brought on • - - 2,703,328 tons. But the tonnage belonging to the Empire in 1823, ii was only 2,553,682 The difference, therefore, is the loss during the year 1824, to l . , , .*> ^ / In pursuing the iu(|uiry into the causes of the present distress. Their Lordships next advance vjs u fact, not to be denied, " that freight, by the " overtrading of the year 1625, was rendered scarce and extravagantly " dear." Your Committee are really at a loss to conceive on what evidence Their Lordships can have arrived at this sweeping conclusion, which, with every deference for their authority, Your CJounnittee can, from their per- sonal experience, distinctly disprove. They cannot indeed but imagine, that Their Lordships must have been misled into the expression of this opinion, by partial information applying to the Timber Trade alone, in which. Your Committee admit that in the latter part of the year, freights rose to u price wliich excited in the minds of prudent Ship Owners appre- hensions of a reaction ; but in the E^ist and West India and Mediterranean Trades, the early voyages to the Baltic and America, the Transport Service, Fisheries, and other employments, in which tiie great bulk of British Shipping is engaged, scarcely any advance whatever took place in the rate of freight ; and entertaining a firm convictiott tliut the general amount of freight received by Siiip Owners during tlie year 1825, constituted a very moderate return on the capital embarked in Shipping, Your Committee feel l>oimd distinctly to deny that freight (generally considered) wait scarce and extravagantly dear. That Shipping nnist, as their Lordships observo, £ » '»■ * f : K- ^V^- ' BaUlf. '.'- ' ■ '■ ■I'J " hav« been aflferled by tlic muldeii mid rxtfiiHivn revuUioii which " (Hiralyzed tlie Hpirit of cninmerciul enteqirize in 182(1," Your ConiinitteH fully admit : all they contend for iH, in opitonition to the inference to bo drawn from Their liordshiptt' observutionfi, that the 8hi|t OwnerH did not bring on themaelvefl the consequences of excessive supply, by their own improvident speculations, nor did they participate in the benefits of the excitement of I8'i!i, in ii degree to indemnify them for the deprension of 1826. The acts which led to superabundant supply, were in a great degree the acts of others, — the consequences resulting from them, are unfortunately their own. But in the concluding sentence of the paragraph now under review, the Ship Owners arc asked, whether " it can, with trutli, be said of the Ship- '* ping Interest, ihiit the nominal amount of capital vested in Shipping bus, " upon a fair com|wri8on of the years 1826 and 182^, been diminish<;d in " a greater or even nn equal degree with the nominal money amount of " other capital embarked in other branches of manufacturing industry and " conmierciul speculation." It would ill become Your Committc(>, to affect so intimate an acquaiiitance with the various branches of munufue- turiug industry and commercial sjMiculation, in which the capital of tiiis great coninmnity is embarked, as could alone juntify them in giving to this relative enquiry, a confident absolute reply; but from their own practical knowledge and personal interest in Shipping, they have no lieMitation in affirming their belief, thai the Shipping of the country, if brought to sale or appraisement, at the present moment, would not be valued at, or produce much more than half the amount at which it might have been sold in 1825; and they cannot but believe, that on those with whom this opinion may obtain credit, it must induce the same conviction which Your Committee themselves entertain, that, as compared with any other of the great interests of the community, the depreciation in Ship|)ing fully equals that of capital embarked in any other p\irsuit, and far exceeds that sustained on the greater part, while that which remains is nearly uiiprodnetive. It is gratifying to Your Committee to find, from the succeeding paragraph of the letter, that Their Lordships have no intention to underrate the difficulties of the Shipping Interest, and feel no indisposition to take any steps in their power to relieve those dilRculties, and Your Committee are satisfied that Their Lordships do no more than justice to the seutiments of the great body of the Ship Owners of Great Britain, when they intimatit their conviction, " that it cannot lie the intention of the Memorialists to " claim in their own liehalf, any sjwcial intervention of His Majesty's I» " Uuveriiiiiifiil, wliiuli iliuuhl b« iiit-uiiaiitUfiit witli iitttiuiutl fuitb, ur tktri- " iiieiiUl to tliu gviifral iaU'rentN ui' tlin country :" But lui this auuriuice appears to Your Cuiiiniittee merely introductory to the reiiiurks thut follow, in reply to the first and nioHt important remedial measure suggested by tlie Memorialists, in which it is also repeated, it may perhaps be most consis- tent to bring under review the whole of this portion of Their Lordships' Letter, in preference to offering any reflections arising from itx partial consideration. *' Their [.ordships,*' it if* ob.scrved, " ure not diN|M>8ed tu cull in '' question the position laid down by the Memorialists, that the I^w of " Muvigutiun has always sought to secure to Uritish Shipping, a pro[K)rtion " of the carrying of certain articles of Kuropeun production, denominated the " enumerated articles ; they also admit, that, recently, oome latitude in " respect to the imprtation of those articles into this country, was given "to foreign Ships; neither can they deny, that by the Warehousing Act, " some indulgence hiui lH>en shewn to foreign Ships, by allowing them to '^ bring Goods to l>e warehoused for exportation, although the said Goods " are such as cannot from their nature bo admitted for Home (>onsumption, " or if BO admissible, can only lie admitted when imported in British Ships. " It is not aftirmed," it in continued, " in the petition of the Memorialists, " that cither the relaxation of- our Navigation System in resjtect to the " enumerated articles, or the encrt'iiscd facility of warehousin<^, above " referred to, has cmised any injury to the carrying trade of this country ; " nor have The Lords of the Connuittee yet seen any evidence, which " tended to establish that any such injury had been occasioned ; whilst on " the other hand, they are satisfied that these alterations in the law have " greatly contributed to the ucconnnodiition and facility of connnercial '' intercourse, and that incidentally, if not even sometimes directly, they " must have liecome the source of additional employment to British " Shipping. The Memorialists indeed," it is furtiier continued, " do " not ask for the repeal of these indulgences to our Connnerce, but as a " consequence of their l»eing granted, they request that the privilege of *' warehousing the enumerated articles for Home Consumption, should bo " contined to British Ships, and that duties of Customs or Excise impsed " u|M)n all such articles, should be made payable from the moment of entry, " if im|)orted in foreign Ships. The Lords of the Committee," it is stated " in conclusion, " lieing advised that this proposition could not be carried " into effect without a violation of the engagements by which Great Britain " is bound to other states, it becomes unnecessary to enter upon the merits " or ex|»«Miiency ol" (lie suggestion, in reference to ihe gener.tl comniercial ** intereito of thli country, or to the rctalbtory meaaurcii which ntch a " proceeding on our part, might provoke on thn fwrtof Fort^ign 8tat«ii. I*. " ii enough to know, that to adopt the suggt'ition would be to >'iolat(' " public faith ; and in conveying thin knowledge to th» Mcnioriuliiti, Thi; ** Lord* of the Ck>niniittee are latiiiied that it ii unneceimry to nay any " thing more on the subject." The inferences sought to be citablished by the foregoing paragraph appear to be briefly the following : 1st, That by the recent alterations in our Navigation and Warehousing Systems, some advantages have been extended to foreign Shipping in the British Currying Trade, which they did not previously po8S< 8S. id, That from these alterations no injury has l>een occasioned to Fi iti&ii Shipping, but that, on the contrary, the Carrying Trade has derived some iMMictit from them. 3d, That the British Ship Owners do not desire the rep<>nl of tlie indul- gences extended to foreign Shipping, but are anxious only that the privilege of bonding the enumerated articles, when ini|)orted r' imynrtant. From the second, they are compelled to declare their decided dissent, believing that considerable injury has resulted to British Shipping from the alterations referred to. Of the precise extent of this injury it is xti-ii
  • (i to Ihciii by tbi Uternlutn" in «mr Mnriliiiii' Hyiti'in, woubl bnvf Im'I'ii ntiiiiifil l)y HritiRb sl,ij;pin(K, hmt t^w inilulf^fiicfs uot Inu'ii n)iici'(le«l. Hut Your roiniinltee un- w 'I awarr, thnt wuiet th« n^luxMtion of tbe Navi^iitidu Lnv iv ubirh ili.- . iiufr«'ri«te«l troiu llolbiml; and Mill iiiort> by tliAt MitorntiiMi whi«'!i buH (iMonrd Ibt'ir ini|Mirtutii)ii IVimu IIm iibin; orib>|M phko! of |troibu-tioii, tbo iliHtaut voyugv m in nmny inhtoni-i>N ^Hcureil to the Kontif^ucr, ivfii \vbfr« tbit (iin'ct im|K)rtation from 111)' H ^lilMHiriii^ |)ort<« of tbi! ('oiitiri«*ut reinninii to tb«- Hritisb Hiiip \or U ilil^ rftWt rontiiii'd to tbi* Kuro|H-uii 'I'racb' ; lor under tbi' |tcrnii!<- dion to iti)|)ort tb« productions «»!' one of the dintunt ({unrtprs of t\w. gl»be >'im unotbt'r ((unrtur, it fiiilN witiiin tb« knowledge of Your ('oniniitr4>o iliiit tonHideraidc quantities of lOaot India goudn bavc been im|iorte(l Ironi the United Statctt, \vbitb<>r tbey bud been brought by American Sbipn in e.\cbttnge for American goods, to the great injury of the Britidh Mercbi^nt nH well as of llic Ship Owner: And in the freedom of intercourse u ith our ('olonial iNtHseMitions ; in the facilities given to foreignem for Kupply ng them with tlu»»e articles, wbieh they bati been in the practice of obtain ug from Great Britain in British Hbi|)s; and in theencouragement heldmit I >r their exjwrting from hence for the supply of the Continent, that C%»lonin ' produce which was formerly de|)nsited in, anil conveyed from thiR countrj Your Cunnnitlc« can trace ihost im|M)rtunt iuum^* of decline of firitiiih Navigation. It is not for Your Connnitteeut present to discuss how far these modi- lications were rendered retpiisiteby |K)litical or commercial expediency; tbey only desire to prove that injury fiim resulted thcrelrom to the Shipping Interest; and fmm this conclusion, tliey tind it iin|M)SHible to exclude even the \\ areliousing Act, which through a train of operatiouH too tedious lo enumerate, lias destroyed the preference formerly given to British Ships in the trade between the foreign U'est Indies and Northern Euro|N>. It is, in fact, obvious that every inununity granted, and every burthen removed by the relaxations and alterations mad*; in favor of foreigners, nmst have conferred on ilieni additional facilities in the proseort of the conclusions advanced by Their Lordships, whicii your Connnittee are satisfied are at variance with the universal opinions of British Ship Owners. From the foregoing observations, it is obvious, in reply to the third inference of Tiieir Lordships, that though the Siiip Owners do not ask for the rejieal of the indulgences stated to be extended to connnerce, they have only abstained from doing so, under an anxious expectation, tliat some measure would be adopted, calculated to restore to them that portion of the Carrying Trade, which it was the object of the \avigation I^ws to secure X8 to BritiHli Shipping, w liicli object they (.■uneuived, would, under exiathig circuiiistuiiceH, be best uttuiiied by the restricting of the privihige of bunding the enumerated urticles fur home consumption, to importutions in British Ships. Your Committee will not unnecessarily occupy attention by u repetition of the urguments in fuvor of this proposition, urged in the Memorial ; but the principles of " reciprocity " being usually advanced us the unerring guide of commercial regulations, they caimot forbear adverting to the palpable inconsistency of Creut Britain extending this privilege to foreign Shipping entering her ports, while it is denied to her own citizens in v ry many of them, and is not enjoyed by British Shipping in those of any other country whatever. Your Committee are now brought to the consideration of the refusal of Their Lordships to entertain this proposition, on the ground of " their " having been advised that its adoption would involve a violation of public " faith." Your Committee trust it is almost unnecessary to remark, that could they view this question in the same light in which it has appeared to Their Lordships' advisers, no consideration could induce them to sanction it; and they are persuaded that they but express the sentiment of the great body of British Ship Owners, when they declare, that no extremity of difficulty or distress could induce them to seek relief by a compromise of good faith, individual or national, which, on the contrary, they would be loremost to stigmatize with decided reprobation: But Your Committee, with every defurcnce lor the opinions of those by whom Their Lordships are stated to have been advised that " the proi>osition could not be "carried into eii'ect without a violation of the engagements by which Great " Britain is bound to other States," venture to question how far such advice would in itself, justify the decideddeclaration, that such violation isso plainly involved therein as to preclude the further discussion of its expediency ; and fronj a careful examination of the Treaties constituting the engagements referred to, they cannot help entertaining serious doubts whether those engagements would actually be contravened by the proposition, even in its present form ; while from the difference of tiie stipulations contained hi the various treaties made under the authority conferred by the " lleciprocity of Duties Act," they j)resume still more confidently to question whether its adoption would, even in the opinion of tiie advisers of Their Lordsliips, be deemed to violate national faith, if confined to the importations from certain countries, in which Your Connnittee conceive would be included those from whose rivalry British Shipping has suffered most severely. Of the exjMjdiency of a reconsideration of the (juestion under such a modification, Your Conmiittee can entertain no doubt ; of the strict right of tiiis country 94 thus to legislate for the protection of its suhjectR, th«>y are equally satisfied ; nor do they think it should be considered an unfriendly act, by those Foreign Powers who might be affected by the alteration, if, having by treaties with certain other States, barred ourselves from the adoption of a beiieiiciui regulation in itself purely domestic, we refuse to render this disadvantage universal, and adopt the regulation where no such im|)ediment exists. In reference to the effects of such a measure on the general com- mercial interests of the country, your Committee do not apprehend any valid objection could be urged; and with respect to the alleged possibility of retaliatory measures on the part of Foreign States, they cannot but remark, that from measures purely retaliatory, British Interests could sustain no injury, at all to be compared with the benefit to be derived from it; and that if those to whose care the honor and the interests of the country are confided, are not prepared to despise and to repel, unfair and hostile dictation, the doom of the Shi|iping Interest is sealed, and the Ship Omiers may sjmrc themselves the task of future appeals for protection or assistance. But Your Connuitteo feel it impossible to dismiss this subject, without forcibly adverting to the cruelty of the situation in which the Ship Owner ia placed, if it slmll ultinuttely be found that, from the only efficient relief from his rfirticulties, he is «ctually del>arred by Treaties, pledging the natiomil faith, for a series of years, to the continuance of measures fatal to his interests, and detrimental to the public welfare. They cannot forget, that when parliamentary enquiry led to the first suggestion of a relaxation in our Navigation System, the proposition was strongly enforced on Parliament, by the argument, that although the alterations might be considered as ex|H>rimi>ntal, or of doubtful ex|)ediency, as they were domestic regulations, they might lie modified or revoked, " in the event of circum- " stances arising to render such modification essential to the protection of " any of the great objects," (which, it was declared,) " every consideration " of the national safety and power imposed the obligation of inflexibly " maintaining." — (Vide Rejiurl of the Select Committee oj the Hume of Commons, on Foreign Trade.) Nor can they fail to call to mind, the anxious solicitude with which Ship Owners themselves deprecated the concessions made to foreigners ; the prophetic warnings they urged on Their I^jrdships against them ; and the conclusive proofs by which they demonstrated the certain ruin that nnist ultimately involve every branch of the British Carrying Trade that should be exposed unprotected to the com- petition of foreigners : And if it shall IK. \v prove, that in iiegieit of all ruiUion, in (Icfiaiicf ' to trust themselves with liie expression of the feclini;^, sucji a consideration is calculated to excite. The next suijgeslion of the Memorialists referred to hy Their Lord- bhips, is that of an alteration in the relative rates of duty on l]uropean and British Colonial Timber, a proposition which is not only met hy a decided refusal, but commented on with some asperity, from the alle<;ed notoriety of the fact, that " since the period when the duties were fixed at their " present amount, the annual importation of timber from British America '' has very much encreased, and that even in the year I8^i6, it fell short " of the extravagant importation of 1825, by a very inconsiderable amount, " while the dimunilion in the im|)()rtation from the Baltic in that year, is " said to have been lillle short of one half." From liie circumstance of a communication on this subject having been made to the Chancellor of the Exchecpier, whose opinion is said to be in entire concurrence with that of Their Lordsiiips, Your Committee are led to infer, that financial difficnltiea are interpused to any reduction in tlie duty on Colonial Timber. To this Your Cmnmiltec Inwe onfy lo reply liy an expression of deep regret, as they are of opinion such a n.easure would be highly beneficial. But the objections to any increase on the duties charged on importations from the North of Kurope appear tt» be, first, that tlH)se duties were fixed after much inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, in 182], and secondly, that since that period, tiic importation has greatly encreased. On this head it is painful to Vour Connnittee to have to repeat the com- plaint of apparent harshness of dealing towards tlie Memorialists in the ciiarge brought against them of having called for an alteration not justified by the actual state oi' the importations to which it refers. To them it appears that with this consideration the Memorialists had no concern whatever. The only object sought by them wus, the suggestion of practical remedies for difficulties which they had reason to suppose were both admitted and deplored. Under this impression the proposition appears to have been offered by Ibeni ns a remedial measure alone. It seems therefore no reasonable reply to their request for the adoption of a measure of relief, to advance the fact, that in the particular trade to whicli they wish further encouragement to be extended, an increase however considerable, has already taken place; nor docs it appear more consistent to answer, that the subject has been considered six years ago, circumstances having since that period, materially changed. ); •jc. I Hut Your Cctmniiltee rniinol siiH'i'i' tlic stalpmcnts of Their Lord- ships to pass nltoi>'cther undisputed, nnd still less ciin they permit them to remain unexplained. The increase in the importation of Colonial Timl)er, since the imposition of the duty, having been attended 1)3' a corresponding increase in tliat of Hallic Timber previous (o the year 18^6, prove only the increasing consumption of the commodity, attributable to various causes, among which nnist be included llie initural extension of demand created by a rapidly increasing population ; but it by no means disproves the position, that the relative proportions of the aggregate importation would have been more in favor of the Colonial Timber, had no such duty been imposed. It appears therefore a singular mode of reasoning, to contend, that when a channel is pointed out in which a portion of our unemployed Shipping might be advantageously engaged, tin- proposition should be rejected because tiie trade referred to, has already inoreasi-d. Nor does the fact of the inconsiderable diminution in the iniporintion of American Timber during the past year, at all bear out, in tiie judgement of Your Committee, the inferences drawn from it by Their Lordships, In the first place, when instituting a comparison between that diminulion, and the falling oir in the importation from the Raltic. it docs not appear quite consistent with candid exposition to suppress the explanation, tliat the comparative returns being of tlie quantities of Timber alone, cannot exhibit the actual state of t'le relative importf), since from the absurd «nd impolitic mode in wh'oh the duties are imposed, a positively less amount is charged on tlx: timber, when matiufacturcd into deals, than when in its original state. The result of this regulation is not only that a premium is given to the employment of foreign labor, in tlie conversion of tind)er into deals, to the injury of the British laborer, but that a very large pro- portion of the gross import from the North of Europe, on which the duty is high, consisting of deals, which are entirely excluded from the return quoted by Their Lordships, the fact of relative proportions is exiiibited in a most distorted and unfair point of view. Nor is this all. It has already been proved that a very large portion of the Ships admitted to registry in the past year, were the i)roduction of our American Colonies, and were strictly chargeable to the excitement of 182.-), when they were constructed ; but not being completed in that year, they were necessarily sent home in 1826. All these Ships imported cargoes, which, equally with the Ships, should be placed to the account of the " extravagant importation of 182.5.'' And in addition to all, it is a fact well known to Your Committee, that the great reduction in Baltic I'reigiils in 182(5, threatening heavy loss to British Shipping, great numbers of Owners were induced to withdraw their Ships from that trade, and to import American Timber on their own 17 account, a speculation in which they embarked from no desire of inordinate gain, but in the mere hope of securing a remunerating freight. But your Committee are further, unfortunately aware, that even this hope has been so entirely frustrated, that a large proportion of the timber so inported has been sold at an absolute sacrifice of the whole of the firxl cost, and that no inconsiderable portion is still remaining on hand, utterly unsaleable even at that sacrifice. With these appalling facts before Iheiii, it can scarcely be matter of surprise, that Your Committee, so far from coinciding with Their Lordships in the reasonings on which they ground their peremptory rejection of the prayer of the Memorialists, see in it only oc- casion for deep regret, that Their Lordships should assume such impor- tant conclusions from official return?, alone, unaccompanied by those explanations which might modify or altogether change the nature of the inferences justly to be drawn from them. The next proposal of the Memorialists, that *' Timber, Hemp, Ac. "delivered iu performance of contracts for the supply of Government, " should be imported exclusively in British Ships," is njected on the ground of such preference being at variance with existing Treaties. This objection admits, of course, of no other reply than that which has been already given in a former part of this Report ; but as a proof of the different spirit m which the obligations of Trtaties are regarded by coun- tries to which we have been so roady to concede advantages they are so incapable of appreciating or returning, Your Committee deem it right to mention, that although by the Treaty made with Prussia, under the authority of the Reciprocity of Duties Act. a cargo of salt may be imported into Prussia in a British Ship at the same rate of duty as in a Ship of that Country, yet that article being a Ruyal Monopoly, and ihe practice being for the Government only to purchase it when imported in a native Ship, the British Ship is virtually excluded from the trade in that com- modity ; and so far is this unfriendly and unfair principle carried, that a British Ship in a Prussian Port, having on board a small portion of salt for the use of her own crew, is absolutely prohibited from consuming it, and compelled to purchase what is requisite from His Prussian Majesty. In Sweden and other countries to which Great Britain has extended com- mercial advantages, her liberality is repaid by similar vexatious and injurious regulations; the avowed intentions of the Treaties are thus frustrated, if indeed their stipulations be not actually violated. In conveying, in the succeeding portion of the letter, a decided rejec- tion of all the propositions for relief from pecuniary burthens, which had n «8 been submitted by the Memorialists. Their Lordships attempt to qualify the refusal by reminding the Ship Owners how much has been already done in this way for their relief, not only in the abatement and remission of taxes which peculiarly affected the Shipping interest, but also by putting an end to Custom House Fees. Quarantine and Levant Duties, Consular Rates, and other charges which had been long complained of as pressing heavily upon the Navigation of this Kingdom. On this subject it is far from the intention or wish of Your Committee, to disparage the disposition of His Majesty's Government to remedy abuses, or to undervalue the importance of some of those changes which have been etTected in the Commercial regulations of the country, many of which, however, still imperatively require further revision. But it is impossible for them to avoid expressing their surprise at finding Quarantine and Levant Duties enumerated among the pecuniary remissions, as they could have scarcely conceived that Their Lordships could have been unacquainted with the fact, that these duties did not devolve on the Ship, but on the Goods ; tiieir removal therefore has benefited the Merchant and not the Ship Owner, who so far from even participating in the advantage, is subjected, since the alteration, to restrictions and impediments from the Quarantine llegu- lations more vexatious and buthensome than even those to which he was previously exposed. Nor can Your Committee consider witli Their Lordships, ihat in a pecuniary point of view, much has been done for the relief of the Shipping interest; and coinciding as they do with the Memo- rialists in considering the further remissions requested, as objects of minor importance compared with the great point of protection from foreign com- petition, they cannot forbear recomnending caution, lest by attaching weight to these insignificant and almost worthless details, the attention of Parliament and the public should be diverted from the consideration of the great principle, which should be unceasingly urged. They can ut the same time only find in the refusal to grant these trifling boons, on the plea of the eifect of such a remission of duties on the public revenue, a subject for the most humiliating reflections, and the most alarming antici- pations. Your Committee have now completed the painful task, of following Their Lordships through the succession of rejections with which they have met all those suggestions for the relief of the Shipping Interest, which they had themselves invited. If the views expressed by Their Lordships be correct, it appears evident that as objections of political expediency, honorable obligations, or pecuniary difiiculty, are interposed to every measure that can be suggested, future appeal will be hopeless and «9 » qualify already lission of pressing it is far sposition alue tiie d in the iver, still them to It Duties ; scarcely 1 the fact, ids; their p Owner, led, since inc Itegu- ch he was ith Their le for the le Memo- of minor ;ign com- attaching tention of ion of the in ut the , on the venue, a ng antici- following lich they Interest, by Their f political nterposed neless and remonatrunce vain. But Your Committee, confident that the whole of the Shipping case is misunderstood or misrepresented, and apprehensive of the ineflicUcy of further application to the Executive Government for relief, do not still despair of redress through the intervention of the Legis- lature. Disclaiming all wish for peculiar privileges to be extended to the Ship Owner, they cannot but believe, that when it shall appear to Parliament, that he is actually placed in the unprecedented situation of being condemned to struggle in hopeless competition with his foreign rival, without the slightest protection to counterbalance their overwhelming advantages, the delusion under which his case has hitherto been studi- ously wrapped in the mysterious details of Custom House Returns, must vanish, and the question exhibit itself plainly as one of principle alone, whether he nhall continue a solitary exception to the general rule on the faith of which hia property was embarked, and under the departure from which it is now wrecked, or wlicther that measure of protection shall be extended to him. which as far as Your Committee are aware, is afforded without exception to every other branch of British capital and industry. To obtain, then, the solemn and deliberate investigation of a Parliamentary Comir.i'*ee. they recommend the strenuous and united efforts of the Ship Owners ; as before such a tribunal they cannot but entertain a confident reliance, th&t the misstatements by which interested and visionary op- ponents have 8uctcp,ded in inducing the legislature to sanction a course of policy which has brought the Maritime Interests of Britain to the verge ot destruction, will be disproved; the aggravated injustice of the measures adopted towards the Ship Owner will be demonstrated; and the paramount necessity for the restoration of protection established. GEORGE FREDERICK YOUNG, GEORGE PALMER, WILLIAM TINDALL, WILLIAM RICHMOND, THOMAS FORREST, ROBERT ALEXANDER GRAY, W. WILLIAMS MORTIMER. Lmdon, April mh, 1827.