nished by the figures we have extracted from official documents.

These facts are unassailable.

1. That the whole trade between this country, and the Reciprocity ones we have named, has increased so much in the last six or seven years, that it employed nearly double the gross tonnage in the last, which it employed in the first year of the series.

2. That the increase of tonnage has been nearly all monopolised by foreigners. The glut, ruinous freights, and demand for corn in the last year, did very little more than enable British tonnage to remain stationary. Notwithstanding the operation of these, British tonnage was only about one-fifth more in 1826 than in 1821, while Foreign tonnage was more than trebled.

3. That in 1821, British ships possessed nearly two-thirds of this trade, and in 1826 Foreign ships possessed two-thirds of it, within 63,000 tons. The increase in it of British tonnage between 1822 and 1826 was only, in round numbers, 26,000 tons; while the increase of Foreign shipping in the same period was 194,000 tons-nearly eight times greater.

4. That while the Reciprocity Treaties were in full operation, British tonnage rapidly decreased, and Foreign increased yearly in the ratio of fifty per cent, in this trade. If the opera tion of these treaties had not been sus pended in the two last years by accidental causes, little more than one half of the British tonnage would have been employed in it in the last year, which was employed in it six or eight years ago.

5. That in the years preceding 1823, British shipping possessed one-half, and sometimes two-thirds, of the trade with Sweden. In 1824, it did not possess one-third, and in 1825, it did not possess one-fifth of it. In 1826, this trade employed nearly three tons Foreign, to two tons British. Since 1821, British shipping has declined almost yearly in this trade, until it had fallen from 22,392 tons to 11,709.

6. That in the trade with Norway since 1821, British shipping has fallen from 12,151 to 7,834 tons-has declined more than one-third; while Foreign has risen from 50,376 to 73,588 -has increased nearly one-half. In 1823, the latter was 99,688 tons; in 1824, it was 119,761 tons; and in 1825, it was 135,435 tons.

7. That in 1821, British ships possessed considerably more than half of the trade with Denmark, and in 1826, they possessed considerably less than one-third of it. In this trade, since 1821, British tonnage has received an increase of 17,338 tons, while Foreign has received an increase of 52,575 tons: the increase in it is more than three times that in the British.

8. That in 1821, British ships possessed more than two-thirds of the trade with Prussia, and in 1826, they did not possess one-half of it. Since 1821, in this trade, British tonnage has increased 25,405 tons, while Foreign has increased 78,369 tons. The increase in Foreign is more than three times that in British. British tonnage fell off in this trade in the last year far more in proportion than Foreign.

9. That in 1821, British ships possessed more than ten-elevenths of the trade with Germany; and in 1826, they did not possess three-fifths of it. In this trade, since 1821, British tonnage has increased 14,101 tons, while Foreign has increased 69,504 tons. The increase of Foreign has been nearly five times that of the British.

10. That the falling off in Foreign tonnage in 1826 was mainly occasioned, not by the competition of British ships, but by the diminished demand of this country for such articles as Foreign vessels had been employed to bring; a revival of such demand must restore to these vessels their employment.

11. That the British ships employed in the trade with these countries in 1826, were employed at losing freights, which, if continued, would soon drive them out of the trade altogether.

Mr Huskisson's arguments applied to the whole Foreign trade; but he purposely uses them to produce the belief, that, in the trade with each country, British shipping has increased more, and decreased less, than Foreign. In respect of the real question, they do not touch it.

We will now look at the trade with another of the Reciprocity countriesthe Netherlands. This trade employed in

In this trade, while the treaties had real operation, British tonnage de creased, and Foreign rapidly increased. In the last year, from the glut and the demand for corn, our ships, for the moment, recovered their ground. They were the better enabled to do this, be cause the difference in cost and expenses is not so great between them and the ships of the Netherlands, as it is between them and the ships of Prussia, &c. Putting the last year out of sight, and looking at what took place when trade and freights were in a natural condition, our ships have been almost yearly losing their relative proportion of this trade.

The treaty with France has not yet had any real operation.

We will now glance at the trade with foreign countries as a whole.

Mr Huskisson's return gives the British and Foreign tonnage for the years between 1814 and 1826, both inclusive. We give it so far as regards the inward tonnage.

The two first years, were the concluding years of the war, when our Shipowners were to a great degree burdened with war charges, and when the carrying trade was in the most unsettled condition. Under the old Navigation Laws, however, our ships immediately triumphed over the Foreign ones; they increased, not because trade increased, but because they took from the Foreign ones, onethird of their employment. In the first two years, they possessed little more than half of the trade; but for several years afterwards, they possessed twothirds of it. As soon as these laws were abolished, Foreign ships began to

triumph. Our shipping remained stationary, while Foreign increased onehalf.

In 1818, more British tonnage was employed than in 1826; in the last year only 11,000 tons more were employed, than were employed in 1817. The tonnage of last year is only 37,000 more than that of 1819. In 1818, the importation of foreign corn was very large; and in that year Foreign tonnage rose greatly, because there was more employment than British ships could perform. If we strike that particular year out of the series, Foreign tonnage, for several years after the peace, remained stationary, while British increased considerably; but since the Navigation Laws were abolished, British tonnage—excepting 1825-has remained stationary; while Foreign has increased fifty per cent.; in 1825 the latter had doubled.

Upon the whole, then, these points are wholly untouched by Mr Huskis son.

1. That the ships of various of the Reciprocity countries can be built and navigated at so cheap a rate, that British ships cannot compete with them.

2. That the protection which has been given to the members of every other interest-even to such as can undersell the rest of the world-has been wholly refused to the Shipown

ers.

3. That in the trade with the five Reciprocity countries, Prussia, &c.,a trade which employed, in 1825, 825,020, and in 1826, 583,709 tons of shipping; and which is likely to increase very largely and rapidlythe relative proportion of British tonnage has decreased, and that of Foreign has increased, in an enormous degree in late years. British ships, from possessing two-thirds, now pos sess only one-third of it. British tonnage has increased in it but in a trifling degree, from accidental and mo❤ mentary causes; while Foreign tonnage in it has been trebled by natural causes which must almost constantly operate.

4. That in this trade the British Shipowner cannot take, without loss, the rate of freight which the Foreign one can afford to take. The inevitable consequence of this must be, that generally-that constantly, save in times of scarcity, or glut, in shipping

British tonnage must decline, and

Foreign must increase, until British ships be wholly expelled from the trade.

5. That in the trade with some of these countries, British shipping has in late years declined, while Foreign has greatly increased. In the trade with the whole, British shipping was declining, while Foreign was rapidly increasing, previously to the last two years. In these years, the decline of British was suspended by temporary causes, and in the natural course of things, it must continue.

6. That if Foreign tonnage increase, as upon the whole it has increased in late years, it will soon drive British entirely from this trade.

7. That the freights in this trade, necessarily determine the freights of the whole carrying trade, foreign, colonial, and home, speaking of it generally. If freights be higher in one trade than another, ships will be sent from the one to the other, and the new ships will be built for the best trade, until an equalization is produced. The losing freights in this trade produce losing freights in the whole carrying trade; and they must necessarily continue to do so-barring any occasional scarcity of shippinguntil British ships are wholly driven from the trade with these Reciprocity

countries.

8. That after the peace, under the Navigation Laws, British shipping increased, and Foreign decreased in the whole trade with Foreign nations. British shipping soon acquired two-thirds of this trade; and for some years it retained this, and upon the whole increased: Foreign, after sustaining a reduction of more than one-third, remained, upon the whole, for several years stationary. In the last five years, excepting 1825, and allowing for un important fluctuations, British tonnage has remained stationary in this trade, while Foreign has rapidly increased, until it has reached an increase of fifty per cent.

9. That if Foreign shipping increase in this trade, as it has increased in late years, it must soon obtain the greater portion of it, and cause an alarming decrease in British shipping. It must so increase, according to probability, experience, and the laws of nature.

10. That the Shipowners are in the deepest distress-almost half their property has been swept away by the fall in the value of vessels-tonnage was only kept up in the last year at the point at which it had generally been for several preceding years, by losing freights and deficient cargoes-and were the present freights to continue, they would soon ruin the Shipowners.

11. That from the operation of the Reciprocity treaties, the glut in ships must continue, and freights must never rise to regular remunerating ones, until British ships are banished from the trade with the Reciprocity countries.

12. That the Shipowners have not brought their distress upon themselves, and that they are entirely destitute of the means of removing it.

These points, we say, are wholly untouched by Mr Huskisson. They stand upon official documents and actual experiment, and they are above controversy.

It was said in the House of Commons, that the Shipowners had no case. What we have said, will we think convince our countrymen, that they had a case, and one of the most pressing and irresistible description. În our next Number we shall examine the remainder of Mr Huskisson's pamphlet. We shall in it offer farther proofs that the Shipowners had a case-we shall likewise prove that the country had a case in their hands, which it was the sacred duty of the House of Commons to investigate with the utmost promptitude and impartiality-and we shall, moreover, prove very decisively, that Mr Huskisson is himself, what he represents those to be, who have written against his measures,

VOL. XXII.

C

In this trade, while the treaties had real operation, British tonnage de creased, and Foreign rapidly increased. In the last year, from the glut and the demand for corn, our ships, for the moment, recovered their ground. They were the better enabled to do this, be cause the difference in cost and expenses is not so great between them and the ships of the Netherlands, as it is between them and the ships of Prussia, &c. Putting the last year out of sight, and looking at what took place when trade and freights were in a natural condition, our ships have been almost yearly losing their relative proportion of this trade.

The treaty with France has not yet had any real operation.

We will now glance at the trade with foreign countries as a whole.

Mr Huskisson's return gives the British and Foreign tonnage for the years between 1814 and 1826, both inclusive. We give it so far as regards the inward tonnage.

The two first years, were the concluding years of the war, when our Shipowners were to a great degree burdened with war charges, and when the carrying trade was in the most unsettled condition. Under the old Navigation Laws, however, our ships immediately triumphed over the Foreign ones; they increased, not because trade increased, but because they took from the Foreign ones, onethird of their employment. In the first two years, they possessed little more than half of the trade; but for several years afterwards, they possessed twothirds of it. As soon as these laws were abolished, Foreign ships began to

In 1818, more British tonnage was employed than in 1826; in the last year only 11,000 tons more were employed, than were employed in 1817. The tonnage of last year is only 37,000 more than that of 1819. In 1818, the importation of foreign corn was very large; and in that year Foreign tonnage rose greatly, because there was more employment than British ships could perform. If we strike that par ticular year out of the series, Foreign tonnage, for several years after the peace, remained stationary, while British increased considerably; but since the Navigation Laws were abolished, British tonnage-excepting 1825-has remained stationary; while Foreign has increased fifty per cent.; in 1825 the latter had doubled.

Upon the whole, then, these points are wholly untouched by Mr Huskis

3. That in the trade with the five Reciprocity countries, Prussia, &c.,a trade which employed, in 1825, 825,020, and in 1826, 583,709 tons of shipping; and which is likely to increase very largely and rapidlythe relative proportion of British tonnage has decreased, and that of Foreign has increased, in an enormous degree in late years. British ships, from possessing two-thirds, now possess only one-third of it. British tonnage has increased in it but in a trifling degree, from accidental and momentary causes; while Foreign tonnage in it has been trebled by natural causes which must almost constantly operate.

4. That in this trade the British Shipowner cannot take, without loss, the rate of freight which the Foreign one can afford to take. The inevitable consequence of this must be, that generally-that constantly, save in times of scarcity, or glut, in shipping

British tonnage must decline, and

Foreign must increase, until British ships be wholly expelled from the trade.

5. That in the trade with some of these countries, British shipping has in late years declined, while Foreign has greatly increased. In the trade with the whole, British shipping was declining, while Foreign was rapidly increasing, previously to the last two years. In these years, the decline of British was suspended by temporary causes, and in the natural course of things, it must continue.

6. That if Foreign tonnage increase, as upon the whole it has increased in late years, it will soon drive British entirely from this trade.

7. That the freights in this trade, necessarily determine the freights of the whole carrying trade, foreign, colonial, and home, speaking of it generally. If freights be higher in one trade than another, ships will be sent from the one to the other, and the new ships will be built for the best trade, until an equalization is produced. The losing freights in this trade produce losing freights in the whole carrying trade; and they must necessarily continue to do so-barring any occasional scarcity of shippinguntil British ships are wholly driven from the trade with these Reciprocity countries.

8. That after the peace, under the Navigation Laws, British shipping increased, and Foreign decreased in the whole trade with Foreign nations. British shipping soon acquired two-thirds of this trade; and for some years it retained this, and upon the whole increased: Foreign, after sustaining a reduction of more than one-third, remained, upon the whole, for several years stationary. In the last five years, excepting 1825, and allowing for un important fluctuations, British tonnage has remained stationary in this trade, while Foreign has rapidly increased, until it has reached an increase of fifty per cent.

9. That if Foreign shipping increase in this trade, as it has increased in late years, it must soon obtain the greater portion of it, and cause an alarming decrease in British shipping. It must so increase, according to probability, experience, and the laws of nature.

10. That the Shipowners are in the deepest distress-almost half their property has been swept away by the fall in the value of vessels-tonnage was only kept up in the last year at the point at which it had generally been for several preceding years, by losing freights and deficient cargoes-and were the present freights to continue, they would soon ruin the Shipowners.

11. That from the operation of the Reciprocity treaties, the glut in ships must continue, and freights must never rise to regular remunerating ones, until British ships are banished from the trade with the Reciprocity countries.

12. That the Shipowners have not brought their distress upon themselves, and that they are entirely destitute of the means of removing it.

These points, we say, are wholly untouched by Mr Huskisson. They stand upon official documents and actual experiment, and they are above controversy.

It was said in the House of Commons, that the Shipowners had no case. What we have said, will we think convince our countrymen, that they had a case, and one of the most pressing and irresistible description. În our next Number we shall examine the remainder of Mr Huskisson's pamphlet. We shall in it offer farther proofs that the Shipowners had a case we shall likewise prove that the country had a case in their hands, which it was the sacred duty of the House of Commons to investigate with the utmost promptitude and impartiality-and we shall, moreover, prove very decisively, that Mr Huskisson is himself, what he represents those to be, who have written against his measures,

VOL. XXII.

C