Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

THE SHEPHERD'S CALENDAR.-BY THE ETTRICK SHEPHERD.-DREAMS

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTERS ON CHURCHYARDS. CHAP. XI. BROAD SUMMERFORD,

206

[blocks in formation]

WILLIAM BLACK WOOD, NO. 17, PRINCE'S STREET, EDINBURGH; AND T. CADELL, STRAND, LONDON;

To whom Communications (post paid) may be addressed.

ALSO BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE & CO. EDINBURGH.

[blocks in formation]

In resuming our examination of Mr Huskisson's pamphlet, we will, in the first place, look at what he says touching, to use his own words "The trade with all parts of the world, strictly foreign, out of Europe."

He states-" In the year 1814, the amount of British tonnage employed in this trade, was 465,809 tons. In the year 1826, its amount was 503,024 tons; exceeding the tonnage of any one year since 1814, except 1818: whilst, with the single exception of the United States of America, there has been no increase at all in the amount of tonnage of foreign vessels, trading between this country and ports out of Europe. And even allowing for the increase of American shipping, there are seven years out of the thirteen, from 1814 to 1826, in which the amount of Foreign shipping entering the ports of this country, from places out of Europe, was greater than in the year 1826."

This extract forms a choice specimen of trickery and evasion.

This trade, "strictly Foreign," comprehends the trade with our own colonies and possessions in the West Indies, the East Indies, Africa, every where, excepting the North American colonies. That Foreign tonnage has not multiplied in the carrying between VOL. XXII.

this country and its own colonies,
forms but a poor theme of congratula
tion. This trade comprehends like-
wise the trade with China, St Domin-
go, and the new South American
states. If we except the United States,
parts of the world strictly
these "
foreign, out of Europe," have no ships
worth noticing, and of course our trade
with them is carried on almost wholly
in British bottoms. From the de-
plorable condition of the new Ameri-
can states, they have not yet been able
to avail themselves to any extent of
the concession practically made to them
by the Reciprocity Treaties, of trading
with us through the ships of other na
tions.

Mr Huskisson quotes the British, but not the Foreign tonnage; and his object evidently is, to produce the impression, that, in this trade, British tonnage has increased, while Foreign, upon the whole, has declined. The truth is, this trade employed,

In 1814
In 1826

Tons British. Tons Foreign,
465,809
503,024

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

27,793 153,802

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

In this statement, we do not deduct the tonnage employed in the trade with our possessions in Africa and the ⚫ East Indies, although, were we to do this, it would favour greatly our own deductions; it would take 104,501 tons from the British tonnage of last year. If we strike out of the account all the British tonnage employed in the fisheries, and the trade with our own possessions, and look only at the trade with independent countries out of Europe; we find that this trade employs about 100,000 tons British, and above 150,000 tons Foreign.

Mr Huskisson selects 1814 to stand in comparison with 1826, because it is the lowest year in the series. Why is it so? Because in that year our ships were excluded from the trade with the United States by war. Comment is not necessary. In looking at this trade as a whole, including that with our own possessions, we will begin with 1816, when peace was established, and the Reciprocity treaty with America had begun to operate. It employed

Tons Foreign. 122,025 153,802

Tons British. In 1816 491,460 In 1826 503,024 In the ten years British tonnage has increased 11,564 tons, while Foreign has increased 31,777 tons. Mr Huskisson's assertion, that the British tonnage of last year exceeded that of any year in the series, save 1818, is incorrect it was below the tonnage of 1819 likewise. The British tonnage was, in 1818-527,531 tons; in 1819-507,949; in 1821-493,235; in 1823-502,278; and in 1824 500,219. The fluctuations in it, considering its magnitude, are perfectly unimportant; it may be fairly said to have remained stationary; the little it has gained in one year, it has lost in the next. The trifling increase of last year, was caused by the glut of ships and ruinous freights, and the additional ships could not in reality procure employment. While this is

the case with British tonnage, Foreign although it was greater in some pre◄ vious years, than in the last one-bas increased one-fourth; in 1825, it had nearly doubled. Its falling off in the last year, was occasioned mainly by our diminished imports of cotton; and it is pretty certain to be larger in the present year, than it ever was in the series.

In this whole trade, the increase of tonnage has been monopolized by the foreigner; British shipping has remained stationary, while Foreign has increased considerably. When we subtract the trade with our own possessions, and look merely at that with independent Foreign countries, we find that Foreign shipping has engrossed much the largest part of it.

We will now look at the more important branches of this trade separately, to ascertain what may be expected from the future.

With regard to the West India trade, Mr Huskisson asserts, that more tonnage was employed in it in 1826, than any other year since 1815. He asserts this in that spirit of petty trickery and deception which pervades bis whole pamphlet. He knows that the inward tonnage forms a far more correct criterion, than the outward; and in general, he reasons from it only. In this case, however, he speaks from the outward tonnage. Why? Because the inward tonnage refutes his asser tion. While he thus argues from the outward tonnage in the West India trade; in the very next paragraph, he argues from the inward tonnage in the Canada trade; because in the latter trade, the inward, and in the former, the outward tonnage, is the best suited for his purpose..

Looking, then, at the inward ton nage in the West India trade, it was greater in 1818, 1819, 1821, and 1824, than in 1826. This will show the worth of Mr Huskisson's assertion. The last year, compared with the preceding one, exhibits an increase of about 11,000 tons; but, compared with 1824, it exhibits a decrease of 1500 tons. The increase of the last year was caused not by the wants of the trade, but by the glut in shipping. Many of the vessels returned with half, or quarter cargoes, and made ruinous voyages. This trade only em ployed 879 tons more in 1826, than in 1817. For the last ten years, it has

been stationary-the fluctuations have not been great-and the increase of one year has been balanced by the decrease of another.

Mr Huskisson says, that the new Colonial system has done no injury either to the trade with the colonies, or to shipping. It is notorious that this system admitted very large quantities of Foreign salted provisions, manufactures, nails, cordage, &c. into the Colonies, which would otherwise have been excluded; and this is quite sufficient to prove that it has done great injury to the trade of this country. It is notorious that these Foreign goods were taken to the Colonies in great part by Foreign ships, and this suffices to prove that it must have greatly in jured our shipping. Granting that as many ships have been wanted to fetch the Colonial produce, as formerly, still the admission of the Foreign goods has reduced the outward freights to the loss of the Shipowners.

This new Colonial system only received being in 1825; and it was not possible for it to have any material operation upon tonnage in the following year. The estates in the West Indies are to a very great extent mortgaged to, or the property of, British residents. Their market lies chiefly in this country; and from these causes they are compelled to send us their produce. It must be a gradual work to Foreign nations, to form connexions in, and build proper ships to trade with, our West Indian Colonies. But we hold it to be quite certain, that not many years will pass away, before the surplus produce of these Colonies, beyond what is consumed by the mother country, will be sent direct from them to the continent in Foreign vessels, instead of being brought to this country in British vessels, previously to its being sent to the Continent. If this take place, it will produce a considerable diminution of British tonnage in the West India trade.

The trade in sugar is to be made free. In the pamphlet before us, he states "The monopoly granted to the West India planter is of little or no advantage to him." His ground for this conclusion is as follows. The Colonies produce more sugar than the mother country can consume; the surplus has to be sold abroad; it must of course be sold for the price obtained

govern the price of the sugar consumed at home. This is the theory" on which Mr Huskisson assumes that the monopoly enjoyed by the colonist is worthless; and it is worthy of its parent. If the monopoly were abolished, a very large quantity of Foreign sugar would be consumed in this country, and this would prevent the consump tion of a like quantity of British sugar. The Foreign planter can produce at a cheaper rate than the British one, therefore a great stimulus would be given to the production of Foreign sugar. The portion of the latter consumed here would not be subtracted from the quantity at present consumed abroad, but it would be the fruit of additional production; the British sugar thrown out of consumption here would find no void elsewhere. If the British planter be now compelled to take the price of his Foreign competitor, he has an immense market in this country, which the latter cannot enter; but if the monopoly be destroyed, he must not only take the same price, but share this market with this competitor. His sale must be greatly reduced. What has followed from the admission of Mauritius sugar? A great increase in its production. The admission of Foreign sugar will have the same effect; it will involve the British Colonies in bitter distress from glut, and then seriously diminish their production of sugar.

This would of necessity operate grievously against British shipping, as the Foreign sugar would be brought to a great extent in Foreign vessels. The permission for Foreign ships to trade directly with the Colonies, and a free trade in sugar, must soon drive a very large portion of British tonnage out of the West India trade.

We now proceed to the trade with the United States, with which a Reciprocity treaty has been in operation since 1815. This trade employed

[blocks in formation]

for foreign sugar; and its price must

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »