tional defence. If the number of vessels has multiplied two-fold under liberal laws, the number of seamen must have progressed in a similar ratio; and, consequently, the basis of a navy has become as much more reliable. Politicians would have ships regarded not in their actual light as the tools with which commerce is conducted, but as the object and end of commerce. That is, that merchants and ship-owners are allowed to conduct their business merely because in so doing they are training and educating men to fight such battles as the aristocracy may, for any purpose, undertake. When people at large recognize in ships only one means for the promotion of the general welfare in the disposal of the products of industry, they will also come to consider the right of making war as one that belongs only to the people whose business is interrupted by hostilities, and who have to pay the expense. Instead of driving a commerce merely to educate seamen for the navy, they will no longer permit the navy to draw industrious men from the productive employment of the mercantile marine.

While the shipping interests of England have thus increased in magnitude, as compared with the aggregate amount that comes to her ports from all nations with which she deals, the shipping of the United States has always taken precedence of that of England whenever they met on equal

terms.

The manner in which the Navigation Laws continue to operate on the indirect trade, may be gathered from a few facts elicited before a parliamentary committee to examine into the operation of the Navigation Laws, in respect to the indirect trade. A short quotation from the evidence of Mr. Berger, a London merchant in the United States trade, will show the tendency of this investigation. In answer to the question, "Have you experienced any inconvenience or loss from the operation of the Navigation Laws?" Mr. Berger gives a reply at once comprehensive and specific:

The principal inconvenience that we experience is from that clause in the Navigation Law, which enacts that goods, not the produce of the United States shall only be brought from the United States in an English vessel. There is a large trade carried on, principally from the northern ports of the United States, viz., Boston and New-York, with Africa, the East Indies, and other parts; there is a large market there for the produce of those countries, and very frequentopportunities occur, when the markets in this country are bare of those articles, and when it would be most important that they should be brought over here. I speak of such articles as palm oil, ivory, African hides, East India hides, Manilla hemp, East India gums, and African gums, and dye-woods of all kinds; a considerable quantity of East and West India drugs, Cuba tobacco, annatto, and other articles: all those articles are very valuable, though not much in bulk. "Are those articles that you have a great trade in? Yes, a considerable trade both in London and Liverpool, and those articles can only be imported into this country in British vessels.

ships in the nor

"Have you experienced any difficulty in procuring British thern ports of the United States, Boston and New-York? Frequently there has been a difficulty and a delay in getting forward those goods, from the difficulty of getting British ships."

Not that there is any absolute deficiency of British shipping in these northern ports. But the British ships that frequent New-York and Boston are mainly an inferior class of colonial craft, from Nova Scotia or

New-Brunswick, not adapted to carry the more valuable descriptions of American produce, and not always "in a position to come across the At lantic." Generally speaking," adds the witness, "they are the worst which we get, and the consequence is an increased rate of premium on the insurance, an increased length of voyage, and an increased loss of interest; and what affects us more than anything else, the risk of the loss of the market, which the delay and the length of the voyage entail upon us."

"Can you give any particular instance of the difficulty of getting British ships, in which to import those particular goods that you have referred to into this country? Yes; one of our friends writes us here in November last, from Salem, Massachusetts: The favorable state of your market would induce me to send about 150 casks of palm oil lately received, was there any British vessel here at this time; and also another parcel of 150 hogsheads, which I daily.expect.' And afterwards he wrote us, The 150 casks which are mentioned in my last I have sold, there not being a British vessel;' so that not only a British ship lost the freight, but we lost the commission."

"The favorable state of the British market" is simply a short way of saying that Great Britain very particularly wanted palm oil, at that particular moment, and would have been only too happy to pay the American merchant a handsome price for it; but the Navigation Laws stopped the way. The examination proceeds :

us.

"Can you give another instance? I can give another instance which affected The goods were sent by a ship which bears a good name, but which was a wretched craft-the Duke of Wellington; she was a St. John's ship, loading at Boston. There were 100 bales of Cuba tobacco which had to be sent round from New-York to Boston; the ship made a very long passage, and that tobacco, if it could have been shipped by an American vessel, would have been here six weeks before, and would have been sold for 3s. 3d. a pound; but before the time this ship got here, the market declined 2s., and the tobacco is still on hand now, and is not worth more than 1s. 3d. a pound. Upon that single transaction there was a loss to the parties interested of £500, or £600. There was another instance in October last. Our correspondent wrote to us in these terms: -There are at present 1,000 bales of Manilla hemp here, which would go forward were there any British ship. We had to send out a ship from this country; she got into distress, and had to put back to Cork, and those 1.000 bales, not having come forward, being equal to 250 tons, have since been sold abroad."

The colonial policy of Great Britain, as well as that of other nations of Europe, has, however, always had in view the maintenance of a close monopoly, until recently, when great modifications have been made in it. The monopoly was, moreover, of a verycomprehensive character. It was a monopoly of supply of colonial produce and manufacture. The colonies were allowed to draw their supplies only from the mother-country; they were constrained to carry all their produce to her markets only; and were prohibited from manufacturing themselves, being required to send their raw material to England to be wrought up.

The treaty of 1815, which opened the direct trade between Great Britain and the United States to the vessels of each nation on mutual terms, did not embrace the colonial trade. The government of England taking advantage of the protective system, which was then in operation in the United States, saw, with satisfaction, the imposition by Congress of a series of restrictive regulations meant to be retaliatory by the acts of 1818, 1820, and 1823. While British goods were subjected to enormous duties imported into the United States directly, they were sent to the

Canadas, and thence smuggled into the northern states. Thus, while the United States' duties on wollens, cottons, silks, teas, &c., ranged from 30 to 168 per cent., the colonial duties were only 21 per cent. This enormous premium on smuggling over the northern border, tended directly to encourage the British shipping in the St. Lawrence River; and to promote an interest which the singular policy of the United States was fostering; the Imperial Parliament in 1825 and 1826, by two acts, granted to the Canadas, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, all the commercial privileges of independent nations, modifying duties, and placing the revenues at the control of the local legislature. At length, Congress awoke to the adverse operation of its restrictive policy, and by act of May, 1830, authorized the President, whenever he should receive evidence that the government of Great Britain had opened its ports to the vessels of the United States, to admit, by proclamation, upon the same terms, the vessels of the colonies. The conditions being fulfilled, the proclamation issued October 30, 1830, and British vessels and their cargoes were admitted to entry in the ports of the United States from the northern and West India colonies.

It has been freely objected to this arrangement, that under it the British vessels have great advantages over those of the United States: 1st, that while only selected ports of the colonies are open to the United States' vessels, all the American ports were open to British vessels. 2d. That by the selection of these few ports, advantages are given to the British vessels over those of the United States, and, as an instance, gypsum, an article of export from the provinces, is taken by British vessels directly from the quarries, while American vessels can only get it at the nearest port, Windsor. 3d. That colonial duties have been levied on exports in American vessels, and not upon the same articles shipped in British vessels. 4th. That United States produce may be naturalized in the colonies and sent thence to England without duties. As an instance-flour may be taken in by a British vessel at an American port, and the vessel touching at a colonial port obtain a certificate of naturalization, which will exempt the flour from duty in England. 5th. That British vessels may proceed from England to the colonies, thence to the United States, and thence home, making three freights, while American vessels can neither go from England to her colonies, nor from the colonies to England. These are among the leading advantages that British ships were said to enjoy over those of the United States in international trade. If we admit that they were all substantial advantages, a table from official documents* will show that the American vessels have,

AMERICAN AND BRITISH TONNAGE ENTERED THE UNITED STATES FROM BRITAIN AND HER DEPENDENCIES, WITH THE VALUE OF IMPORTS IN THE RESPECTIVE SHIPS.

Imp'ts, 3,115.906 24,458,389 4,682,131 38,334,390 5,581,224 33,411,801 4,438,859 13,558,053

notwithstanding these disadvantages, obtained by far the largest proportion of the increased trade between the United States and colonies, as well as the imperial islands.

The tonnage entered from the British West Indies, in which trade the English vessels were supposed to have such superior advantages, increased from a total of 33,094 tons in the year following the opening of the ports, to 113,773 tons in 1847; and of this increase of 80,679 tons, the United States vessels had 44,214 tons, and the amount of freights brought in British vessels remained nearly stationary. These results show conclusively, that under alledged disadvantages the triumph of American seamanship has been complete. The general result of opening the trade with the colonies is seen in greatly extended sales of American farm produce. The removal of restriction upon navigation has the same effect upon sales to the colonies, as the opening of a railroad through a naturally seclu led district has, viz.-to enable its settlers to reach a market. Take, for instance, the objection mentioned above in relation to gypsum, and which was urged by petitioners to Congress strenuously, as a reason for retaliation. Certain parties in New-Brunswick owned plaster of paris quarries, and were desirous of selling the product. The citizens of Maine were desirous of buying it. The English government said, "You quarrymen can sell only to British vessels:" but finally they modified the restriction, so as to permit American vessels to buy at a neighboring port. The object of this was to encourage British shipping. The result was, to deprive the quarrymen of the sale of their plaster, because the restriction made it come too high. In 1838 the colonies sold $205,698 worth to the U. States, of which $188,937 was in British vessels. In 1847 they sold but $22,260, of which $21,236 was in British vessels. Had they permitted the citizens of Maine to come to their quarries and buy plaster on the best terms, they would have continued to sell well; but their restriction lost them both market and transportation, while Maine was better accommodated elsewhere. This absurd mode of encouraging shipping works out its own stultification. England has become wiser. Thus, a congressional committee, in 1842, declaimed vigorously against the existing arrangement, because United States flour could be naturalized in the provinces, and so conveyed to England without duty, "in which way our own vessels are excluded from the transportation of our own produce." The corn-laws were then in operation in England, and if our western farmers could find, through the colonies, a mode of selling their flour by evading the duties, it is difficult to see why the shipping interest should complain. As it is, however, England, by abolishing the corn-laws, has given the trade to American vessels, and colonial vessels have no longer that advantage. The late proposition of the English ministry to throw open the coasting trade of the two countries to the shipping reciprocally a proposition which was withdrawn for the unsound reason that the difficulties of preventing smuggling would, under such an arrangement, become insuperable, and the revenue suffer- was strongly objected to by Mr. Webster in the American Senate, for reasons as expressed by himself, as follows:

"Another thing to be considered is, how inconsiderably small is the coasting trade of England proper, and her European dominions, in contrast with the vast extent of the coasting trade of the United States. Our coasting trade hereafter holds out to us the greatest prospects. It will embrace the longest voyages on the globe, running from the extreme north, around Cape Horn, to

California and Oregon. If this proposition of reciprocity is adopted, who should then leave the produce and manufactures of the United States free to British or other foreign vessels, not only to New-Orleans, but around Cape Horn, to our territories on the Pacific; and in this foreign ships can be navigated cheaper than our own vessels."

The idea embraced in this objection is, that the "length" of the voyage round Cape Horn is of great advantage. Now commercial shrewdness looks rather to rich freights on short voyages, than to length of time occupied. It requires high prices and large profits to remunerate the ship-owner for the outlay of capital and accumulation of expense, in maintaing a ship and crew for a year for one freight. The interests of our colonies or new states on the Pacific require to have supplies of all kinds brought to them in the cheapest possible manner. Their situation is analogous to that of the people of England last year, when the government was compelled to suspend the navigation laws, in order that grain might be brought by those who would bring it cheapest. The voyage to California is not a tempting one, and the people of that region require that it should be interdicted to none. How different is this policy of Mr. Webster from that which actuated the Earl of Dalhousie, governor-general of India, last year. Formerly it was the policy of the Indian government to confine the trade exclusively to company ships. Ultimately foreign vessels were allowed to engage in it, but they were charged double duties. These duties are now abolished, and American vessels are allowed, not only to enter on the same terms as British vessels, but to stop at Bombay and other ports, and take a load of cotton or other produce to China.

In the official report of the commissioners appointed by the government of Bombay, to inquire into the causes of the decline of the cultivation of cotton in India, the commissioners object to the admission of foreign flags to the advantages of the carrying trade in cotton between the ports of India and China, on the same terms as the British flag. They say it will affect the interest of the country shipping of India, and that the system of the Americans will make it advantageous for them to call at Bombay on their way to China, and carry cotton forward at a rate of freight that would soon leave that branch of the carrying trade almost entirely in their hands. The commissioners estimate the double duties then imposed upon the Americans as equivalent to 20s. or 22s. per ton, and this disadvantage is sufficient to secure the carrying trade to the Indian shipping. Now this disadvantage is done away; and to counteract the expected effect of the United States competition, it has become incumbent on all concerned to remove any restrictions on the country shipping, which may make the competition disadvantageous. Hitherto there appears to have been no distinction made between goods brought from Indian ports and goods brought from abroad. They were subject, whatever their nature, to like duties, whether they came from Bombay to Calcutta, or from London. The whole sea-board trade was treated as a foreign trade; the change now treats it as a coasting trade. From the general cheapness of labor in India, we might expect that the country shipping should be sailed much cheaper on its own waters than that of the United States coming from a distance; and now that the advantages are conceded of freely importing commodities from one port to another, which must contribute to the general convenience and cheapness, and be of great advantage to the ship-owners, it is expected that this anticipated decline, from the competition of United States shipping, will not arise.