will admit; and we rejoice to see, while we write, that the prejudices of ages, aided by all the activity of the monopolists, have yielded to the good sense and honesty of British legislation.

The progress of tonnage itself proves clearly how much more it increases under free than under a restricted system. From 1824 to 1846, inclusive, that part of the British tonnage which was under the protection of the navigation laws increased 94.37 per cent., while at the same time that part engaged in foreign trade, and not protected, increased 183 per cent.! The increase of the tonnage between these years, entered from the colonies, and entirely under the operation of the navigation laws, was 893,097 tons. Of this increase, no less than 650,000 were from British North America. This, Mr. Ricardo informs us, was owing to the fact that "in 1842, the duty on colonial lumber was reduced to one shilling a load, and the reduction was at once followed by increased demand for timber and ships to carry it." "But for this increase in the timber trade from Canada, the whole difference between the years 1824 and 1846 of tonnage entered inward from the colonies, would have been only 308,116 tons, an increase of only 36 per cent." But the "increase of shipping to British North America alone, by reduction of timber duties, comparing 1842 with 1846, was 534,711 tons, showing that the reduction of duty on the one item of timber found employment for more shipping by 226,595 tons, within four years, to one colony, than the navigation laws to all the colonies in twenty-four years." (p. 41.) "But," proceeds Mr. Ricardo, "there can be no proof found, that even the lesser increase in the colonial trade is due to the navigation laws for we have before us, in these unimpeachable government returns, that our shipping, under the equal competition of the reciprocity treaties, has held its own and worked its way so well, that for every 100 tons of shipping entered inward in 1824, when the navigation laws were enforced, (before the general reciprocity system was adopted,) to protect us against foreigners, there were 283 tons entered inward in 1846, when the navigation laws gave no protection, but we were sailing on equal terms with these long dreaded rivals."

"The navigation laws could scarcely be said, at that time, to operate on the outward trade, as the British encouraged

foreigners as quickly as possible to take their goods. The inward was that which was principally monopolized to their own ships. The whole amount of increase, from 1820 to 1846, both inclusive, was 2,843,907 tons, and of this, the increase due to the foreign tonnage was 1,487,828, a little more than one half of the whole increase!" (p. 42).

Notwithstanding these facts, British ship owners in 1833, declared that their decay and ruin might then "be viewed as incontrovertible propositions;" yet there has been a regular progress in increase of their tonnage from that day to this. In 1833, the amount of British tonnage registered was 2,634,577, and in 1846, it had increased to 3,817,112, 'showing how willing capitalists were to embark their capital in a business which they themselves had represented, for many hundred years, as so ruinous.

"No doubt," says Mr. Ricardo, ship owning has been at times a losing business-so have all other trades; but ship owning has been especially petted and cared for; parliament has been a nurse to it, that it might nurse a navy, and, like all spoiled pets, it never knows when to have done complaining; it is always either hurt, or there is something going to hurt it, a somebody looking cross at it, The truth is, that all protected trades make it part of their business to remind parliament of their existence. They have a committee constantly on the look out for fresh privileges, and to resist invasions of the old; to give note of any pause in their progress, or diminution of their profits; and whenever the trade looks down, or the like trade looks up, any where else, to run to the ministry of the day, and get a parliamentary committee appointed to hunt up some fresh means of help. Unprotected trades work their way manfully out of embarrassment and periods of distress. The protected leave on record great blue books of unread grievances and prophecies of ruin never fulfilled." (p. 44.)

These loudest complaints have often been immediately succeeded by the most remarkable revivals of trade; and the aid of parliament, improperly lent, has often done more injury to the interest intended to be benefited than good, by enticing competition into the same line, which, if not enticed, would have gone in some other direction, thus adding to the supply beyond the demand. "It leads

to the belief," says Mr. Ricardo, that there is a source of profit secured by law."

"secret

"If Mary-le-bone vestry, " says Mr. Ricardo, "should make a law that every sweeper of a crossing must be a born parishioner, that his broom must be of the make of the parish, that it must be named and registered, and never come vended out of the bounds, and if every now and then the crossing rules were amended and altered, and select committees appointed to inquire into the condition of the sweepers, and examine and report thereon forthwith, every man and boy that could muster ten-pence would have a broom to sweep the seas of mud with, not from any know. ledge of his own that he could live by it, but in the belief that it must be something very great, because the parish did and said so much about it."

To such an extent had the British carried their navigation laws, that they had come to the point, "when either," says Mr. Ricardo, "the law must be changed, or many large branches of our trade come altogether to an end." America, we have said, had the honor of first resisting. "It is true," says the writer in the Journal des Economistes, "that politics was mingled in the motives for the war, in 1812, between the British and the Americans, but it is nevertheless certain that the struggle so long maintained against their maratime and commercial regulations was the avant coureur, the precursor, as well as the primary and true cause of the war." "Ainsi l'Union Americaine, quoique plus faible, avait vaincu sa rivale. C'est qu'elle combattait pour un principe dont le triomphe est assuré." (17 Vol. 386.) "America conquered, though feeblest, because she acted upon principles whose triumph is assured." Those who lived at that period cannot have forgotten the enthusiasm in favor of "free trade and sailors rights."

But the reciprocity treaty with Great Britain was not the first into which the Americans entered. As early as 1782, the United States entered into a treaty of reciprocity with Holland. This great departure from the old commercial or restrictive system, we have seen, has proved beneficial to the tonnage of Great Britain.

At present, the exportation of certain commodities, such as sugar, &c., may be exported from the colonies to foreign parts, and America and European nations are allowed, under certain restrictions, to trade with the colonies; but

be

importations are subject to orders in council, and may suspended or modified by such orders. The President of the United States is, also, on the part of the United States, vested with the power to suspend or open the trade with the West India colonies, to meet the character of measures which may be adopted by that government. The West Indias cannot well do without our provisions, and for that reason certain merchandize may be carried to certain free ports; but exportation in such cases is refused.

In 1825 and 1845 the British navigation laws were received and amended, and the public attention being brought to bear fully on the subject, all liberal men must rejoice that, so far as foreign trade is concerned, they have, at last, been abolished. There is still an inequality in the trade between the United States and Great Britain.

We mean

in relation to the trade with the colonies. Mr. McGregor, who was at the time he wrote Secretary to the Board of Trade in England, admits this inequality, and to remove it he proposes a remedy in which we fully concur with him, that is, to place the trade of every part of the two nations upon the footing of an unrestricted coasting trade. "We admit," says he, "this legal inequality; and we are convinced that it would be for the interest of both nations to place the trade of every port in the United States, and every port of the British empire, for the ships of both countries, upon the footing of an unrestricted coasting trade. There is no one can deny the immense increase of the carrying trade, which, under a liberal tariff, would follow. The shipping of both countries, instead of being injured, would benefit by such a truly great measure. Neither in England nor America has the consideration of this question received that grave, earnest attention, which the incalculable importance of international trade and navigation demands." (2 Vol. Progress of America, 1315, 1316.)

Hamburgh is a free port, having no navigation laws, into which any ship, with any cargo, may enter. Their ship owners prosper, their vessels and tonnage increase, their captains and seamen excel, and their vessels are preferred, and they are among the cheapest traders of the world. No wonder, then, she flourishes, and long may she do so.

France, on the contrary, has a very strict navigation law, but her tonnage has rather diminished than increased, and cannot compete, even with foreigners, in her own ports, and

Mr. Ricardo boasts that the English, in these trades, where they are not protected at all, beat foreigners. In 1825, the amount of French tonnage that entered France was 329,735 tons, and in 1844, it was 679,066 tons; whereas the foreign tonnage that entered in 1825 was 414,670 tons, and in 1844, amounted to 1,357,789 tons: the French tonnage being much less than the foreign-in 1844, being but one-third. How different in the case of England and America! In England, in 1844, the tonnage that entered was 5,049,601, of which 3,647,463 were British, and 1,402,238 were foreign. During the same year, was entered into the ports of the United States 2,894,430 tons, of which 1,977,448 was American, and 916,992 foreign, tonnage. In 1825, American tonnage was 880,754 tons, and the foreign but 92,927, the proportion, 1825, being 90.46 to 9.54, and in 1844, 68.32 to 31.68, which shows how rapidly our foreign trade increased, and that, notwithstanding the preference given by our navigation laws, our own shipping was not able to do the whole business of the country; but the foreign tonnage in our own ports increased more rapidly than our own. If trade is made free, American ships need not fear. In 1847, we had not ships enough to do the business of the country. "Freights," says a writer in the Boston Daily Advertiser, were so enormously high, as in many instances, to equal the value of the ship." "The small amount of foreign goods exported from the United States is a consequence of the restrictions now imposed on our commerce. So great are the restrictions, that out of the large mass of goods annually imported into this country, the value of foreign productions exported averages not over 6,000,000. The impossibility of obtaining British vessels, or, if obtained, the exorbitant freight always demanded amounts to a prohibition. Rightly cherished, this might become an important branch of commerce, our seaports might be selected as the warehouses of the world." 1830," says the same writer, "possessing less than one-half the tonnage of Great Britain, we find ourselves, in 1845, having two-thirds."

"In

"The unprotected trade," says Mr. Riccardo, “employs by far the greatest portion of our shipping, and it has increased at more than double the rate of the protected. It needs no reasoning to prove that the trade which employs the most ships, rears the greatest number of sailors." p. 49. "To