For the last year

Making a diminution of

11,680,000

167,000

Gallons.

977,000

For the last year

916,000

Making a diminution of

61,000

Gallons.

18,446,000

For the last year

.......

16,300,000

Making a diminution of

2,146,000

given to our Asiatic trade, and examined the subject under these three points of view:-That part of our Asiatic trade which was carried on by British merchants under licences from the EastIndia Company; that part carried on under licences from the Board of Control; and that part which was not now, but might be carried on by British merchants, and was actually carried on by American merchants, with the city of Canton. The Report took those three heads into consideration, and displayed the advantages which might be expected from the alterations proposed; pointing out the manner in which those facilities might be granted, and stating the objections which had been made or might be made to them. Alive as the Committee were to the interests of all commercial bodies, and aware that no extension of the Asiatic trade, could be obtained without the consent of the East-India Company, they had kept its interest scrupulously in view, and did not think, that what they had to propose, would affect it, especially its home monopoly. They trusted, therefore, that they would meet with liberal assistance from the Company, in all those things, which neither affected its interests, nor those of the strangers under its protection.

On the 9th of March, a Report on the state of the timbertrade had been presented to the House of Commons from their Committee on foreign trade; and, on the 29th of that month, Mr. Wallace proposed certain resolutions founded on the Report. He stated, that previously to 1809, our supply of timber was obtained almost exclusively from

the North of Europe. Subsequently it had been obtained partly from that quarter, and partly from our North American colonies. The annual importation of timber, from 1803 to 1806 from the North of Europe, was - as follows:-Fir timber 218,857 loads; deals 45,938. From 1816 to 1819, there had been a great diminution in the annual imports from the North. Their amount was-Fir timber 93,659 loads; deals 21,824. On both, the reduction considerably exceeded one-half. The timber, imported, from our North American colonies averaged, in the years from 1803 to 1806, 10,519 loads. The average from 1816 to 1819 was 188,322 loads. The imports from the North of Europe in the years 1818, 1819, and 1820, exhibited a greater decline, and were as follow :-1818, 130,000 loads; 1819, 102,000 loads; 1820, 59,000 loads. In the mean time the imports from our American colonies were-In 1818, 214,000 loads; in 1819, 267,000 loads; in 1820, 253,000 loads. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to say, that, whatever was due to our colonies, to sacrifice the great principles of commerce and the most valuable interests of the country, in a way which could not fail to influence prejudicially our commercial relations, was neither essential to the protection of our colonies, nor just with regard to our general interests, nor sound policy in reference to the northern countries of Europe. This state of things could not be otherwise, where the duties were exorbitant, and the protection enormous. This had given rise to very considerable dissatisfac

tion in the northern countries, and had materially affected in that quarter our commercial relations. The measure which he had to propose, he did not look upon as of much importance either to Russia or Prussia in the value of timber exported; as the invoice price of wood annually exported from either of those countries to Great Britain did not exceed 100,000. Nor did he regard it as having a very important result upon the state of our manufactures; but he considered it of the greatest moment, as being the first step in receding from a system detrimental to our com. mercial relations, and towards conciliating those foreign powers, without whose good-will the relations of mercantile intercourse could never be securely established. He then went on to remark upon the heavy rate of duty upon the Baltic timber, which he stated to be double the prime cost, and equal to a tax of a million sterling. He repeated, that this enormous duty was injurious to our general interests, while the system was calculated for the exclusive benefit of those connected with the colonies, or the shipowners who conveyed the timber from our American dependencies. He then touched upon the history and progress of the duties, and said they commenced in 1810, when, from the line of policy pursued by France, it appeared probable, that we should be prevented from receiving supplies from the north of Europe. The protecting duty then put on was 2. 1s., with an addition of 25 per cent in the Customs. It was said, that this duty ought to continue, because it pledged the faith of par

liament, in order to induce the colonist to vest his capital in the trade; but he thought the faith of parliament had been redeemed by the protection hitherto given to the capitalist, who, under that inducement, engaged in the trade originally. But, all that amount of duty was not laid on for the purpose of protection; part of it was for revenue. Now he did not mean to interfere with the former; it was only so much of it as was laid on for the sake of revenue, that his measure meant to affect. A curious argument had been advanced on this subject, which went to say, that parliament had no power, even over this, because the act of 1816 had made it perpetual; but, in parliamentary language, the making an act perpetual, only meant that it was not to expire at a given time. No man, who was acquainted with that language, could suppose, that it implied any thing like the absence of that discretionary power which parliament had to alter or repeal its own acts. The question, then, was, whether the existing duties should be altered, and to what extent? The effect of the duty on Baltic timber was to introduce from the colonies an immense excess; he believed that excess exceeded the annual consumption by 100,000 loads. The merchant, who would regulate his proceedings by the real demand, was thereby driven out of the market, and the trade was in consequence carried on by colonists and ship-owners. It then became a question of shipping; and the ship-owners were the only class of mercantile persons, who gave determined opposition to any attempt to repeal or modify

the duties. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to answer the argument grounded upon the employment necessarily given by the trade with the colonies to our shipping and sailors. As to the shipping, it was the worst in the merchant service; in fact, ships that were good for nothing else were employed in it; and, with respect to the sailors, they were not the only persons which the change from peace to war had put out of employment. As to the danger to be apprehended to our navy, on the breaking out of a new war, in case of a diminution of the number of our seamen, there was no ground for it; we had now 50,000 more employed, than were employed in 1793. He farther showed that our exports to the Baltic had decreased, since the imposition of heavy duties on the timber of those countries. He concluded by moving, that the duties payable on the importation of timber and certain articles of wood should cease, and that they should be replaced by certain other duties and drawbacks which he specified. The principle features of the new scheme were, to diminish the advantages which the existing laws gave to the importation of North American timber over that of the Baltic, and to confer on Russia and Prussia a preference over Norway. It met with keen opposition from very different classes of persons. The colonial interests were adverse to it, because it exposed them to increased competition; the ship-owners were no less hostile to it, because the importation of timber from America afforded more employment to their ships than a Baltic trade would; and the partisans of free

commerce disapproved of it, because it did not go far enough, inasmuch as it left the colonies in possession of too great a preference, and showed less favour to Norway than to Russia and Prussia. On the 5th of April Mr. Wallace's resolutions came again into discussion; and the House, which was then in a committee, divided four times upon them First, on an amendment by lord Althorp in favour of Norway deals; when the Ayes were 24; the Noes 75: Secondly, on an amendment by Mr. Marryat against reducing the duty on Baltic timber; when the Ayes were. 17; the Noes, 71: Thirdly, on an amendment of sir M. W. Ridley, to reduce the proposed duty on colonial timber from 10s. to 5s. per load, and to take off only 5s. per load from the duty on foreign timber; when the Ayes were 15; the Noes, 70: Fourthly, on a motion by sir H. Parnell, to equalize all the duties at the end of five years; on which the Ayes were, 15; and the Noes, 54. A bill was introduced for the purpose of carrying the resolutions into effect, and was finally passed, though not without strong opposition in both Houses. In the Lords, the earl of Lauderdale entered a protest against it.

The committee on foreign trade had pointed out the propriety, or rather the necessity, of the revision of our commercial code. Mr. Wallace, on the 25th of June, gave the House an exposition of the measures, which it was in the immediate contemplation of ministers to recommend, with a view to the promoting of this important object, and of the principles on which they meant to act in the prosecution of it.