Mr. Marryatsaid:—Mr. Speaker;—I hold in my hand a petition from the merchants and others engaged in trade with the British colonies in North America. In this petition they refer to another, which was lately presented to this House by certain merchants of the 1181 city of London, who expressed their conviction of the impolicy of the restrictive system as applied to foreign commerce, and prayed for the repeal of all duties merely protective from foreign competition. It was distinctly avowed by the hon. member who presented that petition, that one great object of it was, to produce a change in the practice, by which the intercourse with the British colonies in North America is at present regulated, and to divert a portion of the timber trade from those colonies to foreign countries in the North of Europe. The present petitioners, therefore, feel themselves bound to state, that they are extensively, engaged in trade with those colonies; that many of them have embarked large capitals in erecting mills and buildings of various descriptions, and steam engines, for the purpose of sawing timber, plank, and deals; and that they cannot but feel alarmed at any attempt to obtain, the repeal of those restrictions and protecting duties, upon which not only their own interests and the prosperity of those colonies, but the best interests of the mother country appear to them to depend. They beg leave to remind the House, that the general principle of colonial legislation has always been both protective and restrictive; protective by means of duties on articles the production of foreign countries similar to those produced in our colonies, and restrictive by requiring the colonies in return for this advantage, to receive all their supplies from and ship all their produce to the mother country in British ships. After pointing out the advantages of this system, the petitioners conclude by expressing their hope that the House will not consent to any alteration in the protecting duties upon timber, that may have the effect of giving greater, advantages to foreigners than those which they already possess.
These petitioners have great claim to the favourable consideration of the House, for no mode Of investing capital can be more conducive to the prosperity of this country, than the employment of it in the encouragement and extension of her colonial establishments. Every individual who quits his native land and settles in a British colony, becomes more valuable to his own country than he was before. He still contributes to the consumption of her manufactures, and at the same time is employed in raising commodities not the produce of her soil and climate, but which 1182 are useful either for her own consumption, or as articles of barter with foreign powers. The greater the distance at which he resides, the more his intercourse with the mother country extends her carrying trade, and makes his industry contribute at once to both the great objects of her policy, the finding marts for her manufactures, and the maintenance of her naval power.
Under this system, the prosperity of the colonies is reflected back upon the mother country. She grows with their growth and strengthens with their strength; but no such advantages are derived from an intercourse with foreign powers. They are not bound by the same double monopoly; they navigate in what ships they please, and consume what manufactures they please. Our interest in their prosperity is very indirect, and comparatively remote. Indeed the wealth they acquire, and the Strength they attain, are frequently used, not for, but against us. The transfer of any branch of trade, therefore, from our own colonies to foreign nations, is an act of the highest impolicy, as well as of injustice towards our fellow subjects.
So rapid has been the improvement of the British colonies in North America under this trade, which we are now called upon to destroy, that I understand their population has been trebled since that trade was first opened, by our being excluded from the ports of the Baltic. It is stated to me upon good authority, that Upper and Lower Canada actually contain between, five and six hundred thousand inhabitants.
The felling of timber is not, as has been said, an injurious employment, that retards; agriculture. On the contrary, it promotes it. Land must be cleared before it can possibly be cultivated. The mode formerly practised, was that of girdling the trees, as it is called; that is, cutting off a slip of the bark all round them, to prevent the sap from rising, and setting fire to them when they were sufficiently dry to burn; but since the timber trade has brought them into value, instead of being burned, they are sold. Thus the great difficulty under which the new settler formerly laboured, of finding means of subsistence till his land became productive, has been done away, and the progress of agriculture accelerated, instead of being retarded, by the timber trade. It may farther be observed, that in the 1183 British provinces in North America, the land is covered with frost and snow seven months out of the twelve, and all agricultural occupations are of course entirely suspended. During this period of the year, felling of timber is the sole employment; and resorted to as well by the fishermen of Nova Scotia, as by the settlers in Canada, who can do nothing else while that dreary season lasts.
These establishments for the timber trade have greatly enhanced the value of the British colonies in North America, as resources on which our West India colonies may depend for an adequate supply of timber. This consideration is rendered of the more importance, by the present policy of the government of the United States of America, who have excluded from their ports all British vessels bound to or from our West India colonies, with the avowed intention of forcing us into the surrender of that intercourse with them, under the American flag, which they enjoyed during the late war; but which our government, in conformity to our general system of navigation, have refused, and in my opinion, wisely refused to concede, since the peace. This intercourse between our North American and West India colonies, which in 1805 employed only 135 sail of vessels, of 1,620 tons burden, in 1817 employed 394 sail of 56,689 tons burthen; and I doubt not has since progressively increased, though no later returns have yet been received. But if the North American colonies are discouraged, by being deprived of their market, for timber in this country, as is now proposed, all their great establishments for carrying On that trade must be abandoned; and our West India colonies, deprived of their supplies from this quarter, will become dependent upon the United States of America. The consequences of this state of things may easily be foreseen; for history cannot furnish an example, of colonies remaining long subject to one power and being dependant for their most important supplies, and even their means of subsistence, upon another. The wants and interests of mankind naturally bring them together; and the ruin of our colonies in North America, will soon be followed by the loss of those in the West Indies.
It is impossible to impress too strongly upon the minds of the members of this House the importance of preserving our carrying trade, as the foundation of that 1184 naval power of which it must always be the measure and the standard. This truth was most strikingly exemplified in the history of Buonaparte, who, when the capitulation of Ulm had laid Austria at his feet, sighed, amidst all his victories, for ships, colonies, and commerce. Well he knew that these alone could consolidate his empire. For want of these, however, he extended his conquests; he and all his tributary nations were only prisoners in a larger cage, of which Great Britain kept the door; and all his attempts to establish a naval force proved abortive. Ships, indeed, he could command, and he filled his dock-yards and arsenals with them, from Antwerp to Venice, but seamen he could not raise, because France had lost her colonies and her commerce at the commencement of the war. Her seamen had been dragged into the field with other conscripts, and had perished. Soldiers may be made in a few months, but to make good seamen is the work of years; and for want of them, all his mighty preparations failed, and his ships lay rotting in their harbours. In the mean time, the ships of Great Britain who possessed colonies and commerce, and consequently seamen, rode triumphant on the main, and secured to her the uninterrupted enjoyment of those resources, which enabled her at length to bring the contest to a glorious termination.
The policy of our navigation system, which it is the fashion of the day to decry, is supported, not only by its practical effects, in having raised us to a greater height of commercial prosperity and naval power than ever were enjoyed by any other nation, but by the authority of the best writers on political economy. I shall at present quote but one, whom I select because he is a living authority, and one whose name has great weight in this House. In Brougham's Colonial Policy, vol. 1, page 268, it is thus written:—"It has been the policy of most of the nations possessing colonies, to encourage the breed of seamen, and the building of ships, by imposing particular restrictions upon the employment of foreign vessels and crews. No nation has adopted this plan more steadily or successfully than England. Her system of navigation laws, though at first they may have been prejudicial to the interests of her colonies, and to the progress of her own opulence, was very soon known only by its good effects."
The importance of this subject, and the 1185 strong feelings I have upon it, tempt me to go farther into detail; but having spoken at considerable length on a former occasion, I shall not now farther trespass upon the indulgence of the House, but conclude by moving that this petition be brought up.
§ The petition was brought up, read, and ordered to be printed.