Mr. Marryatrose and said;—Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition from the merchants, ship-owners, and magistrates of Miramichi, in the province of New Brunswick, setting forth the vital importance of the timber trade to the inhabitants of the British provinces in North America, and praying that this House will not suffer it to be placed on a footing less favourable to them than it is at present. It may be proper to premise, that such is the importance of Miramichi, that of 1,520 British vessels employed in the timber trade with our North American colonies, in the year 1819, no less than 297 loaded in that port alone—Statements from the inhabitants of the colonies themselves, how far their prosperity is likely to be affected by any legislative measures of the mother country, bearing upon their productions and commerce, are highly important, as they serve to correct misapprehensions and errors, into which, at this distance, we are apt to fall, for want of authentic information respecting interests so remote. The truth of this remark was never more strongly exemplified than in the present instance; for never was there a greater discordance than between the facts stated in this petition, and the report of a committee of the House of Lords, made in the last session of parliament. The variance between them is so great, that justice to these petitioners, and to the other inha- 543 bitants of the British provinces in North America, calls upon me to point out, as I go along, the mis-statements with which that report abounds; and this I am at full liberty to do, it having been communicated to us by message from the Lords, and reprinted by order of this House.
The petitioners state, that the timber trade gives the greatest possible encouragement to the agriculture of the British colonies in North America. The report, on the contrary, states that, "it cannot be considered as directly affecting the interests of the Canadian landholder, as the value of the timber sold at Quebec does not exceed, by much, the expense and labour of procuring it for shipment, and the landholder himself gets little or nothing for the timber." This passage is not consistent with the evidence given before the committee, by Mr. Henry Us-borne Mr. John Hamilton, or Mr. John Bainbridge, all of whom state, that though the timber is of little value as it stands in the forest, it becomes valuable from the labour bestowed on it; and both the latter add, that persons connected with agriculture, employ themselves in cutting timber, and getting it down to the shipping-places, during the winter, when all operations in agriculture, from the nature of the climate, are suspended. The evidence of Mr. H. Usborne, and Mr. J. Hamilton applies particularly to Canada, that of Mr. J. Bainbridge to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The petitioners not only confirm their testimony, from which it results that the farmer has the benefit of preparing the timber, and removing it to the shipping place, as well as its value while standing, which is altogether kept out of sight in the report, but assert, in facther proof of the encouragement given to agriculture by the timber trade, "That farmers, who a few years ago, raised only enough from their lands for the support of themselves and their families, and had no incitement to raise more, (because there were then no purchasers for what they could spare), have, since the commencement of the timber trade, increased their exertions in clearing and improving their lands, entirely on account of the brisk demand for all sorts of farming produce required for the use of the timber-cutters, and others connected with the trade, and many industrious and deserving emigrants" have been enabled to settle in the wilderness lands of this country, solely by means of 544 the merchants advancing to them the supplies necessary for their support, until their lands were brought to a state of cultivation to yield them a subsistence. The supplies so advanced were payable in timber, which is generally prepared for market during our long winters, when neither farming nor fishing can be carried on."—All these statements are in direct contradiction to the assertion in the report of the Lords committee, "That the timber trade cannot be considered as directly affecting the interest of the Canadian landholder." The truth is, that all the landholders in the British provinces in North America, with very few exceptions, instead of living on their rents, as in this country, live by their personal labour employed on their own lands, and exchange that part of the produce of their lands which they do not require for then-own consumption, for articles of British growth or manufacture; and he extent of this exchange is fixed by the amount of their exportations. The landholder in these provinces has a direct interest in every stick of timber, barrel of ashes, bushel of grain, or piece of peltry shipped to Great Britain, or her dependencies. Either the article is his own, on its way to a market, or he has raised the food, or furnished some portion of his labour, for the woodcutter, the hunter, the raftsman, the merchant, and the whole class of persons who are employed in conveying the produce of the colony to the shipping-place, and bringing back or distributing the returns. All these persons are the home consumers of the colonial landholder; and the value of his land, the value of the labour of his forefathers, and of his own labour, depends upon the number of these consumers, without whom all the produce of his land which he could not himself consume, would be of no value.
The petitioners further state, that large sums have been expended in forming establishments for carrying on the timber trade, though the report of the Lords committee is silent as to any such establishments having been formed in any of the British provinces, excepting Canada. They observe, that individuals have so invested their capital, "naturally conceiving that the interests of the British colonies would never be sacrificed to advance those of foreign nations: that the event of such a stop to the trade as the imposition of the proposed duty would occasion, those costly establish- 545 ments must go to decay, and all importation of British goods must cease, for the merchant here depends exclusively upon the exportation of timber to Great Britain to make his remittances."—They add, "that white or yellow pine (of which description the great bulk of the wood of this country consists), was shipped, and is now shipping at 14s. to 18 shillings per ton; which latter is the very lowest rate at which it can be prepared for market. Even at these low rates, the importation into the mother country this season yielded perhaps in no instance any profit beyond the employment of shipping and in several cases within the knowledge of your petitioners, was attended with loss to the importer. It is therefore obvious, that no duty, however small, can be borne, and that the high duty proposed would amount to a complete prohibition of colonial timber."—In the latter part of this statement, the petitioners are borne out by the Lords committee, who have printed in their appendix an account which, they say they are assured may be relied upon, of the prices of timber from each port, distinguishing the duty, freight, charges, nett proceeds, and cost; according to which, the nett proceeds of a load of Canada yellow pine, without any duty, are only 5s. 4d., so that it is obvious that the smallest duty must absorb this miserable pittance and consequently operate as a total abolition of the trade.
The petitioners assert, that the costly establishments for carrying on the timber trade were made, in the persuasion that "the interests of the British colonies would never be sacrificed to advance those of foreign nations." The Report of the Lords committee states, "that encouragement to the importation of wood from the British colonies by the imposition of heavy duties on timber from foreign states, is comparatively of recent date, and does not appear to have form ed part of the commercial or colonial policy of the country previous to the late war." It is the business of a legislative committee to inquire after truth, and this committee, had they made diligent inquiry, would have discovered, in various British statutes, that the uniform policy of Great Britain, in regard to the trade of her colonies has been, to make restriction and protection go hand in hand; and that encouragement to this very trade was given by bounties, more than a cen- 546 tury ago. In proof of these assertions, I have only to refer to the acts of the 3rd and 4th of Anne, chap. 10, and the 8th of Geo. 1. chap. 12. The principle laid down in the preambles of these acts is the same as is now acted upon. The only change is in the mode of carrying it into effect; and the professed objects of the legislature is declared in these preambles to be, the making Great Britain independent of foreign nations for her supply of timber, and enabling her colonies to extend their importation of British manufactures, which could only be accomplished by a system of permanent, not temporary encouragement—The same want of due investigation appears in the following passage of the report: "The demand for wood from the countries in the North of Europe has been progressively diminishing, so as to occasion great interruption to the trade of these countries, particularly with Norway, whose inhabitants, notwithstanding the predilection they have uniformly shewn for British manufactures, are not only left without the means of consuming them, but of paying for those which they have received, and for which nearly half a million is stated to be owing, so that the export of manufactures has been reduced to an extent which cannot be estimated merely by a reference to the direct exports to those countries, as it appears that a considerable portion of the manufactures consumed in them are introduced through the channel of the German fairs." The Appendix to this Report contains an account of the value of goods exported from Great Britain to all the northern powers of Europe for the last 20 years. A comparison of the trade with them for the three first of these years before the present timber trade to the British colonies had commenced, and the three last years, when it was in the greatest activity, gives the following results. In the official returns the exports of Norway are blended with those of Denmark, while it was united to that power, so that I have no means of showing them separately:—
547 So that instead of the great interruption to the trade of these countries, and the reduced export of our manufactures to them," as alleged in the Lords Report, the export of our manufactures has been nearly trebled. Such is the difference between the Report and the Appendix; between the statements of the committee and their official documents:—
1799, 1800, 1801. 1817, 1818, 1819. £ s. d. £. s. d. 525,734 0 8 Denmark & Norway 816,791 4 0 132,146 16 6 Sweden 330,498 7 10 1,580,702 4 4 Russia 6,198,729 10 1 854,413 1 3 Prussia 1,512,475 6 10 £3,092,996 2 9 £8,858,494 8 9 With respect to British goods finding their way from Great Britain to Norway, the country more particularly mentioned in the Report, by way of the German fairs, no such fact is stated in the evidence given to the committee. That a few articles of great value and little bulk may occasionally be smuggled, in the manner described by Mr. Solly, is very probable. He says, that "goods are carried by way of Hamburgh to Leipsic fair, where they are purchased by Russian and Polish merchants, taken to the confines of Hungary, and even to the Southern provinces of Russia," but not a word about Norway. Mr. Tooke says, "that he should consider a great number of British manufactures must have been introduced into Russia indirectly through Germany; at the same time it is possible the Germans may transport articles of their own manufacture to Russia, substituting ours for their own purposes." He produces bills drawn upon his house, which have been negociated through Koningsberg, Berlin, and Leipsic, and were ultimately remitted to British manufacturers; but this only proves that the inhabitants of these places have commercial transactions with each other, leaving the particular nature of them open to conjecture. The idea that any considerable portion of the British manufactures consumed in the northern countries of Europe, is introduced through the channel of the German fairs, is extravagant in the highest degree. It might as reasonably be imagined, that a considerable part of the productions of those countries find their way here in the same circuitous mode. A merchant who should set out from London to purchase Russian sheeting or linen at Leipsic or Frankfort fair, might expect to have a statute of lunacy taken out against him, as being incapable of managing his own affairs; and this part of the Report betrays so much want of commercial knowledge, that it reminds me of an observation made upon another set of lords (the lords of trade), in a former reign, "that 548 they were Lords among merchants, and merchants among lords." The increase of the exports to our own provinces in North America is not less gratifying than the proof that our exports to the northern powers of Europe have been augmented instead of diminishing. In the years 1790, 1800, and 1801, the export of British manufactures to these colonies was 3,017,572l. 6s. 2d. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, it was 5,107,900l. 8s. 10d. If we extend the view farther, and include our export of foreign and colonial merchandise, the amount in the three former years was 3,614,441l. 2s. 10d. in the three latter years 3,391,695l. 5s. 8d. making an increase in our annual exports to the British colonies in north America of more than 900,000l.
Another very important fact stated in this petition is, "that the ruin of those immediately connected with the timber trade would not be the only evil effect of the proposed alteration in the timber duties; but that the fisheries of the British provinces would be materially injured; for the salt used in these fisheries is, almost without a single exception, brought out in vessels chartered to carry timber home; and this return freight enables them to bring the salt out at a rate which your petitioners think would be trebled, at least, in the event of the cessation of this trade." This is a most serious consideration. The British fisheries already find it difficult to maintain a competition with those of the United States, and every encouragement is due to that useful and valuable class of men, whose interests, it appears, are materially involved in the maintenance of the colonial timber trade; and who, if that trade be injudiciously sacrificed, may, together with other classes of the population of the British provinces, as the petitioners state, "be obliged to" emigrate to that country, whose ambitious designs all the energies of those "provinces may one day again be required "to counteract."
Let us now consider how our manufacturing interests would be affected by the transfer of the timber trade from the British provinces to the Northern powers of Europe. The petitioners state, "that all importations of British goods must cease; for the merchant here depends exclusively upon the exportation of timber to Great Britain to make his remittances."—This is the case in New Brunswick, and 549 in Canada the timber is estimated at half the exports of the province. Foreign countries have resources which our colonies have not. They can trade with all the world; but our colonies can trade with the mother country alone. If, therefore, we discourage any branch of trade with foreign countries, they can direct it into other channels; but if we put an end to a trade with our colonies, it is lost to them altogether, and this accounts for our diminished import of timber from the northern powers not having occasioned any diminution in their imports of British manufactures, while such diminution must be the inevitable effect of our discontinuing to import timber from our colonies. The Report of the Lords committee states, "That any material diminution of the duty on foreign timber, would almost immediately lead to an increased demand of that article for most purposes of building, and enable the countries which produced it, but more especially Sweden and Norway, very greatly to increase their consumption of British produce." But would the will follow the ability; or would not the bills drawn for these additional cargoes, be negociated, as usual, at Koningsberg, Berlin, Leipsic, and other places, to pay for foreign manufactures? At least, the disposal of them would be optional; but the British colonist has no alternative; he must draw all his supplies from Great Britain only. Every thing about him and belonging to him, is British; he is clad in British woollens, linens, and leather; the axe with which he fells his timber is British. He roasts his meat at a British grate, on a British spit, or boils it in a British pot, eats it off British plates and dishes, with British knives and forks; drinks out of British mugs or glasses, and spreads his meal upon a British table-cloth. All his surplus means are spent in British manufactures and produce; and this expenditure gives life and animation to British industry. The British manufacturers employed to supply his wants, are consumers to the British landholder, and give him the same encouragement as the consumers employed in the timber trade give the colonial landholder. Thus the mother country and the colonies reciprocally benefit each other; and the question is, whether we shall give up our colonists, who must deal with us, for foreigners who may; in short, whether 550 we shall sacrifice a certainty for an uncertainty.
The petitioners enumerate the shipowners among the parties benefitted by the timber trade with the colonies. The Report of the Lords committee very coolly states, that by the proposed alteration of the duties, which would transfer it to the northern powers of Europe, "some portion of the shipping now employed in transporting the Canadian timber to this country, might probably be compelled to seek for other employment; and although there is every reason to expect that the increased supply from the north of Europe would be chiefly imported in British vessels, the average difference in the length of the voyage might render a smaller amount of shipping necessary to carry on this particular trade." The extension of the timber trade with the northern powers, contemplated by the Lords committee, is principally with Norway and Sweden; and the assumption that this would he chiefly carried on in British ships, is contrary both to the evidence and to the official documents printed in their Report. Mr. Cowie being asked, "has the timber, since you have been conversant with the trade, been principally imported in vessels of British or Swedish built?" answers, "Principally in vessels of Swedish built." Mr. Pelly, in answer to the same question as to Norway, answers, "Generally speaking, in Norwegian ships." And, by the official documents, printed in their Appendix, it appears, that in the year 1819, the Norwegian tonnage in this trade that cleared from Great Britain was 65,054 tons, and the British tonnage only 11,760 tons. If, then, the true rule of judging of the future is by the past, about 5–6ths of the tonnage employed in the additional trade with Norway would be foreign, and only 1–6th British, instead of "the increased supply being chiefly imported in British vessels," as stated in the Report of the Lords committee. The next assertion in that Report, "that the rate of freight and other circumstances attendant on British shipping, enabled it to enter into successful competition with that of every other country on the globe, is, unfortunately, refuted by the undeniable fact, that the value of British shipping is depreciated in a greater degree than that of any other description of property that can be named. The Lords committee however, "indulge a confident hope, that 551 the state of some other branches of trade, in which they are about to engage, will suggest the means of giving additional encouragement to the shipping of this country."—The Italian proverb says, "that they who live upon hope, may die of hunger;" and if the Lords committee continue their labours in the same spirit as they have begun them, the British shipowners have infinitely more to fear than to hope from their exertions.
I shall now show the importance of this question to the British landholder. Let it be recollected that the committee on whose report I have animadverted, was appointed in consequence of a petition from certain merchants of the city of London, against every restrictive regulation of trade, not essential to the revenue: against all duties merely protective from foreign competition; and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection. The petitioners urge the adoption of this new system, on the ground of buying every thing where it can be bought cheapest; and tell us that on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, as they recommend, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle, or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred; and by the salutary influence which a promulgation of such just views by the legislature, and by the nation at large could not fail to have on the policy of other states—The first recognition of this sound principle which we are called upon to make, is in taking off the present restrictive duties on timber, and transferring that trade from our own colonies to foreign powers. But can we stop here? Principles are immutable in their nature, and cannot be taken up and laid down at pleasure; adopted in one instance, and abandoned in another. If we abolish all restrictions on the importation of foreign timber, how can we refuse to abolish those on the importation of foreign corn? The gentlemen who have supported this petition, declare that they have no intention of interfering with the corn laws at present; but have not foreigners this intention? Was not a threat held out at the late Polish diet, to prohibit the importation of all British manufactures till we admitted the importation of Polish corn; and if we admit the principle of abolishing all restrictions 552 upon foreign competition, as a standard to which all subsequent arrangements are to be referred, we must act upon it in all cases, and without any exception, or we shall subject ourselves to the charge of duplicity and injustice, and excite the animosity, and perhaps the hostility, of of foreign powers.—In this contest the British landholder would also have to contend against a great proportion of his fellow-subjects. The consumers of the produce of the land would save between twenty and thirty millions per annum, by importing it from foreign growers. Prices of all commodities, which depend upon the price of food, would be reduced in proportion; the labourer would be better fed and better clothed for less money; the manufacturer would be enabled to undersell the foreign manufacturer; the ship owner would have as good a chance of bringing home foreign corn as foreign timber; and in the language of the Report of the Lords committee, there can be little doubt but "that such a measure would enable other countries greatly to increase their consumption of British produce. "But what would be the situation of the landholder? Wheat could not be worth more than 40s. per quarter; his land would not pay the expense of cultivation, and therefore would become of as little value as land in the wilds of North America. Instead of living upon his rent in ease and comfort, he would be reduced to the state of the Canadian landholder, and must work as a labourer upon his own estate for the means of subsistence. Such is the condition to which these new political economists would reduce the British landholder. Let him, then, adhere to that system to which he owes his present opulence, and under which he enjoys protection from foreign competition; a protection as necessary to him, as to his fellow-subjects in North America, and let him I beware of encouraging those plausible but delusive theories, which would involve him, as well as the other classes of the I community, in one common ruin, only I leaving him the consolation of being the last devoured. I shall now move that this petition be brought up,
The petition was then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.
§ Sir Isaac Coffinmade a few observations on the assertion of the petitioners, that all the timber brought to this country in British ships, from America, was 553 brought from the British colonies. He would pledge himself to show, that not a stick of this timber was cut in the colonies, but that all was brought from the United States.
§ Mr. J. P. Grantvindicated the Report of the Lords' committee. It was one of the most useful reports that had ever been made.
§ Mr. T. Wilsonpresented a similar petition from Montreal.
§ Mr. Ricardohad heard with much surprise the principles on the subject of the timber trade advocated by the hon. members who had presented the petitions. They certainly were directly the reverse of the principles laid down in the Report of the Lords' committee, which was acknowledged to be a most comprehensive and correct view of the matter.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he had only contended that the petitioners ought to be allowed to remain in the same state that they were in at present. If the rates were at all lowered, the petitioners must inevitably be ruined.
§ Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.