Europe, excluding the Mediterranean; thirdly, of the trade with the East Indies; fourthly, of the trade with Africa; fifthly, of the trade with the West Indies; sixthly, of the trade with British North America; seventhly, of the trade with the fisheries; eighthly, of the coasting trade (which could be furnished only for three years); and from these accounts it would be seen whether he had been justly charged with having jumbled the foreign and coasting trade together in order to mislead. From the account of the tonnage of British vessels arriving from foreign ports, excluding the British colonies in all parts of the world, it appeared that the quantity in 1826 exceeded that of any year since 1814, except 1825. There was not a single year besides that which was not greatly inferior to 1826. He did not deny that, in the foreign trade, there was a continued tendency to increase; but if our shipping continued to increase also, were we to proceed to measures of hostility, because, forsooth, there had been an increase in foreign trade as well as in our own? In the trade with all parts of the world strictly foreign out of Europe, the amount of British tonnage employed in 1814 was 535,000 tons. In 1826, it was 878.000 tons, being an increase of 3-8ths;-while, with the single exception of the United States of America, the foreign shipping in that trade was greater in any one of the six years preceding 1814 than it was last year. He now turned to that portion of our trade which was more immediately under our own control-namely, the trade with the colonies. had been accused of having gratuitously, unwisely, and unneces

He

sarily opened the trade of our colonies to the shipping of foreign countries. If he had so opened the trade to foreign ships, he had not in the slightest degree injured the British shipping interest engaged in the same trade. The British shipping engaged in the trade with the West-India colonies last year was greater in amount than in any year since the peace, always excluding 1814 and 1815, because in those years we possessed colonies which had since been restored to foreign powers. British shipping, so far from having suffered from that measure, had gained, and was gaining by it. Then the trade with our North American colonies had increased in a gigantic degree Instead of amounting to only 151,000 tons, as it did at the peace, it now amounted to 397,000 tons. It had more than doubled, and the trade of last year exceeded that of any former year, always excepting 1825. With the East Indies our trade had increased from 50,000 tons to 72,000 tons. With the coast of Africa it had increased from 9,000 tons to 26,000 tons. It now only remained for him to refer to the state of the timber trade with the Baltic. To assist him on this point he had called for a return of the state of the trade for every year since 1784; and if there was any kind of evidence more satisfactory than another of the increasing prosperity of the country, it was to be found in a comparison of the state of the timber trade in 1784 and at the present period. In 1784 we had imported from British North America 700 loads of timber, and from the Baltic 108,000 loads. In 1825 we. imported from British North America, instead of 700 loads, 407,000

loads, and from the Baltic, instead of 108,000 loads, 272,000 loads. Here was an increase not by tens and fifties, but by thousands. It should be recollected that the British North American trade was carried on exclusively in British vessels, and that trade was now greater than we had ever enjoyed with the Baltic. Lastly came the coasting trade, which we could keep entirely to ourselves. In 1828 it was 7,899,000 tons; in 1824 it was 8,110,000 tons; in 1825 it was 8,300,000 tons; and in 1826 it was 8,368,000 tons. This trade was the best nursery for seamen, and it was

which must increase with the increase of manufactures and agriculture, and the demand from great towns. The coasting trade, which included the trade with Ire land, was better a hundred times for the formation of seamen than the trade with Hamburgh and Norway. It was a trade which was carried on during all seasons, and prepared our seamen to brave the dangers either of the sea or of the enemy.

Having thus shewn that British shipping had not been diminishing in any one great branch of trade, either absolutely, or in comparison with foreign shipping, Mr. Huskisson proceeded to justify the principles on which the trade with the colonies had been opened to other nations. A monopoly of trade with our sugar colonies would not, he said, be worth one farthing to us. They produced annually 60,000 hogsheads of sugar more than the consumption of this country required. This surplus could find a vent only in the foreign market; its price in the foreign market necessarily depended on the price of foreign sugar;

and the price in the foreign market must determine the price in this country. If then the sugar grower was compelled to raise his produce at a higher price than that at which it came into the foreign market, he would be ruined, and the true question was, not whether a few tons of shipping more or less should be employed but whether the interest and safety of the colonies should be consulted by allowing them to obtain as cheaply as possible from foreign countries those supplies which we could not conveniently furnish to them ourselves. He had been blamed, too, for having opened to foreigners the trade with the East Indies; but did any man suppose that the East Indies could be blockaded like some little sugar island? If we had refused foreign powers admittance into Calcutta, they would have found ports in the Ganges into which they would have entered. No effort could exclude them. But the opening of the trade with India was no innovation; it had been sanctioned by an act of parliament passed in 1797. In fact, the Reciprocity System itself, which had been so much abused, did not originate with him, neither did the Warehousing System, nor the relaxation of the Navigation-laws. The treaty with Portugal and Brazil in 1810 was the first instance in which those principles were adopted, and, in 1815 the same principles were recognized in the treaty with the United States of America. He had the authority of his bitterest opponent for saying, that, the principle having been applied to any one state, it necessarily followed that it should be extended to all. All the measures relative to foreign trade which were introduced in 1821

had the sanction of the noble lord then at the head of the government. He (Mr. Huskisson) possessed no other merit than that of having followed them up to their consequences. "And what," asked Mr. Huskisson in conclusion, "what is the system which the ship-owners would substitute for that which has been adopted? Would they have the country go back to its ancient prohibitions? Would they have the trade managed by charters, guilds, corporations, and companies? Would they have the 500 laws which I have had the good fortune to induce the House to repeal, re-enact ed? It is vain in those hon. members to hope that we can now stop in the course of the civil and commercial improvement which has commenced. England cannot lie still while other nations are advancing and increasing within themselves the means of power and enjoyment."

This address was well received by the House. Mr. Peel and Mr.. Baring joined in resisting the mo

tion as being in no way justified by any existing facts; and, in reference to his recent separation from the ministry, Mr. Peel said, that, as, if he had remained in the government, he would have resisted the appointment of a committee, which was intended to prove any thing against the system by which the commercial policy of the country had been modified, so there was nothing in his present circumstances which would allow or induce him to act otherwise. Mr. Ellison (member for Newcastle on Tyne) frankly said, he was afraid to vote against the motion, because his constituents, who were deeply interested in the question, would scarcely be satisfied without inquiry; and Mr. Curwen told general Gascoyne, that, having promised before-hand to support his motion, he would keep his promise if the general divided the House; but that he would now be able to give no other reason than his promise for so doing. The general, however, did not call for a division.

THE

HE attention of parliament was so much occupied with the Corn-laws and with discussions relating to the state of parties, that the financial arrangements of the country attracted less than their usual share of notice. Indeed, the new minister announced, soon after his elevation, that it was not the intention of the government to engage in any financial investigations or inquiries, except so far as might be necessary for getting through with the business of the year, and that the minute consideration of such matters was to be postponed, till a Finance Committee was appointed, which Mr. Canning stated it to be his intention to propose in the following session.

Ön the first of June, Mr. Canning brought forward the budget. The method which he adopted was, to state, first, the financial situation of the country at the end of the preceding year; secondly, to combine and to compare, that one year with the several years which had preceded it; and lastly, to suggest the provision to be made for the service of the present year, and the grounds on which he felt himself justified in looking forward with confidence to the result. At the end of 1826, there was an actual surplus of 1,000,000l.

But, the sum of 5,500,000l. being applicable by law to the Sinkingfund, there was an apparent deficiency of 4,500,000l. But, in the expenditure of that year, were included 1,200,000l., the aggregate of advances made by the Exchequer, under several acts of parliament, for public works, and for the purchases of beneficial interests, upon which the country had available and outstanding claims, carried to the account of the expenditure; and, further, the payment of expenses which had not been contracted in that year, amounting also to 1,200,000l. If these two sums of 1,200,000l. were deducted from the apparent deficiency of 4,500,000l., there would be left a clear deficiency of 2,100,000l. including the payments made on account of the Sinking-fund.

amount of the income of the country, for those four years, was, therefore, something under 230,000,000l.; the total expenditure, something under 210,000,000l.; and the surplus remaining applicable to the Sinking-fund was almost within a fraction of 20,000,000l. The amount of the Sinking-fund which, by law, was applicable to the reduction of the national debt, during the same period, was about 21,500,000l.; leaving, therefore, upon the whole of the four years, an apparent deficiency of income applicable to the discharge of the whole expenditure, including the Sinking-fund, of 1,265,6871. But against this apparent deficiency was to be placed the amount of the advances from the Exchequer, under different acts of parliament, either for loans, for carrying on public works, or on account of beneficial purchases, which the public had in their possession, as available securities for the repayment of the money which had been so advanced.

The amount of excess of advances beyond repayment, for the four years, was something short of 2,400,000l. Deducting from this sum the amount of the deficiency of a million and a quarter, there remained a real surplus of income beyond expenditure, in those four years, after providing for the whole of the Sinking-fund, of something more than 1,100,000l. Mr. Canning then proceeded to state, the income and expenditure of the current year.

The estimated receipt of 1827, said he, founded on the actual receipt of 1826, is 54,600,000l. The estimated expenditure of 1827, not including the Sinking-fund, is 51,800,000l. The Sinking-fund, applicable to the debt, during the

present year, is 5,700,000l. Add this Sinking-fund to the expenditure, and the total demand for the present year will be 57,500,000l., leaving a deficit, to be provided for, of 2,900,000l. Omitting so much of the income of the four preceding years, as accrued from repayments from public works, &c. and so much of its expenditure as arose from grants and loans, the income of the last four years, exclusive of repayment, amounted to 228,000,000l. The estimated income of the present year is 54,600,000l. The total actual and estimated income of the five years, exclusive of repayments, is 282,600,000l. The expenditure of the last four years, exclusive of advances, was 205,667,000l. The estimated expenditure of the present year is 51,810,000l., making together a total expenditure, for the five years, of 257,477,000l. The difference between the aggregate of the income, and the aggregate of the expenditure, may therefore be taken at something more than 25,000,000l. The Sinking-fund, by law, amounted in the years 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, to 21,227,7651. Its legal claim, in the current year, is 5,700,000l., making in the whole the sum of 26,927,765l., and, consequently, leaving a deficiency of income, on the five years, to meet the Sinking-fund required by law, of 1,804,765l.:-a deficiency, say of two millions, accruing on an expenditure of nearly 300,000,000l., and spread over a period of no less than five years.

It may be said, continued Mr. Canning, that there is a fallacy in this statement arising out of what is generally designated by the name of the "dead-weight." I admit, that the dead-weight is open