1

trade with Canada, for whatever the defects may be of American timber, as regards durability, it is also in evidence, that the Canada deals are perfectly efficient for the purposes they are made use of, and which in fact, are an equivalent to the greater proportion of Norway deals, and will hereafter fully and amply replace any falling off of supplies from Norway, in case that country should find it to be her interest to supply Germany, Holland, France, and so on, to a greater extent than she did hitherto, and for which there is sufficient room left to her.

When, therefore, the Lords' Committee have recommended that the duties on deals should be equalized according to their lengths, and made proportionate to their cubical contents, they cannot have been aware that by so doing the whole of the Canada deal trade, as well as the deal trade with Russia and Prussia, must be totally annihilated, and that a considerable reduction in the revenue of this country, as also a very great injury to the British shipping interesty must be the certain consequence of such a measure.

It appears in evidence, that prejudice in this country is in favor of Norway deals over those of other countries, not because that prejudice is just, or that the Norway deals are really of a better quality or greater durability, but because they are easier converti ble. This admission proves at once, if no other proof could be given, that the quality of Norway deals is much inferior to that of the Prussian and Russian article: and how can it be otherwise, when considered, that the Norway tree shoots up rapidly, and never grows and cannot grow upon that soil to perfection, but re mains always, partly owing to its diminished size, a soft and sappy kind of substance; whereas the Prussia and Russia article, requir ing many years to arrive at its full growth and proper size, can always, and is invariably divested of that soft and sappy exterior of the tree, and none but the most durable part thereof is sent to this country. Hence it follows, that the box-maker, the earpenter, or job-builder, will rather purchase and work up Norway deals, they taking less time and requiring less labor in the converting them for his purpose, than to make use of the stronger and more dura ble article of Prussian and Russian importation; for having the greater facility in speedier completing his job of the easier convert ible though less durable article in the first instance, the job-builder also considers it more profitable to himself, if that very same job wants his helping hand soon over again. Should then, with this prejudice in her favor, Norway enjoy a still more decided prefe rence, as regards the payments of duties on her deals, no doubt can be entertained, but that she would soon engross to herself the whole of the deal trade with England, without giving this coun try even a shadow of benefit in the consuming of her manufactured goods and colonial produce; or the employment of any of her shipping: For, independent of the advantage which Norway has above all other nations, in converting the tree into deals at a cheaper rate, (while in Canada and even in Prussia and Russia, the tree is loaded with heavy expenses previous to reaching the place where it is to be manufactured into deals), and also her superiority over Prussia, Russia, and Canada, in sending the deals in her own shipping to England, at a comparative small expense and reduced freights; yet, so decidedly favorable is the situation of her country, that at any period of the year she can have a command over the British markets, and overstock them with deals to the exclusion and great injury of all other nations; and as particularly almost all buildings in this country, are contracted for and commenced upon in the former part of the year, she would be enabled to pour into the British markets, soon after the commencement of the year, such quantities of deals, (taking advantage of the current selling prices which would always ensure her a benefit), as not only to satisfy that demand long before her more remote competitors could work themselves out of a hard frozen navigation, but would also have caused by the time they might be enabled to arrive here with their goods, a considerable reduction in price, so as to deprive them of every prospect of disposing of their goods without incurring a considerable loss; and this repeated once, twice, or thrice, in the commencement and fall of the year, would soon convince the Canadian, as well as Prussian and Russian deal merchant, that it would be useless to compete with Norway any longer under such decided advantages which she would have over them, and that it would be much better to consider the capital invested in those expensive establishments for converting timber into deals at once as totally lost, than increase that loss annually by an additional capital laid out in the purchase of the raw article, out of which the purchase money and subsequent expenses could never be realized. The capital so vested in these divers establishments for the manufacturing of deals forms indeed a very important sum too, which in itself requires mature consideration, for it would appear that the British American settlers are considered to have laid out upwards of 150,000k. sterling, in saw-mills and their dependent requisites; while to Prussia, it would cause a total loss of about one million and a half, and to Russia much about the same, besides what the loss of trade and consequent sacrifices would amount to in addition to the aforesaid total loss, and which would far outweigh that sum stated to be owing by Norway for bad debts of some years standing.

From this then it also follows, that in regard to the following question, put by the Lords' Committee, as per page 24, Is there any fair reason why the other northern powers should have a comparative advantage over Norway in the scale of duties?" that question ought in fairness to have been answered in the affirmative, and not in the negative! For not only that Prussia and Russia have to pay from 50 to 75 per cent higher freights than Norway does, but they have also to pay more than double the insurance she might have to be at if not saved, (for in fact she seldom pays any insurance at all, being generally saved owing to the quick passages her ships are enabled to make) besides many other extra expenses Russia and Prussia are exposed to-such as Sound-dues, additional light dues, pilotages, &c., when coming through the Sound and all along the Swedish and Norwegian coasts; all of which Norway knows, and pays nothing. The greater breadth therefore in the Prussian and Russian deals over those of Norway, consisting of about one sixth, would not be any thing like an equivalent for all the additional disbursements enumerated above, if the advantage on the greater average lengths of Prussian and Russian deals were not in some respects to compensate for those additional charges and expenses. Besides, the vicinity of Norway has so decided an advantage over Prussia and Russia, (and also in a greater degree over Canada too) that the ships of Norway may perform with ease, forwards and backwards, from 9 to 10 voyages annually, and thus sail at much lower freights; whilst two, three, and four voyages to the utmost, can only be completed from the Baltic in the course of the season. Again, Norway has that advantage over Prussia, Russia, and Canada, that she need never start with her cargoes for England, until she receive advice of higher or rising prices in the British markets, and which may reach her in the course of one week, so as always to give her the benefit of that advice; while Prussia, Russia, and Canada, are chiefly governed in their shipments by the season, in which they must complete them, be the prices good or bad in England, or otherwise be shut out from sending their goods at all to this country. Nor has this country ever acted otherwise but on the liberal principle, that the Baltic ports should have that preference over the nearer situated countries which in justice is due to them, owing to the greater distance, the shorter season for completing their shipments, and the many extra expenses, trouble, and risk to which they are exposed, and of which their nearer situated competitors know and fear nothing. If a farther illustration of this fact be necessary, I need only refer to the last act of Parliament, restricting the free importation of corn, in which it is stipulated, that the Baltic ports should enjoy a period of three months before the act is to be enforced against them; while the nearer ports enjoy that benefit only for six weeks: the framers of the duties on deals have therefore acted

on the same just and liberal principle, as has been adopted in the instance just quoted; it is impossible therefore to harbour the thought that that justness and liberality should now be done away

with.

But now as regards the revenue: it appears that since the peace the following importations of deals have taken place, taking the average importation of one year as basis, viz :

From Norway,

Sweden,

Russia and Prussia,

making in toto

19,228 GreatStandarts.

35,108 Great Standarts,

on which a duty on the average (allowing for British and foreign ships), of 211. per great standart, has been received, and conse quently produced annually

£737,163.

If the duty on those deals had been paid according

to the scale at which the duties on deals are levied

in Ireland, at present; and if I take the official report of the Commissioners of Customs as the basis of the different lengths of those deals, the result would have been as follows, viz:

On 19,228 Norway deals, averaging 12 feet, at the

Irish dues of 121. 10s.

240,350.

:

On 4,741 Swedish ditto, length 14 feet, at 147. 11s. 68,981. 118. On 11,134 Russia and Prussia ditto, 16 feet,

at 16l. 12s.

184,824. 88.

Annual total income £494,155. 19s.

And thus the revenue would have experienced a deficiency of upwards of 240,000l. annually, on the duty of deals alone, taking it in that way of calculation. Now if I consider that this mode of raising the duties, (and were they in future to be calculated on, the cubical contents of the deals it would be worse still) would give the deal trade entirely in the hands of Norway, and exclude all other nations from participating therein; (as is now actually the case in Ireland, to which country formerly a great portion of Prussian deals used to be sent, and which of late and since the new regulation of those duties, is no longer the case,) it would then appear that the above annual quantity of 35,103 great standarts of deals, instead of being imported from all the northern nations each according to about their present share, would in future be supplied by Norway alone, thus yielding to the revenue of this country, as on twelve feet average length at the new regulated duty of 121. 10s. per great standart only 438,7871. 10s. and cause a greater defi-, ciency still, namely to the amount of 300,000l. per annum. I am, sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not overlook so serious an object, with which he certainly is threatened in case any regulation on the deal duties as recommended by the Lords' Committee, were to take effect. That Norway is fully competent to supply this country not only with 35,103 great standarts of deals annually, but even to go considerably beyond that quantum if her interest requires it, I have fully proved already; nor would the argument hold good, that wherever a 16, 18, or 20 feet deal, (which Norway cannot supply) is to be made use of, a 12 feet would not answer: generally speaking this would be correct, but it so happens that most if not all the building purposes, such as the flooring of houses and the like, as also all other work, can be accomplished with the use of 12 feet deals alone, although the greater length certainly, if applied in many instances would give an additional value if not also greater strength to the building.

Finally, the Lords' Committee have also recommended that, with a view of removing the impediment from the employment of British capital in saw-mills established in this country, the duty on foreign deals should at least be made equivalent to that on timber in the log-which in fact implies that a still greater duty should be imposed on foreign deals according to their cubical contents; and that the larger sized deals should pay at a proportionate greater rate to what they do at present. Having said so much already upon this subject, as regards the comparative trade in the shorter deals from Norway and the longer deals from Prussia and Russia, I need here but add, that the more the article of the two latter countries is burthened, the less benefit will England derive from it, and the surer will be the effect of excluding them altogether and giving the trade entirely to Norway. But with regard to the expediency of giving British capital employed in saw-mills, an additional advantage to what it already possesses, I hope to be indulged to say a few words on that head, and particularly to set the gentleman's notions right, who seems the first that has started upon this subject.

The advantage which the British saw-mills and sawyers already possess, is (independent of forming the timber into the divers smaller sizes as requisite for building purposes), chiefly to convert the 3 inch plank into the sundry smaller sorts of deals; such as from half an inch, to one inch and ahalf thickness, as required for almost all works and buildings in this country: and this is certainly no small advantage, for be it remembered that for very few purposes indeed a 3 inch plank is used in the state it comes from abroad, whereas I may truly say that full four fifths of the whole importation of 3 inch plank are converted into smaller deals; and although no prohibition exists, why these kind of thinner deals should not also be imported from abroad, yet the