The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-23 00:00:00

Is tbs t ths only difficulty that occurs to you P I see no other. Would it not require the measuring of a great propottion of the deals, owing to the difference of the lengths in which they come at present? The principal part of them must be measured; but in time it would become such a system, that they would bring them in a more uniform manner than they do at present, and the necessity for measuring them would be less;, in the first instance it would be attended with greater difficulty than it would afterwards. What additional number of officers would such an alteration require ? Ido not suppose many ; there is but one boat officer (the delivering officer on the river); there were originally two. It has been found expedient to discontinue one of them, from the great number of ships that have gone into the docks to deliver ; at would require at least another boat officer. His salary would be, if one of the juniors, 4001. ayear ; if senior, 5001. Would any difficulty attend a change in the scale by which the duties on deals are taken, if it was thought expedient to introduce one which would contain a greater number of gradations than mists at present? That would depend, in a great measure, upon the extent of gradations; if they were very numerous, they isroold be equally.difficult with the cubical measure. Do you think, from what you know of the timber trade, that any advantage would be derived frosts any alterations in the existing mcde of taking the duty which you can state ? lam hot aware of any change that would be advantageous to the revenue. • Are you of opinion, that were the duty on deals to be paid by the cubic contents, not only- difficulty would attend ascertaining it, but it would lead to a greater risk Hof frauds being committed on the revenue ? lam not aware that it would, if tinder proper regulations, but it would be more expensive. You have elated that there would be considerable difficulty in cases where ships discharged their cargoes in the river ? In all such cases. Are not all the deals now landed in bonded premises for the security of the <duties ? All bonded deals are landed and those in docks by hand : in that situation / consider it is perfectly practicable without any risk, and without any increase of expence; but on the river I doubt it. Are any deals landed in the river that are subject to duty at all, or where any examine - rerun of their contents is necessary ? They are not landed in the river ; they are delivered into craft frcm on board the vessel lying in the stream, where they ore surveyed by the proper officer afloat; they are finally delivered and put into the charge of the merchant to take them where he pleases. By the present system all which is to do is to count the deals, whereas under -such an arrangement,as that proposed to you, they must be measured? Yes; deals are not put alone into a craft, but a variety of other articles, so that there is a very close inspection now. The only measurement you now have is, whether they exceed eight feet and are below twenty ? Yes, that is done by the eye generally. Are you not in the habit occasionally of landing cargoes of deal ends ? I never saw a cargo entirely of deal ends. Has not the importation of deal ends increased of late years ? I cannot say within the last four or five years ; previous to that time there was not an unusual importation of them. They were considered as broken stowage ? - They generally were ; I have not been on the river for the last four or five years. ~ [Adjourned to to-morrow, one o'clock. ' ilfcreurii, 23 die Fetruarii, 1821. The Right Honourable THOMAS WALLACE, in the Chair. Mr. John Henry Pelly called in, and examined. You are a merchant in the trade with Norway, resident in London ? I am. What time have you been in this trade? About five or six years ; the house in which 1 am engaged has been e st a bli s h e d for a great number of years. Is it a house that carries on business to a great extent ? It did, to a large extent. Can you state what has been the effect of the imposition of the high duties im posed in 1809 and 1810 upon the Norway trade? The imposition of those duties has almost excluded Norway from the market ; now that a peace is come, it will certainly do so. State in what way ? There is only one port, Christiana, from which we have imported deals this last year; all the other ports, :Hess, D:am, Longsound, ar.d Christiansard, from their deals being inferior, are excluded, and timber completely so. The duty presses particularly on Norway deals and timber, partly on the account that Norway cannot produce either of large size or lengths, and the duty being the same on 8 feet 8 inches wide, as on 20 feet 11 inches wide; and partly from -the very high duty which affects Norway more than the ether northern countries ; and from wood from Canada, which is allowed to be imported duty free, interfering mole with Norway than with any other country. To elucidate nay Observation, that Norway is particularly affected by an increase of duty, I beg to refer the committee to Mr. Norman's evidence before the House of Lords, in Iris statement of the number of deals imported by him, and the duty paid when it was IL 13s. 4d. per hundred : C. Duty. Average quantity imported per annum, ) . 10,777 . . .417,992. from 1793 to 1796, both inclusive . I ' The duty *as then increased to 4L 9s. per hundred : Average quantity then imported from • . . . 1793 to 179 G, was reduced to . . 4,837 21,525. Not more than 20 per cent. increase of revenue, although the new duty was 170 per cer.t. on the old. This may fairly be taken as the criterion of the whole trade, our own books shewing a similar result. , -In /797, the duty was increased to 91. Is. In 1811 it was doubled, and be came 181. 2s. The Appendix, No. 6, showing the quantity of timber and deals imported from all the northern ports, as well as Canada, furnishes me with a statement in corroboration of the opinion I have expressed. Quantity of TIMBER and DEALS annually imported into Great Britain. ?r . 8 . ~_. . z ..... t - i, .0 , -. 4 5 .9, " .9 -, (1 ' ' '''' t ' - ' .. (" tz cz: x. 5 . ir , ' a ‘.;,: F - ; 0 ... -• tt :I -, , . ,„, -p,.. ...-, ..E.-.'. .7..= . a :-:, 0 ° , 4 • . —▪ ::: • • . • . i • • • • ‘-e F. 2 - --1. 7 n • • . • • • P: . k. .a.•.• • • • • • • ••••••• • • • • • , 8 = ce cc ce ND •I••• t.: •-• -.'-' tt: t.O — 74 •-• :7:5 ..'" CO CiD 'A .! 'I P 1 1..; I.: CC . ~. CI ICJ IF In . ..4 :;.• :7 -, 1.4 VP to .• ..-• 'X 4'4CO 4 4 .../ ...7 =CO C: , ,%; -t; 4 to i 4N. V, +I •-• C .....1 (.4 CO Co Go .... CC. ~,, . i . CZ 7 3 ti :I I I ND •-•-. I.D. 4. .b. ......„ •-' 01 C. 4 00 Vr" '4 •-• CD VCO • ( .3I . s i a t 0"3 r ? Jr ,-4 ..-.4 t:7:1 1 ~. :•-, ... 0 tz. 1 Fc 3 - E,'• _ J... .4. CC IC IC 'V C., •-• ,-. IO ~. .-' -.. V Co 4.. ... c, C.: ..4 N.: CD IND ••- .-.. ..., , '',l:: :...1 i ... .k. '''...l: - 7.-• ....• .....i ...to t,D -: - 4. CO t• - • t:.' .• C 4 c: ....1 CoN. , c.rl ,•, ,-; lis 4. 1 to OD CD C ::: •-• 0 c.: ,, CC G.. N: • ,`,. Ug 1 I ' o O' c e ee C K P.* o :, , . ... 4 • , . R. ; -4 ..I. a t C. -, ,r.. •-.1 CO VT ....1 :', 4,- . 4,- n ....., • P 1 1 _- CV 0 OD ....,......, - - co ca P o z • t.t P , )v. •-• 0 d = n • -• 0, V) IC ..73 p j .0 -: `" ',,....; ND 4C: 4 ... •C re, as to le -er —, te - el: es ee ^ et- ve te ce C.C . . a g - a a •-'- a -4 r; a Co :In ,p. - ,01.1 , g : --, r‘4 1 ~.. . r. , -4 tz ~., .•Ji c c - w ;..; c; cc cc: to t•:, t l, : . c: d A --e•-• t 1 > . ..-, . . - 0 ff., P , • co (...., 0.-. = to • co 3'4 to to 1 CA C'a Cu C 4 1.2. ICI ...11)). CO ce - E.. , 1 "tee sic CO to - -r- Irei to se ee "le = t e - ri 1 tsp .44. ..-1 - I Ct c” - 4 ce et Cee es o ,_. ie.. el ce - c et- to —_ to it- to ea C et ee cr e 5' ~ ' i .n n .., o o '" i . se es ,-.4 ::.e- i -esi i- w -. I I -a, ee --t '' J IC •-• I k .„ ve Ic' .:,- C.f... IC IC IC CI CO 1 ts: =IC .....I .;r2 By this it will appear, that on the doubling of the duty in 1811 the average i portation of timber from Norway and Prussia decreased nearly half, whilst fr Sweden and Russia it rather increased ; but in the article of deals, the diminut from Norway is immense, whilst Sweden, Russia, and Prussia, taken together, i port nearly the same as before the advance of duty; Sweden rather less, Rui rather more : Lut Norway, from C. 24,961, the average annual importation of preceding 13 years, has not been enabled, from the effect of the duty, to import for the 7 years on an average above C. 8,580 per annum, consequently a - deficiency of revenue, from the iccrease of duty, of 70,2091. per annum ; the consumer paying at the same time double the amount. For C. 24,96!, at 91. will produce 224,6491. and C. 8,580, at 181. 1,51,4401. From the same Statement it will appear, that the average importation from the north of Europe has diminished, both in timber and deals, very considerably in the last 7 years ; but that, including the importation from Canada, the consumption of timber has been more; but not above two-thirds of the quantity of deals have been imported into England. It may easily be supposed, that in the last 7 years the average consumption should be more, from the increased wealth of the country, but the high duty alone can cause a diminution of expenditure ; and I think it will appear, if there had been no increase of duty in 1811, that it would have produced as much revenue. Average importation before 1811, 161,442 Timber. add increased consumption - 52,239 Loads - - 213,681 at 11. 125. 6d. = 1.347,232 Importation during last 7 years - - 96,770 on which a duty of 31. ss. has been paid - - - - 314,502 Average importation of deal, before) . ~, 050 at 91. - - 351,450 1811 D. - last 7 years - - - 22,969 - 181. - - 403,442 I have omitted fractional parts, and have not taken any notice of the further increase in 131. i, which must be first deducted from the amount in the Exchequer to ascertain the above. The calculation is sufficient to elucidate my view of the sub ject ; and I am confident that, with respect to Norway deals, the committee, on reference to the Exchequer, will find, that if the year 1820 does not shew that the revenue from this article, at 201. 15s. Bd. per hundred, produces less than the average of the years 1785 to 1792, when the duty was IL 13s. 4d. that the year 1821 will Ehog that remit. . How far do you attribute that to the mode in which the duty is taken upon the deals ? conFequence of Russia being enabled to bring deals of a longer length than Norway, the mode of taking the duty favours them so much, that they have been enabled in the course of the same period,to increase their importation, whilp Norway has diminished. Is not the importation from Norway confined to a particular length ? It is. The Russian deals are much longer ? They are. May not that increased importation have arisen from the superior convenience of having the deals of a greater length than Norway could supply ? From being en abled to import them of a longer' length, certainly she has an advantage over Nor way. • Suppose.the prime cost 101. the hundred, when the duty was 11. 13s. 4d. and now 211..105. ed. the difference in duty between long and short deals is about as two to five, but I will take it at half; half 11. 13s. is IGs. Gd. only 8 per cent on prime cost; half 211.105. 3d. is 101. 15s. ld. and is 107 per cent on prime cost. Does not the contiguity of Norway, and the difference of freight, nearly com pensate for the difference of duty on the different lengths of deals ? Certainly not ; if it had, they would have retained their relative proportions of import ; but my answer to the preceding question will chew an advantage beyond three times difference of freight. It being stated that the duty on five loads and 20 feet of Norway deals is the same, by the practice which now prevails of taking the duty with that on nine loads and 45 feet of Russian deals, to what extent would the difference of freight between the two countries compensate that difference ? Not being acquainted with the rate of frieghts to the Baltic, I cannot answer that question at present with accuracy. What Is the price of Norway timber now in the market ? There is none ; we have not imported a single load the last year, and very few the preceding one. Our importation has been, in some years, very considerable. What was the price, compared with Memel timber, of the last import ? From 255. to 30s. under the price of Memel. There is always this difference, Memel being now Gl. a load ; we could not obtain 41. 10s. the duty being 31. ss. would leave only 11. ss. for cost, freight and charges, at which it cannot be imported. What difference in the existing regulations of the duty on deals would, in your opinion, place the Norwegian deals and the Baltic deals on a fair footing, in this market ? I think nothing short of a graduated scale, or taking 'them upon the cubical contents. Then that would, in fact, be nearly doubling the present duty upon Russian deals ? It would but only make it equal to that from Norway. Do not you think that the effect of that would be to throw the great importation of deals into Norway, instead of bringing them from Russia and Prussia ? Cep: tainly not. Explain why ? Upon the average I have given, Russia has increased in so very trifling a degree, that it would only put Norway into the situation in which she was from the year 1799 t 0.131 I . Do you know the comparative quality of the wood imported from Norway with that imported from Itusia. and Prussia ? For deals, those from Christiana are su perior, but the Dram. deals and the Longsound deals, and Moss deals, fetch no more in the market, than the Russia deals do. Upon the supposition of the duties being equal, would not that give a preference to the Norway deals ? No doubt ; but when the duties were less on referring to the average, it would only place Norway in the same situation that she was with respect to Russia before. Is there not a considerable difference in the number of voyages that can be made between Norway and Russia ? Certainly., Does not that make a considerable difference in the freight that is paid ? Certainly. With those advantages, and the quality, is it not calculated to throw the chief importation of deals into Norway, rather than to divide it, as it is now divided, between Norway, Prussia and Russia ? I can only state upon the average, that it would net have that effect; the importation from Norway might be considerably increased, but it would reduce the importation from the other parts very little. I found my opinion on the statement, that when the duty was doubled, in I 8 1 1 , although the importation from Norway was considerably reduced, it did not create a correspondent increase from the other parts on the continent. What was the last price of deals at Christiana? We do not buy any there. 1 Arc not deals sold there ? I believe ,not many for London ; they are sent generally to the houses of agency. Jr what ships does the importation from Norway usually take place ? Sometimes in British and sometimes in Norway ; but the larger proportion in Norway, I certainly. Do you think that proportion is increasing or decreasing? Decreasing; they have sold- almost all their ships. Are they building fresh ones? Not that I know of. If the trade from the north should increase, do you think the proportion of British ships employed in that trade would increase or decrease ? Increase, cer certainly. Are you at all acquainted with the cost of building ships in Norway ? No, lam not ; but they wished so much to get rid of their ships, that I had several to sell last year, if I could have got five pounds a ton for them, masts, yards, and all their stores ; they were fir ships. Do you know what is left to the importer, after all the expenses and charges are paid upon the price at which Norway deals are sold ? On onehundred and twenty deals from Christiana, at the present price, it would leave him about seven pounds a hundred, but from any other port in Norway it would not leave four pounds, consequently the deals from any other port than Christiana are excluded. Can you state what proportion that bears to what would be left the importer upon a hundred and twenty deals brought from any other ports in the north of Europe ? No, I cannot. Do you happen to know what arc the ships in which the timber is usually con veyed from other ports of the north •cf Europe besides Norway ? Not being engaged in that trade, I can only give a hearsay evidence ; I believe principally British. Has not the importation of deal ends, since the imposition of the high duties, very much increased from Norway ? No, not very much increased ; it has been stated there is a particular advantage to Norway, which is not the case. State how? Thirteen pounds ten shillings being the price of Christiana deals independent of duty, is at the rate of one shilling a foot ; on one hundred of eight foot deals clear of the duty, it would be one and a penny a foot, consequently an advantage of three halfpence a foot on the eight-feet deals ; but as a great many of our "nines, tens, and elevens are cut down to eight feet, taking the average at ten, it would only produce eleven pence a foot. Then the deals of nine, ten, and eleven feet are cut down for the express pur pose of escaping from the heavy duty ? They must be, or they would not pay, freight and charges ; the heavy duty would overcome , freight and charges. And the reason why Norway has so many more than any other country is this, that the wood in the other countries will enable them to cut their wood to make deals of sixteen feet ; upon an average we cannot cut above thirteen feet, therefore, if any accident happens in the falls, the butt end is spoiled, and every deal that does not run the twelve feet must be reduced : but a sixteen feet deal from the other ports would make a fourteen, thirteen, or twelve. But all our smaller deals must be cut down at once to eight feet. The sacrifice is to the shipper, and the consumer gets the advantage of it. The Norway merchant gets no advantage from it, because, if you will divest the two articles of duty, .the net proceeds to him are only Is. Id. All the advantage of the difference of duty is to the consumer. Two eight-feet deals are sold always as one twelve feet, and produce, as above, Is.l d. per foot. Had we been able to have imported the same quantity in sixteen-feet lengths, it would have produced Is. 4d. per foot. If no alteration should- take place in the scale by which duties are now levied on deals, what effect would the continuance of such a state of things produce upon the trade of Norway ? It would annihilate it, unless the duty was generally reduced, and then we should stand, if it was reduced to what it was before 1811, in a better relative situation with respect to the other ports on the Continent, and our impor tation would increase ; but theirs would not much diminish. Do you think; that if any increase were to take place in the export" of Norway timber, there would be a considerable increase in the export of British manu. factures ? Certainly. What reason have you to think that ? Because the Norwegians always have taken a very large quantity of British manufactures ; they use British manufactures in every way. Are there any laws prohibitory of British manufactures at present operating in Norway? None that I know of. The laws that operate in Sweden do not extend to Norway ? Certainly not. And none have been enacted for that kingdom ? None that lam aware of. Do you know whether Norway has been. in the habit of taking to the extent of her imports ? I believe to the full, Is there any great debt in Norway to British merchants ? A very considerable debt, and which they would readily pay in wood. In what way has that been accumulated ? The debt has been accumulated under a variety of circumstances ; advances upon exportations ; advances upon the produce of Norway ; and part of the debt has been in consequence of the confis cation of British property, in retaliation for the seizures at Copenhagen. The Norway merchants, that were indebted to the British merchants were obliged to pay the money to government. It was not incurred by any excess of export of British manufactures or British commodities, beyond the import from Norway ? I cannot say positively that that was the case. Has it not been the fact, that the imports from Norway have very much exceeded the exports ? Directly, I believe, they may have 'done so ; but Ido not think it necessary to.frace the direct importation to Norway, inasmuch as our bills go through the Continent, and may be trdced home, in some instances, to the British manufacturer here ; and bills that are drawn for the produce of the country, hardly ever come straight from Norway here, but the importation of timber from Norway is now principally confined to what we call debenture timber, which is allowed to come it at a very small duty, for the rise of the mines in Cornwall. and which, by the last accounts we haire, *as about 3 9 5. a load, delivered in Cornwall. The Memel timber, independent of the duty, would be 31. is. And they canhot deliver it there, but the consu mer h as it from Norway at the above rate. it it not the practice with the merchants who trade to Norway, to keep their correspondents, or the persons from . whom they draw their wood there, in debt to them, with a view to securing the importation from particular parts of the country, or a particular estate ? Certainly not, we would rather they would not owe us a farthing ; they can only pay the debt in wood, and unless we arc allowed to ii i port that wood at a moderate duty, the whole of that money thtigt be lest to the British merchants. If the government would allots a certaih quantity of wood to be brought duty-free, to pay that debt, the Norway merchants have no objection to give up the trade altogether; for I believe every one of us shall close our con cerns this year, and we must set down with the loss, unless we have some means, in sonic way, of getting the money back again. The last cargo we sold from Moss, was . e,09-11. 4s 10(1. the charges were 2,3091. 12s. 2d. leaving a loss of 2141 18s. 4d. ; the duty was 1,5001. out of it. What rate of duty, in your opinion, on Baltic timber, would give the largest revenue, considering the interests of the different trades ? The largest duty would be produced by reducing it half, or to 11. 2s. Gd. Do you think that could be done without the complete destruction of the North American timber trade? I think it certainly might; the difference of freight, I think, is about 11. ss. and that would place Canada, if the goods were of an equal quality, on a par with the north of Europe. That is, assuming the goods to be of an equal quality ? Yes ; but if you allowed them the whole freight, which averages, on deals and timber, about 21. the load, that would be placing Canada on the banks of the Thames ; and if they cannot compete then as to quality, the consumer is only paying the difference. State what you conceive would be the amount of duty that would place the timber of the respective countries upon an equal footing, so as to give a fair com petition ? I have before stated 255. difference ; but as Ido not think the article so good, although her advocates say it is, I therefore think it would be on a fair competition in less than 40s. difference of duty. William Stuart, Esq. called in and examined. In what line of business are you engaged ? A merchant, and engaged in the colonial timber trade, as an importer on commission. You have of course directed your attention to the question of the duties upon timber ? I have, particularly since the publication of the lords' report, directed my attention to a consideration of the subject, on finding, from the published evidence, that however high the character of the parties examined, their sphere of observa tion was too limited to enable them to afford accurate information, as will appear by extracts I have made from official documents, contrasted with the statements of witnesses first questioned. A Norwegian merchant states, page I I and 12—That in consequence of the present system of duties on foreign deals, and the exemption of colonial wood from duties, that " the exportation from Norway, during the last five or six years, has decreased very much," and " during the last year has amounted to very little." It has likewise been stated, that " more than one-third of the ships engaged in the trade with Norway are British ; that the Norwegian ships are decreasing very fast, and that as they are decreased, and lost, they do not build them again." The following extract from the official returns, page 131, will, however, serve to refute the opinion, that the deal trade with Norway has been declining during the last six years ; and although the importation of 13 15 (which was generally ex cessive) is included, shows, on the contrary, that the total quantity imported in the last three years, exceeded that of the preceding three years. Imports of Deals, Deal Ends, and Battens from Norway, during the six years referred to : Hundreds of 120 pieces: r - - Year. Deals. Deal Ends. Battens. 1814 4,851 - 1,513 801 1815 17,767 5,680 3,336 Hundreds 1816 3,299 1,'294 893 of 120 pieces. Total imported the 39,435 25,917 8,487 5,030 first three years 1817 6,697 4,481. 1,753 1818 9,800 5,669 3,181 1819 8,465 4,088 3,495 Total imported the '24,962 14,238 0,429 last three years 8 47 ' 629 • The fol: [owing is according to the official records, page 124 : An Account of the Tonnage arrived from Norway in Great Britain since 1817, the first year in which the Returns for Norway and Sweden are kept separate. Year. Tons. Foreign. British. 1817 Total 75,293 of which 52,713 and 22,580 being about 1-4th of the entire. 1818 107,980 85,984 21,996 1-sth 1819 99,776 82,689 17,087 1-6th Which figures prove, that the representation is equally erroneous in regard to the shipping employed in the trade with Norway. A Swedish merchant states, page 24, that " he has observed the exports to Sweden have very much diminished, in consequence of the heavy duties rendering the import of timber and deals unprofitable to the Swedes, which prevented them ordering goods in rcturn in a great measure." The exports to Sweden have not, however, diminished, in consequence of the duties on timber and deals, for it appears by the official returns (pages 120 and 121) that cur exports from 1799 to 1802, previous to the existence of those duties, were British Produce Foreign and Colonial' Year. Total. and ManufaCtures. Merchandise. 1. s. d. 1. s. d. 1. s. d. 1799 - 26,120 1 3 23,299 '2 7 49,419 310 1800 - 29,761 8 5 48,497 5 3 78,258 13 8 1801 - 46,110 3 2 0,350 8 8 106,460 11 10 1802 - 33,229 2 6 57,285 19 6 90,515 2 4) 135,220 15 4 189,432 16 1 324,653 11 • 4 Average 33,805 310 47,58 4 I 81,163 710 'While the exports from 1816 to 1819, after the duties had been long in operation, were British Produce ,Foreignand Colonial Year. Total. and Manufactures. Merchandise. 1. s. 1. s. d. 1. s. (1. 1816 - 38,129 19 7 89,255 3 1 127,385 2 8 1817 - 36,743 11 7 114,765 4 3 151,508 15 10 1818 - 40,973 13 4 95,996 5 8 136,969 19 1819 - 40,419 11 119,736 17 11 160,155 18 10 4) 156,266 5 5 f 419,753 10 11 576,019 16 4 Average 39,066 11 4 1 104,938 7 9 144,004 19 Neither can it, be supposed that shipments of timber and deals have been un. profitable to the Swedes ; as a comparison of the imports for the same period, ex. tracted from the official accounts (page 13;3 and 13:3) will show they have con , siderably increased. Totl Year. Timber. I Deals. I Deal Ends 1 B a tt e n s . Deals, a &e. Loads. _ - Hundreds of 120 pieces. ,--.........._...,..___-_-, 1799 382 4,331 333 125 4,789 1800 903 3,623 322 299 4,244 1801 844 3,452 320 332 4,104 1802 1,244 5,033 544 357 5,934 4) 1 3,373 I 16,439 I 1,519 I 1,113 19,071 Average j 843 I 4,110 I 380 278 I 4,768 _ • 1816 3,662 2,601 574 98 3,273 1817 7,456 3,437 1,073 414 4,924 1818 10,499 5,253 1,551 529 7,333 1819 7,974 4,472 1,316 615 6,403 29,591 I 15,763 I 4,514 I 1,656 1 21,933 Average 7,398 3,941 I ' 1,128 I ' 414 I 5,483 The erroneous conclusion that there has been a diminished trade with Sweden in consequence of the duties, arises probably from having compared the periods of peace , with that period of the war when Swedeikwas an entrepOt, and when it is well known not only that 'the bulk of the shipments from hence were for the con sumption of other countries, but that Prussian wood was continually imported under the denomination of Swedish. An importer from Norway states, page 28, that" The present duly on deals is " not only a protecting duty to the British ship-owner; but that it will have the el. "feet tfa prohibition firma Norway, and that the present duty gives the Canadian " merchant a monopoly." It appears, however, from the official returns, pages 131 and 137, that there were the following importations from Norway during the last four years, viz. 1816 - 1817 - 1818 - 1819 - Hundreds, of 120 pieces. Deals. Deal Ends I Battens. Total. 3,299 1,294 893 5,386 6,697 4,481 1,753 12,931 9,800 5,669 3,181 18,650 8,465 4,088 3,495 16,048 While the importations from Canada, during the same periodovere— 181 G 1817 1818 1819 Hundreds, of 120 pieces. . 1,334 . - 3,147 Deals, Deal Ends, and Battens. - 5,798 - 8,974 which proves that the Canadian mere:ant has not a monopoly of the Inoriat. What has been the operation of those duties upon the timber trade ?—Their effect has been to diminish the importation from the Baltic, and to encourage it from the Colonies. Has that diminution of the timber from the Baltic been progressive ?.-4t was progressive to a certain period ; but it is no longer progressively diminishing, as will be seen by a Statement I beg to submit. > R§) cc — -4 u 6 5 C° . S 5 , Z. l g' to 5.`1 g p_ x .73 P. ;7, ca ' Ce X -.4 CI I I I r , 4 1 .. 0 tz ..., a; ce c-., t 4 _. ND ND 0 0 0 0 0 .- ID •so --• F . . I - - . ...-......:: • --,,:, cp a, 0 i,7. iz , D:) ..-1, , 54 , a, .p.. c.D 0 4- —x • Cy t 0 .t. AiCO 4. :75 r , .... 0 O ' 7lO s t..l ' '.4 IC .1. CI P ,."7" z P , 77' '''''' ''' ' ' C?! C. , CO Co 00NC0, , , .1. N CO .I ...1 Cn N • N ... ' ..' 4 1:2 ,, --• • N. VSO CI INOO tn ° 15 5 5 . • , :r.. -4 1.4 ~..r . 1 ft, c., P... • cn CO 4. C C., , 1 •••• 5 I F,,, W w,i CI •••• N OCO 4. , :i 1 ~s ig oa -•-• a b-4 E. tN• > ••. N N CC 1 i•J CI, 6 55. cr • 'co 'to - or cr• ... c..1 F., CB t o ° • 04 CP CP C.A: VT 011 0... g =.. CI 0 t.:.• crl oo 4. 4.: ° v 2 C. , 2 N 00 :',", C...:, •-• C. CO 4. CI V 4. v 7 p., ____ i •-• . td .... UT C 0 0I a: .4.. .-.., ' :1 e ., p, 4 4 ••,/ :,..1 ,-, ir.., r..., ~,,,, ...., .... N N LC CO cn cr• oc . Co ..4 1 c.; VI CA b.. 0.7 . 3 ... v.: 1 ••• ho ... r f , co co v c...,....1 (1, ".L, O "o, =4 I =4 oo -2, W : •-• Cocv 4. C.; COto r. V' ? p - ...., CA VOO 00 %I.) .... C") aZ 1 .: N.: '-' r- C rEt . :› T.:L-:.Ir: 1 4. 6 C . ) Q 5 . ,,,, ..... Cr; CC ....1 °A Q.? .. .. .0" I C. 4 9 ;ej • ~.0 g ,. .., ;- 7.. 2 Has not the proportion of the importation from north imerica greatly et ceeded the diminution of the import from the north of Europe has, 1 present the Committee a Statement of particulars. CO es r.CCIC C ,r.OOOOZVI .•-• ''' •—• 0 ''' 0 0 `. CD W' d i CO an 0") CA.I N CZ a dir,, , ..40; V.v..; V. v.%) . - '1 ...., ~, ...., 8 •:...3 co — .c. C, P-3 c 5 .. co IQ F.' 0. C, 'V ;A F' C •d ' 4 Zi It‘T 4.. IA C .... CH 0 ' .• 00 1 .0 c.,T 2 ' '<i , t.z ca t. .... :. t A r '.... z ,---- ";C co ..o. ( • c, ) . oo ,!4 .. .., " c") .... r..: o .., . c., . co •-, 1.../ 2 C. 4 1... CO .... LI .2 . IL P. , '. A . 1 : -. 5 • E s. r 4 4. C., C., n i 4 c , t...-., .. t:.) 'l' g 'N.-- co I.; c, g P., ..........., 1 i. = I 1 ....1 =.. co— oz i‘o O ~ ~ 1 -4 c, c, 1. s ti It 8 I o .4 c.,., CT CT i . ce 5 it Z ei • v, = •.! . ri Ea_ \ n - :. e l l . 0,3 c. 4 , ue -4 tt - 2. 2 ° I 1 S., g 8 ot ta. is A, r I 1: I 1 : 4 :,—... ' IW-; i I 1 - 5 . I 0 Do you not conceive that a consequence of this has been, a great excess of the importation beyond the demands of the country ? —There has been a conside r a ble excess beyond the consumption. Do not you attribute to this excess the very 'ow price at which timber is selling —Yes, I do. Do you happen to know, whether the effects produced by the high duties 00 the wood trade in Russia have been the cause of much dissatisfactio n to the Russian government ?—I should apprehend that they have not, because I do nei consider that the Russian government attach much importance to their WO°, trade. I conceive that they would wish to encourage the exportatio n of tli S more valuable commodities, as tallow, iron, hemp, flax, and other art icles. Tbel" was a period, about 1798, when the Russian government prohibited the export iv tion of wood, unless a certain quantity of iron was shipped along with it. Do you think that a reduction of the duties on foreign timber would lead t.e,/, a greatly increased demand for that article ?—A reduction of the duties would lead to an increased demand for that article, certainly. Do you think that an increased import of that article , in consequence of the increased demand you have stated, would be followed by a correspondent ex portation of our manufactures ?—I should think not, because the impositio of the duties did not of casion a diminished export of o ur manufactures, but the contrary. An average of the years 181 7 , 1818, and 1819 shows there was a great excess above the average of 1 7 99 and 1801, prior to the imposition of die high duties ; as will be seen by a statement I will beg to submit to the Com/ Inittee. The witneii qc-licercd in a atatement ,which teas read, asfollowi: