The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-28 00:00:00

THE COLONIES UNDER THE PROTECTIVE

________
SYSTEM.
[From the report of the acting' committee to the standing
committee of West India Planters and Merchants, 13th
January, 1847:]
A few examples may he given of the legislation under
which the colonies have, by a strange perversion of language,
been accused of enjoying a monopoly.
Previous to the reparation of the United States from the
mother-country the intercourse between them and the West
Indies, as sister colonies, was free. No countries are more
fitted, by their respective circumstances and their relative
position, to maintain an extensive and regular exchange of
commodities. The West Inslians had long received from the
colonies, which afterwards became the United States, many
of their most necessary supplies, and paid for them in
the most convenient manner by the produce of their planta-
tions. This trade, which had been so considerable as to em-
ploy 116.000 tons of shipping, was, of course, equally de-
sirable for the West India Colonies after the independence
of the United States ; but that event deprived them of the
right to hold any intercourse. It was, indeed, so necessary,
that the mother country was induced to telex partially her
restrictions, and to pass an act in 1785, "'l'o regulate
the trade between them and the United States, and
the Foreign Islands in the West Indies." The extent of
her liberality will be seen by a brief synopsis of the act.
It first declares that "the trade has, by experience,
been found to be beneficial to the colonies ;" and it then pro-
ceeds to enact : 1. That only certain articles shall be iOl
peeleills namely, tobacco, pitch, tar, turpentine, hemp, flax,
yards, bowsprits, staves, heading-boards, timber,
, and lumber of any sort ; horses, neat cattle, sheep,
begs, poultry, and live stock of any sort; bread, biscuit, flour,
peas, beans, potatoes, wheat, rice, oats, barley, and grain of
any sort; such being the growth or production of the United
States. 2. That the articles shall be imported only by
British subjects and in British ships. 3. That none of these
articles shall be admissible from any foreign island in the
West Indies. 4. That no article whatsoever shall be exported
from any of the West India Colonies, except by British sub-
jects and in British ships 5. That in case of public emer
gency or distress, the governor of any one of them may, for
a limited time, authorise the importation of the enumerated
articles from any foreign island in the West Indies;
but, even in that case, only by British subjects and in
British ships.
It is needless to comment upon such " regulation." The
United States could not be expected to tolerate a trade in
which all participation was denied to them. As a matter
of course, they retaliated—imposed discriminating duties—
which again induced reprisals; and a long and, keen contest
ensued—by acts of parliament and congress, orders in coun-
cil, and negotiations,—on our part for exclusion, and on
theirs for admission. Occasionally, when our restrictions
reduced the colonies to great distress for the most essential
supplies, the governors " felt themselves under the necessity
of opening their porta," and on this ground were indemni-
fied by parliament. After a limited interval they were again
closed, and so continued until the Feature of their destitu-
tion caused another crisis, when this proceeding was
repeated. For a short time the respective " regula-
tions" of the " high contending parties" drove the
trade to the foreign free ports, where they met,
the one to land his wares, and the other to re-ship
them, incurring of course double freights and charges,
At another period, for several veers-1818 to 1820—it was
carried on through the poets of Nova Scotia and New Bruns-
wick, in like manner, ist A great additional expense. Thus

the mother-country, without the least regard to the interests
bt them,
e n
or wishes of the %Vest India Colonies, persisted for half a
centurynotni re
yn
tqou
de-
priving them of a natural trade, which her own acts
ie:itcoonfvadenvianencetag, advantages
hinecanelelfUlablenblojeses,
of parliament admit they had found to be both
beneficial and neceasary. In regard to other foreign states,
the prohibition to hold intercourse with them remained in
force—with the exception of an unpractical modification in
1822—until 1825. In that year, when the customs and
navigation laws were remodelled, it was partially repealed;
and by the 6 Geo. IV., cap. 114, this conditional surrender
of restriction was defined in the following terms :—' And
wheretas by the law of navigation, foreign ships are per-
mitted to import into any of the British possessions abroad,
from the countries to which they belong, goods the produce
of those countries, and to export goods from such
possessions to be carried to any foreign oonntry what-
ever ; and whereas it is expedient that such permission
should be subject to certain conditions : be it there-
fore enacted, that the privileges thereby granted to
foreign ships shall be limited to the ships of those countries
which, having colonial possessions, shall grant the like
privileges of trading with those possessions to British ships,
or which, not having colonial posansions, shall place the
commerce and navigation of this country, and of its posses-
sions abroad, upon the footing of the most favoured nation,
unless his Majesty, by hie order in council, shall, in any case,
' deem it expedient to grant the whole or any of such privi-
leges to the ships of any foreign country, although the con-
ditions aforesaid shall not, in all respects, be fulfilled by
such foreign country."
During the ten years of peace which preceded
the passing of this act, upwards of half • million of
slaves bad been introduced into Brazil and the
Spanish islands. The consequence of this immense influx
of labour was so great an abundance and cheapness of
foreign sugar, that, before the close of that period, it fell
below the price at which sugar could be raised in our own
colonies. It was then quite safe for the mother-country to
make the relaxation, because these circumstances rendered
it unnecessary to compel the colonies to bring their produce
to her; and the permission to trade with foreigners, which
had been so long withheld, and which would previously
have been of the utmost importance to the colonies, was
therefore of no value whatever. She retained the restric-
tion as long as it was advantageoas to herself, without any
re to their interests.
rnrlirtue of the act above cited, various orders in council
have been issued as follows: On the 3rd May, 1826—per-
mating Prussian ships to import the produce of Prussia.
On the let June and 16th December—permitting French
ships to import certain enumerated articles, but expressly
excluding wines. On 'he 16th July, 1827—permitting the
ships of Russia, Sweden, Norway, Hanover, Hamburg,
Bremen. Lubec, Oldenburg, Mexico, Columbia, Rio
de la Plata, to import the produce of their respective
countries. On the 28th Apnl, 1828—permitting Spanish
ships to import from lolonies and possessions abroad
the produce of such colonies and possessions. On
the 7th April, 1830—permitting Austrian ships to im-
port the produce of Austria. On the sth November, 1830
—repealing all the prohibitory orders touching Ameri-
can ships, and permitting them to impart the produce of
the United States. On the Ist April, 18.25—permitting
Danish ships to import the produce of Denmark. On the
2nd November, 1642—permitting Portuguese ships to im-
port the produce of Portugal. On the 23rd August, 1843
permitting ltaytian ships to import the produce of Hayti.
This enumeration is given to exhibit both the grudging
reluctance with which the several concessions have been
made, and the extent of prohibition which remains ; but the
relaxations thus formally announced by so many orders in
council are, notwithatanding'all this parade, merely apparent
—for of what practical use could it be to allow certain foreign
ships to bring certain foreign commodities, if, when they
came, they were to be met by the differential duties imposed
by the imperial parliament for the express purpose of ex-
cluding them, and securing a monopoly to the produce and
manufactures of the mother country.
Another important part of the restrictive system was sur-
rendered so recently as in 1845, when the prohibition to
bring colonial sugar to this country in a purified or refined
state was repealed. This act of justice was not conceded,
however, until the colonies were in a state of extreme de-
pression—still fettered—threatened with further changes—
and when confidence was so impaired as to discourage the
investment of capital, which, under more favourable circum-
stances, would have been liberally provided for the improve-
ments in the manufacture of their produce which the prohi-
bition had prevented.
Ne person having any acquaintance with the respective
wants and products of the West India colonies and the
United States, can doubt that if, as the interests of the colo-
nies required, their trade had notbeen interrupted, and when,
partially permitted, grievously taxed by the legislation of the
mother country for her own exclusive benefit, it would have
been very considerable and advantageous. Nor is it less cer-
tain that, apart from other restrictions, the compulsory im-
portation of their produce, and the prohibition to bring it in
the beat condition, have had a most pernicious influence upon
the agriculture and trade of the colonies—infinitely greater
than could he compensated by any advantage which they
have latterly derived from the difference of the duties on
sugar.