Star.
London, England, 1824-11-23 00:00:00

a.
es ts
X

CM
fb
0
2

s;

Ina even to Neiti itself. Yet vessels belonging to nei=
ther of these powers are mentioned in the document
which they undoubtedly would have been had it been'
intended to shew, as Artocut contends, merely the ves-
sels belonging to the diterent Idivers mentioned in the
document from Haiti.
The American official statement also specifies 312
tons of Danish shipping as being thos einployed. But
in the Haitian document no refetence is made to the
European Power of Denmark, but merely to the " Pos-
sessions Danoises," clearly indicating the locality of the
places with which the trade of Haiu was carried on.
It is clear, therefore, that the terms" Etit Unis" and
" Possessions Danoises," were employed to designate the
respective countries to which the exports from Haiti'
were sent, or for which they were cleared out in the tirst
instance, and had not reference merely to the nations
to whom the shipping belonged.
What is true of one or two of these designations is
of course true of them all; and thus it is proved, with
almost mathematical Certainty, that the terms " Grande
Bretagne," were not employed as ANoLus asserts, with-
out assigning any authority or proof whatever in sup-
port of his opinion. Nay, with these obvious facts
before him, or within his reach, he marvels at the ig-
norance of the Reviewer in not taking it for granted
that the terms " Grande Bretagne," meant British ship-
ping. And although I have exposed his mistake, and
demonstrated that the Reviewer did not err, it now
remains for me to shew, that notwithstanding the vast
importance attached by ANGLU3 to his fancied disco.
very, the fact really bears, one way or the other, but in
a very limited degree, on the question in dispute. For,
the Reviewer, not trusting to such fallacious evidence
as the inconsistent statement of the Haitian document,
reasoned only on the comparative imports into this
country, upon the authority of British document.swhich
never has been questioned.
When the Rbview was printed, the Haitian document
was still before the public, uncorrected, chewing the
lbs. weight of the articles said to be imported, as being
dollars in value. When the Review appeared, pointing
out the errors of the document, another copy of it was
published, substituting the lbs. weight for dollars in
value ; but the Reviewer having previously rejected the
evidence of the document, on the ground of the inconsis-
tency which he exposed, had recourse to British official
returns then before Parliament.

It is to be regretted that he did not carry back his
enquiries to other years, as the proofs thereby afforded
of diminished exportation from Haiti to Great Britain,
would have tended to confirm his argument : for in-'
stance, the importation into Great Britain, from Haiti, of
Coffee, Sugar, and Cotton, since 1818, was as follows:
Period of Tian.

1818
1819
1890
1821
1822
1829

Coffee. I Sugar. Cato&
wts.qrsalm. evrts.qrs.lbs.
1,6351 24 8,751 1 7 188,267
41097 1 10' 3,812 319 136,875
15,131 016 11,370 1 6 138,565
'8,085 1 1 17 18,057
41,632 2 1 139,363
4,421 0 1 44,246

The shipping employed has also been decreasing.—
In the year 1818, the imporbarade employed 52 vessels,
of 10,713 tons; whereas, last year, the number of vessels
was only 26, and the tonnage 4,373 tons. From all
which it appears, that the Reviewer might have used
still stronger proofs of the correctness of his statement,
had he deemed further proof necessary. ,
In a subsequent part of his letter, Amours reproduces
the charge now confuted, but he somewhat varies hii
terms. He inquires, "Is the Reviewer so little ac-
," quainted with the state and course of commerce, as
" not to know that the quantity 13,548,591 pounds of
" coffee might be exported in British ships, and yet nos
" landed in Great Britain? What is to hinder a British
" ship carrying coffee to its best market, the Continent,
" instead of bringing it into this country, where it is
" loaded with prohibitory duties, and where it must be
" re-exported before it can come into consumption." _
Now, the first observation to be made upon this is,
that there is not a single passage in the Review imply.
ing that ignorant* which is here assumed. If this
assertion be incorrect, ANGLUS is called upon to state
the passage in the Review. But the real question at issue
is this: Can the mere presumption of these paissible
facts satisfactorily explain the very great and estraor-
dinary dWerence between the Haitian document and
the British official returns? Were it only a few vessels,
in which they differed, it might not be worth while to
pursue the inquiry. But the Haitian document, during
the same period of time as the official year of Great
Britain, states that the number of ships which cleared
from Haiti for this country in the year 1822, was 78,
and their tonnage 12,292 tons. The official returns of
Great Britain for the same period state, that the vessels
from• Haiti were only 26 in number, and their tonnage
only 4,827 tons. In this instance the argument of
ANOLUS, as to the difference of the official year, no
longer avails him, as that of Great Britain coincides
with that of Haiti within five days.
Here it will be observed that the discrepancy to be
explained amounts to not less than two-thirds of all the
ships, and three fourths of all the tonnage, which the.
Haitian document wishes it to be believed cleared out
from Haiti with goods for Great Britain. And this
very enormous discrepancy is disposed of by Arior.vs
affording the Reader only a mere Skpposiiiine instead of
proper and correctdocuments. If the argument of AA
ws bad been supported by the names of the British
ships and their masters, who cleared out from ilaiti
for Great Britain, and afterwards landed theft targoes
on the Continent of Europe, to the extent of their ton-
nage (if not included in the British retul-ns), it would
have been a satisfactory solution of this apparent con-
tradiction; but, until that statement be made, the public
will be able to decide whether Anomie has given a
faithful interpretation of a document respecting which
so much has been said.
it is equally easy to shew a similar discrepancy with
respect !o the Haitian report of goods imported into
Haiti from Great Britain, and the number of vessels
employed. In this case, AxoLus can tare no difficulty
in justifying his statement, by references to official do-
cuments, and as the means of proof are accessible, there
can be no apology for delay.
The Haitian document states thatoods to the amount
of 3,661,244 dollars, were imported into Haiti froml
Great Britain, in the year 1822, and that the shipping
employed in the transport of the goods so imported
amounted to 100, and their tonnage to 14,618 tons.
There is no estimate, or satisfactory standard of value,
which can serve for the purpose of accurate comparison
as to the goods ; but official British documents lute tine
ships to amount to only 21 in number, and their ton-

nage to 3,825 tons.
Now 1 would call nn those who have had the pa-
tience to trace this tedious but not unimportant com-
parison, to decide whether Affect's ought not in fair-
ness to justify his charge against the Reviewer, by giving