Richmond Enquirer

From the Portland (Me.) Argus.
There are some remarks published in the Centinel from the New York Enquirer, on the subject of the late order in Council, calculated to mislead the public. Mr. Huskisson's act of Parliament of July, 1825, opened certain specified ports in the British West Indies and North American Colonies, to vessels of all nations admitting British vessels from those ports. The trade was to be in the growth and produce of the respective countries, and certain articles were prohibited.
It was considered by several members of Congress that this act of Parliament should be met by a prompt repeal of our discriminating duties. The Secretary of State, however, opposed this and preferred to leave it to negotiation. A bill was, however, reported in the Senate by the Committee of Finance and supported by Gen. Smith, Mr. Tazewell and Mr. Holmes, and opposed by Mr. Lloyd. The latter gentleman adopting the views of the Secretary. Mr. Lloyd's speech to which the Enquirer alludes, was on a bill offering to all nations terms of reciprocity in commerce, but did not refer to the colonial trade. The bill introduced by Gen. Smith and to which Mr. Lloyd was opposed, was intended to meet Mr. Huskisson's act, and would have prevented the late order in Council, an order which will produce much commercial embarrassment. It is well recollected that while the bill was under discussion in the Senate. Mr. Holmes expressed his fears lest its effect would be unfavorable to our plaster trade, and proposed an amendment to protect that trade, which was assented to by Gen Smith and adopted by the Senate. Gen. Smith was the prominent supporter of the bill, and it was laid on the table partly with an intention to resume it again and partly from an apprehension that the House would be inclined to act on it that session. Perhaps the inclination of the Executive to settle the points by negotiation had some influence in deterring its progress.
Our negotiations have been unfortunately protracted or rather suspended, by the sickness of our minister Mr. King. Mr. Gallatin is furnished with the necessary instructions on all the points of difference between the two nations. But as the delay occasioned by Mr. King's return was known to Congress and it was understood that the British Government insisted on discussing all the subjects of controversy together, it was believed that a law reciprocating the act of Parliament of July 25, would be perfectly satisfactory to Great Britain, be on the whole very beneficial to us, take this subject from the list of controverted points and thereby facilitate the adjustment of the others. It was ascertained that seven-eighths of the trade to the British colonies is in vessels of the U. States, and consequently the discriminating tonnage duty, was a tax against us, as seven to one. In this view of the case it is to be regretted that General Smith's bill did not pass, and that we are now entangled in embarrassments, from which it will require time to extricate us. Had that bill passed, we never should have heard of this order in Council. These remarks are intended to cast a censure on no one. Those who preferred legislation and those who preferred negotiation, were equally honest in their views. It however appears by the event that the former were, in this case, correct. It is proper moreover that the public should give credit only where it is due, and that however correct and intelligent on commercial subjects Mr. Lloyd may be, he certainly is not entitled to the honor awarded him by the Enquirer and Centinel in regard to this bill. A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
British Order in Council.—In our editorial article of Saturday, in which we took a brief review of facts connected with this subject, so immediately interesting and important to our country at this moment, we alluded to a memorial which was presented to the Senate, early in the session, in behalf of the merchants of Baltimore, praying for the abolishing of the discriminating duties and 10 per cent additional on the duties on their cargoes, and of admitting British vessels, from whatever ports, on the same terms as the vessels of the most favored nations. In the debate which arose, near the close of the session, on the report of the Committee of Commerce, (which was against the prayer of the memorialists,) General Smith exhibited such a perspicuous and able statement of his opinions on this great question, and evinced such a thorough knowledge of his subject, that we think we cannot render a more acceptable service, at this time, to the public, especially to our commercial class of readers, than to republish it at full length. It will be found in the first page, and is taken from the National Intelligencer, as revised we presume, by General Smith himself.
[N. Y. Eve. Post.
CONGRESS.
In Senate of the United States, April 18. 1826.
Mr. Smith, of Maryland, addressed the chair as follows:--
Mr. President— The motion is to discharge the Committee of Commerce from the further consideration of the memorial of the merchants of Baltimore, which prays that British ships may be admitted from the Colonies of Great Britain on payment of the same duties of tonnage and impost as levied by law on the vessels of the United States.
The subject had engaged much of my attention during the recess, and I had come to the conclusion that the United States had acted against its own interest, in not having declared the colonial trade in British ships free of discriminating duties; and soon after the commencement of the present session, I had conversations with the Secretary of State and the President on the subject.
I believe, Mr. President, that there is no difference of opinion; that all who have considered the subject, agree " that our discriminating duties ought to be repealed," as far as they relate to this subject before us: the only difference is the manner. The Committee of Commerce think it better to be done by negotiation. Others think that it can be effected by an act of Congress, which shall meet at once, and without delay, the very liberal offers of Great Britain, made by her act of Parliament of the 27th June, and her two acts of 5th July, 1825. In this last mode I most fully concur. We know what we mean when we act by law. All the branches of the Government then concur, and our acts go into execution without delay. Whereas, if we wait for negotiation, we know not whether instructions have yet gone, nor when the negotiation will terminate. Of this we are certain, that a convention, if made with Great Britain, could not be acted on by the Senate before the next session. In the mean time, our merchants are paying to the colonial Treasuries from 50 to 60,000 per annum. On whom does this tax fall? "On the Agriculturists: for the Merchant must charge what he pays on his commerce; and every charge of the kind must be a deduction from the price of the article she purchases. It is that great interest of our country, that we are most particularly bound to protect and assist. The farmer and planter, at this time require every aid that can be given by lessening charges that may exist, and by reducing the duties on such articles as enter into the consumption of every family, and thereby lessen their family expenses. The middle, or grain growing States have now few markets for their produce, and the demand is small. It is my duty to attend particularly to that interest—in doing so, on the present occasion, I shall also, (if I succeed,) facilitate the merchant and ship owner in their occupation.
Mr. President: before I proceed to take a general view of the subject, I think it best to examine the report of the Committee of Commerce. I have very seldom differed from the very able Chairman of that committee on commercial subjects. In fact we do not now differ on the general subject. We only differ as to the best mode of obtaining the same object.
The first point made in the report is, "that a just reciprocity does not exist," "inasmuch as our merchants must pay the colonial duties in cash, whilst the British merchants have a credit of six or nine months on the duties on their cargoes arriving in the ports of the United States."
Those, sir, are municipal regulations adopted by each nation for its own convenience, and against this difference we have never complained. Great Britain has always exacted cash for the duties imposed by her. But in cases where the duties are very high, she has, to facilitate the importation, given the privilege of depositing the article in the public warehouses, (as for instance, Tobacco,) paying only the duty thereon, as drawn out for consumption.
Her warehousing system has been extended in like manner by her late acts, to the free ports of her colonies, to which a free trade has been opened for our produce, and our manufactures, (with a few exceptions which I shall notice) on which the duties may be paid, or they may be deposited in the public warehouses, where they may remain for two years: no duty payable unless drawn out for consumption; during that period, they may be sold, either in whole packages, or opened and sold in such parts, as may best suit the purchaser, for making up an assorted cargo for the new States. This mode gives a great facility to commerce, and may induce our own merchants to make up their cargoes for that commerce from Jamaica. In fine, if we do not adopt a similar system, our commerce must suffer. Under our drawback system, we can only ship in the original packages; we, therefore, cannot prepare our cargoes properly for the market; if we break a package we lose the drawback, which amounts to a prohibition to the export of the articles. In fact, Mr. President, the British Government are playing a great game. They understand the subject, and unless met by a similar liberal policy, on the part of other nations, they will monopolize the commerce of the world.
The second point made by the Committee, is that bonds are required for the landing of the return cargo in a specified portion of the U. States.
That, sir, was the case formerly, but is not now in existence; the 16th section of the act of 5th July, 1825, designates all that is requisite, on exportation from the colonies; no bond is now required. [Here the section was read.]
In fact, Mr. President, the 4th section of that act permits our vessels, if our restrictions shall be removed, to export goods from the Colonies, " to be carried to any foreign country whatever."
The third point made by the Committee, is " that an export duty of 2 per cent. is imposed on the return cargo to the United States." This is an error, I presume. The late Secretary of State complained of an export duty of 4 per cent. levied on goods shipped from the colonies in vessels of the United States, and not payable in British ships.
That was a strong objection, if it could have been sustained. It was an error, however; at least, it has so appeared to me. That act passed in Parliament many years ago, at a time when no vessels from any foreign country were admitted; of course, the export duty of 4 per cent. could not attach to any but British subjects. It did not affect us until our vessels were admitted, and then (both parties paying the same duties) took from us all fair cause of complaint. The duty in fact fell on the planter; he got just so much less for his sugar, the price of which would be regulated by that of the neighboring Islands. Jamaica protested against that export duty, as contrary to her charter; and as the reason assigned for levying that duty, was, that England paid the expense of the troops for the defence of the Island, the Colonial Assembly agreed to pay those troops; and no export duty has since existed in Jamaica. In some of the Windward Islands, the duty is payable; in Trinidad it is not. The American will only subject himself to its payment at his pleasure; he can take proceeds of his outward, and go elsewhere for his return cargo. The British cannot: for, foreign sugars are not admitted for consumption in Great Britain.
The fourth and fifth points made are: " That an American vessel arriving at a bad market, cannot proceed to another Island without paying double duties, and that onerous and heavy duties, and colonial fees, are exacted."
It is true, sir, that onerous and heavy duties, & Colonial fees, had been exacted in the Colonies, and operated as stated in the report and it is equally true, (as the report says,) that they were highly reprobated by Mr. Huskisson in his speech. That great man and his colleagues form the most able, the most wise, and the most useful administration, that has ever existed in Great Britain— they are doing great good to commerce, great and useful service to the nation, and opening the eyes of the world to the advantages of a free trade; and, sir, Parliament has freed the commerce of the Colonies from almost all the shackles imposed upon it.— None of those onerous duties on navigation, or Colonial fees, now exist; all have been repealed, and the Custom House officers are now paid by fixed salaries. If we repeal our alien duties, our vessels will only have to pay the moderate duty of six cents per ton, and they will not have to pay that, at more than one port—that is, if they remain only 24 hours to inquire the market at one port, and proceed therefrom to another.
The sixth point made is, " that heavy duties are imposed on articles imported into the Colonies from the United States, when no duty is imposed on similar articles, if imported from the North American Colonies;" and the report might have added, that those articles paid no duty, if imported from Great Britain or Ireland, into the Colonies.
That point was the great cause why the United States did not repeal, as to the colonies its alien duties; it was that which induced the United States to refuse to, the Colonies the same free intercourse that had been accorded to the mother country. Our Government in the negotiation, insisted, that there should be charged the same duty on the flour (to take one article) of Great Britain, Ireland, and Canada, as would be payable on the same from the United States. Mr. Canning thought it unreasonable to expect, that a duty paid on foreign produce should be charged to their own, passing from one of the British ports to another, and said, that Great Britain has the same right to complain, (but she had not) that her colonial sugar, when imported into the United States, has to pay a most heavy duty, when the sugar of Louisiana is free from duty. Whatever, sir, of argument we might have had whilst the Colonies were considered, as such, it is now taken from us. The possessions abroad (as they are now called) are considered as integral parts of the British Empire, and of course, we cannot complain, that Great Britain refuses to revert back to feudal times, and exact duties on goods going from one part of the Empire to another.
I will, perhaps, revert to this subject in the general view I mean to take. The fact is, Mr. President, that by refusing to open our ports (as we ought to have done) under the act of Parliament of 1822, we have lost the monopoly which that act gave us, and have compelled Great Britain in self defence, to open the Colonial ports to all the world, and we have thereby compelled them to compete with us.
Hamburg, Bremen, and other parts of Europe. Can we do so, if we by our own folly, continue on our navigation the extra duty of 94 cents per ton, and the 10 per cent. additional to the duties we have to pay, whilst other nations pay no such charges? It is in our power, by an act, to relieve our commerce and navigation from those burdens, and the sole question is, shall we do so, or remain eight or nine months, until a long negotiation, on that and other subjects, shall terminate?

The Committee say, that the memorialists have stated, 'that the Colonial ports were closed in winter to the vessels of the U. States, under a construction of the act of parliament, of July, 1825.' which construction the Committee say, is admitted, even by the British authorities, to have been erroneous. The act of Parliament will best speak for itself. The act appears to me, in the most positive manner, to close the Colonial ports on the 5th January 1826.

Section 1. 'That, from and after the 5th January, 1826, this act shall come into and be and continue in full force and operation, for the regulation of the trade of the British possessions abroad.'

'Section 4. And whereas, by the law of navigation, foreign ships are permitted 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 country whatever; and whereas it is expedient that such permission should be subject to certain conditions: Be it therefore enacted, That the privileges thereby granted to foreign ships, shall be limited to the ships of those countries, not having Colonial possessions which shall place the commerce and navigation of this country, and its possessions abroad, upon the footing of the most favored nation.'

Mr. President, the United States have not placed that commerce and navigation upon the footing of the most favored nation. In consequence, the ports of those possessions were about to be closed, but have been kept open, through the intercession of the British Minister and the request of the officer sent out from London by the customs, until the British Government shall give orders on the subject. But how are they open? -Why, by our paying the enormous duty of 94 cents per ton, &c. on our vessels, and I shall not be much surprised, if they should consent that they should be kept open, by order of council, forever, on those terms. We pay to their revenue 190 dollars, when they pay to ours only ten. It is simply a financial operation.

I have been told by a high officer of the Government, that the act of parliament of 5th July, 1825, prohibits the importation of certain articles of our produce and manufactures into those possessions.

Well, sir, that is true. But it is a curious coincidence, that the United States do by prohibitory duties, exclude the importation of the same articles into the United States. What are they?-

Gunpowder, Arms, Ammunition, or utensils of war.

Well, sir, our duties effectually prohibit them.

Beef, fresh or salted Pork-These also are prohibited by our high prohibitory duties.

Tea-well, sir, Tea is not the produce of Great Britain nor her possessions abroad, and, of course, is prohibited to any foreign nation.

Fish, dried or salted, Train Oil, Blubber, Fins or Skins, the produce of creatures living in the sea.

These are a list of the articles, the importation of which is prohibited to the British possessions abroad, and equally prohibited from import into the United States by our prohibitory duties.

Now, sir. I will ask a question. Suppose Great Britain was to make this offer? Great Britain will repeal her prohibitions on condition that the U. States will repeal her prohibitory duties. I believe I risk little in saying that the answer would be - No. we will not.

Mr. President, the Chairman, (Mr. Lloyd,) made an able report against the memorial of certain merchants of Baltimore, who prayed that the duty on dried fish might be reduced, to enable them to make up their cargoes for South America. Sir, Maryland could not consent to a repeal of those prohibitory duties; she has extensive fisheries. I think there are about one hundred thousand barrels of shad and herring, and ten thousand barrels of pork annually inspected in Baltimore. Not the pork of Maryland, but of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

I will now proceed to a more general view of the whale subject. I will take up as little of the time of the Senate as I can possibly avoid.

For a correct understanding of the causes which have intervened to check free commerce between the United States and the British Colonies in America and their West India Islands, It may not be irrelevant to revert to certain occurrences, and to make some introductory observations.

Commerce and navigation are considered by many as one great whole; but you know that they are separate and distinct interests, however nearly allied. Commerce can exist without the nation being its own carrier, but certainly not with the same advantages, activity, or enterprise.

The Eastern states own nearly one half of the shipping of the U. States; they have little of their own produce, comparatively, and therefore are compelled to seek employment in the Southern States, and elsewhere for their ships. Their merchants, in consequence, look attentively to every thing that related to navigation.

The Southern States having the great and valuable articles of export, are more attentive to commerce; it is not of such vital importance to them whether their produce is carried by the vessels of the one or the other nation.

In the year 1802 or 3, I introduced a resolution into the House of Representatives on the principle of the act of 1815. The members from Philadelphia, and from the cities of the Eastward concurred with me; but the merchants and ship mechanics of those cities opposed the measure unanimously.

When from Baltimore, Southward, it was as generally approved I mention this fact to show how the two interests clashed on that occasion The treaty of Amiens opened the eyes of the ship owners to their true interests; their ships could not get a bale of cotton on freight, at Charleston; whilst the British ships were filled immediately.

In 1815 I proposed the subject again, and an act passed with little opposition. Upon that act was bottomed the convention of London, by which you know, that all duties, tonnage, and charges, on trade between the British possessions in Europe and the United States, are made the same, whether in the ships of the one or the other nation : a rational trade with the East Indies was accorded, whilst the trade with the West Indies was left as it had been restricted. In 1817 Great Britain offered their free port acts of 1808 and 1808 : they were insidious, and were declined.

In June, 1822, an act was passed by Parliament, opening the trade of their colonies in America and their West India Islands to the United States, on terms more liberal than any heretofore offered, yet reserving material advantages.

In anticipation of that act, Congress passed a law on the 6th May, 1822, 'that, on the President's receiving satisfactory evidence that the ports in the islands or colonies of Great Britain have been opened to the vessels of the United States, the President may declare the ports of the United States opened to British vessels trading to and from the colonies, subject to such reciprocal rules and restrictions as he may make and publish; any thing in other contracts to the contrary,' &c. &c. The President issued his proclamation accordingly, dated 24th August, 1822, as a consequence of the act of Parliament referred to, by which the ports of the U. States were opened to British vessels trading between those colonies and the United States, and a circular unfortunately issued from the Treasury, dated 21st Sept., following, directing that the alien duties on tonnage, and light money of 91 cents, and the ten per cent, additional to the duties imposed by law should be levied on British vessels arriving from the colonies aforesaid. The British Government retaliated and charged in their colonies a tonnage duty of 91 cents. and 10 per cent. in addition to the duties; charges never made before. Both our and their alien duties operate solely as revenue; under which we pay ten where they pay one. The proclamation did not direct the alien duties to be charged; and the collector at Eastport did not charge them, (being advised by counsel that he could not,) until he received the Treasury circular. The Treasury charged his account therewith; and congress relieved him at the last session.

On the 1st March 1823, Congress passed an act, reciprocating the act of Parliament, 'on condition that no higher or greater duties of imposts or tonnage were imposed on vessels of the United States, than on vessels of their own or their cargoes; and no other charges of any kind on the one, than on the other; giving full authority to the President to issue a proclamation conformably thereto.' No proclamation, however, has been issued; nor any step taken, except in a circular from the Treasury to the collectors, dated 25th Aug. 1823, which simply confirms the payment of the alien duties on British vessels entering from any of the colonies aforesaid! An open trade has continued ever since; and British vessels from these colonies are admitted into the ports of the United States under the proclamation of August 1822, notwithstanding that the vessels of the United States are subjected to higher duties of imposts and tonnage, than any payable by British vessels.

Permit me to take a view of the act of Parliament, to see whether its operation is such as to ensure to British ships an undue proportion of the carrying trade between the United States and the colonies alluded to in the act.

That act opens to the vessels of the U. States certain ports in which certain specified duties are charged on articles of the United States, 'whether the same be imported direct from the United States in British or American vessels, or circuitously, in British vessels, from the European possessions of Great Britain.' But no duty whatever is imposed on similar articles, the produce &c. &c. of Great Britain or Ireland or of the North American colonies. Thus the flour of Canada, Great Britain and Ireland, and the lumber of the colonies may be imported free of duty. The duty on a barrel of flour in Jamaica is 1 05, which is equal to the freight and insurance from any port in the United States. It is probable, however, that the freight from Montreal and Quebec may cost more. In addition to this difference, our vessels pay the alien tonnage of 94 cts; a charge of about 10 cents per barrel, which with the 10 per cent additional duty, makes a charge of 15 1-2 cents per barrel on flour, when imported in an American vessel, more than would be payable if imported in a British vessel from the United States.

If we had not charged the alien duties, they would not have imposed their retaliation; and the only thing we could have complained of as to that article, would have been, that the flour of Great Britain and of Canada is admitted duty free, while ours paid $1 05 per barrel. Great Britain, it is known, exports little of her own flour to the West Indies, but actually supplies them with our flour, which is imported into Liverpool, and warehoused for exportation. The Canadas can only export during six months in the year They actually export more to Jamaica. The islands are generally supplied from the United States, either direct, or with our flour from Nova Scotia or Great Britain, all paying the same duties. If, then, we were relieved from the alien duties of imposts and tonnage, there can be little doubt that our flour would go direct; and that 2/3ds at least, perhaps 3/4ths thereof, would be carried in American vessels. Even under all these disadvantages, it is certain that more than ten barrels of flour are exported to the colonies, in American vessels, for one British.

Lumber is charged with duties when from the United States, and pays no duty when imported into the British West Indies when from her American Colonies; this gives an advantage to the Colonial vessels over those of the United States in particular kinds of lumber. But it is a mistake to suppose the disadvantage falls on the Eastern States only, 'and particularly on Maine:' for the fact is, that lumber is exported in great quantities, from all the Southern States to the British West Indies, but particularly from North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Norfolk. White pine boards and plank it is true, are exported in great quantities from the Eastern States; but pitch pine, in planks and boards, shingles and staves, are exported chiefly from North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Norfolk. Large quantities of staves were formerly exported from Maryland, and other states, and many are still exported. The duty, (Mr. Adams says, is ten per cent. on the cost. I cannot think that so small a duty would operate very powerfully: we could not be worse off: for we have now, not only to pay that duty, but 10 per cent. thereon; and what is more onerous is, the 94 cents of tonnage duty.

Flour and lumber, are, I believe, the articles on which we bottom our complaints; Indian corn may be another; it is free of duty from Nova Scotia: none, however, has ever been imported from thence into Jamaica; indeed, I am informed that the corn of the United States is imported into that colony for its consumption. Our corn pays the heavy duty of twelve and a half cents per bushel, being 25 per cent. on its average cost, and may have been imposed to induce the Planters to continue its cultivation.

There are several valuable articles necessary to the West Indies, which can only be drawn from the United States; the retaliation duties on which fall heavily on the merchants and cultivator. I am surprised that they are not carried by British ships alone. If, however, they are carried (as I am told they are principally,) in our vessels, they are subjected to the heavy charge of alien duties which might have been avoided. The articles, are Rice, Indian Corn, Corn Meal, (kiln-dried) Tar, Pitch, Turpentine, Tobacco, Peas, Ship Bread, (bakers.) Live stock, and Pitch, Pine Boards, Plank, and Timber; those articles are, with few exceptions, from the South and Middle States.

Mr. Adams (in his letter to Mr. Rush, of 25th June, 1825,) mentions an export duty in the W. Indies, payable on articles permitted to be exported to the United States, of four to five per cent. not imposed on the same when imported to the North American Colonies. He justly considered it as an additional injury to a fair intercourse — But, is such duty really charged? It certainly is not on the exports from Jamaica. I have before me an invoice of Coffee, dated 28th November, 1825 for account of Mr. McKim, and one of Coffee, Sugar, and other articles, for Mr. Patterson, of December, 1823, in which no such charge has been made; nor is any such duty in Jamaica known to any of our merchants. I have conversed with two agents from Commercial houses in Jamaica, and they say they know of no export duty except on Cocoa and Ginger, which is paid by all parties. One of them supposes that the idea of such a duty may have arisen from the following fact:

In the year---. Parliament passed an act, imposing a tax on the Planters of four per cent. on all the exports from their estates. The tax was resisted by the Islands, as being a violation of their charters; after much controversy, Jamaica offered in lieu thereof, that the Colony would pay the white troops employed for its defence-the offer was accepted. The other Islands being unable to adopt the compromise, have paid the four per cent. On export, it must have been paid by the North American Colonies and Great Britain, for the ships of no foreign nation were admitted.

The port charges, and pilotage of vessels from the U. States, are the same in Jamaica, whether they be British or American, (except on the retaliatory duties British vessels from the North American Provinces, pay precisely the same port charges and pilotage as those from the U. States.

It is idle for us to complain that British ships only are permitted to carry from one Colony to another: that is, to all intents, the same as our coasting trade.

Again if Canada, Great Britain, and Ireland, were able to supply the West Indies with their own flour, on which no duty would be payable, whilst ours paid a duty, then our trade with the Islands would be less useful, but we would have no just cause of complaint; the same principle exists now: for, the grain and flour of Canada are admitted into Great Britain, when the average price in the market is less than that which the same may be imported from the United States; still, we should have the supplying of the Island with many articles, as already stated, which cannot be supplied from Great Britain, or any of her possessions.

I cannot perceive any cause we have to fear a competition in the article of flour; or in any other article which we are permitted to import into the Colonies on the terms proposed by the act of Parliament. Let the alien duties be repealed on both sides, and our enterprise, our proximity, and our articles, essential to the Islands, will do the rest.

The profit to the merchant in the West India trade is trifling; in general, it scarcely pays a moderate freight; but the trade gives employment to our vessels and seamen; and demands much of our produce. - Jamaica alone consumes more than 60,000 barrels of flour, annually; and about as much is consumed in all the other British Islands. Canada (if ever able to supply,) can only do it, as I have already said, for six months in the year; and there is little danger of Great Britain and Ireland furnishing the quantity necessary for the other six months with their own flour. Vessels from Canada cannot make more than one voyage in the year to Jamaica, when ours can make four or five. I can, Mr. President, see no danger from the repealing our alien duties to British vessels engaged in the Colonial trade, and hope that the Committee of Commerce will be directed to report a bill for their repeal.