1826.] Navigation Laws. 627° 
bast seq to eanilid rif j seensvisyisuloxs 
only not retrogading. . What, for instance, has the removal of the io dis- 
criminating duties” done for the Norway trade? Next to nothing. But 
people were found to petition against the remoyal—yes, just. to give Mr. 
H..an opportunity, of making a logical triumph, and of exhibiting some 
extraordinary, intelligence relative to Norway ships. The amount of the 
« discriminating duties.”.on the» Norway trade was 2s. 9d.; that is, the 
home ship paid 55s., and the Norway 57s. 9d. per load of fifty feet. « We 
are ruined,’ say, the petitioners, ‘ by the withdrawing of this two-and- 
ninepenny protection; we can no longer compete with the Norway 
ships. —‘ Nonsense!’ replies Mr. H.; ¢ you tell me yourselves—and T 
believe it to be so—that the Norway ships are built expressly for timber 
—cheaply, rudely, unfit for any other purpose; that, in short, they are 
sent to sea and navigated at less than half the expense of British ships.. 
Of what significance, then, is this paltry 2s. 9d.? None to you, and only 
calculated to excite < irritation’ in Norway.’ If Mr. H. had really be- 
even the fact of cheaper construction, the obvious reply was—‘ Then 
0 not employ your superior ships for so coarse a commodity ; build 
your own ships in the same way; do as they do; and then you may 
compete with them without danger.’ But this is all little or nothing to 
the purpose ; the real gist of complaint, on the part of the British trade 
to Norway, lies not in the removal of the ‘ discriminating duties,’ but in 
the continuance of the really prohibiting duty upon Norway timber. 
The Government are forcing the Canada timber upon the country, to the 
exclusion of the Norway timber—the worse timber, that is, for the better 
—under the pretence, of course, of benefitting our colonies, though that 
benefit be actually the injury of the mother country. © The fact is, that 
the Norway timber is loaded with a duty of 55s. where the Canada pays 
only 10s. ; ‘and of deals—planks, that is—to which now the Norway im- 
ports are chiefly confined, those above seven inches wide, and under 
sixteen feet long, positively pay £19, while from Canada the duty is 
only £2. Mr. H. talks of removing ‘the < discriminating duty,’ because 
it was calculated to ‘ excite irritation.’ What thinks he then of a duty of 
450 per cent. on timber, and 850 per cent. on deals, beyond that upon 
Canada timber ? This is felt to be a serious grievance to Norway; and 
she, of course, will do what she can—though that perhaps be little—to 
retaliate. She is already driven from our shores, and imports almost 
wholly from France and the South. We beg to recommend the case of 
Norway to. Mr. H.’s consideration—who is so ready to talk of our gene- 
 rous abandonment of restrictions —to promote the freedom of commerce, 
and remove ‘irritations.’ There happens to be another little matter 
relative to Norway. Her timber is short, compared with that of Russia 
ne, Prussia ; yet can Prussia and Russia import deals, we know not 
ow many feet longer than Norway, and pay no more duty. So much 
for ayoiding < irritations !’ 
= }%! 
4 ee 
93612 & ‘eb! 
Sige bat ol HE QUEEN OF PRUSSIA’S TOMB, 
on susguonsl orl) zi ‘* Courage was cast about her like a dress 
; ; Of solemn comeliness ; 
BVIGWOI BNO 10e A gathered mind and an untroubled face 
SA wok easie tad¥ Did give her dangers grace.” 
y4i9010 (991 orld Iv stands where northern willows weep, 
ni .ovitit _ a), A temple fair and lone ; 
Soft shadows o’er its marble sweep, 
i 1 From cypress branches thrown ; 
4L2 
