these causes, their trade with us is trifling, and either stationary or declining, while that with our colonies is enormous, steady, and constantly increasing. In truth, however, it is not difficult to perceive to what cause the total failure of all attempts at commercial increase with the old states of Europe is to be ascribed. Mr Alison observed at the Glasgow dinner, "It is easy to see to what cause this remarkable decline in our trade with old nations, and this marvellous increase in our commercial intercourse with our own colonies, is to be ascribed. It is evidently owing to the fact, that these old states are in the same state of civilisation with ourselves, and therefore they are actuated by a natural desire to deal in the same articles, and to manufacture the same produce as ourselves. Are we cotton-spinners?—so are they. Are we iron-masters?—so are they. Are we silk manufacturers?—so are they. Are we cutlery and hardware merchants?—so are they. Are we clothiers and woollen-drapers?—so are they. There is no branch of industry in which we excel, in which they are not all making the greatest and most strenuous, and sometimes successful, efforts to rival and outstrip us. It is in vain that we meet them with the signs of amity, and hold out the olive branch in token of our desire to establish reciprocity treaties on the footing of real mutual advantage. We cannot, by so doing, either shut the eyes of their manufacturers to the danger of British competition, or close the vision of their governments to the dazzling spectacle of British greatness. They see that we have risen to the summit of prosperity under the system of protection to domestic industry, and they naturally imagine that it is only by following our example that they can hope to rival our success. It is in vain that we now offer to meet them on the footing of perfect reciprocity. They say—'It is very well for you to throw down the barriers when your superiority in every branch of industry is incontestible. When ours is the same, we will follow your example; in the mean time, you must allow us to imitate the steps which enabled you to reach the elevated position which you now enjoy.' Gentlemen, it is difficult to see the answer which can be made to such arguments."
Powerful as are these considerations, derived from the commercial and manufacturing interests of Great Britain, in favour of her colonial settlements, the facts pointing the same way, deducible from the shipping interests, are, if possible, still more conclusive. The essential difference between the shipping, which carries on a trade between the colonies and the mother country, is, that it is, as in the former case, all our own—in the latter, one-half belongs to our enemies. This difference is so enormous, the effects it produces on our maritime strength are so extraordinary, that, numerous as are the details which we have already given, we cannot resist the temptation of contrasting our shipping and tonnage with some of the principal foreign powers with whom we have concluded reciprocity treaties with that which we carry on with our own colonies.
BRITISH AND FOREIGN TONNAGE WITH RECIPROCITY
COUNTRIES.
 | A table should appear at this position in the text. See Help:Table for formatting instructions. |
BRITISH. FOREIGN.
Ships. Tons. Ships. Tons.
Sweden, . 66 10,865 250 42,439
Norway, 15 1,573 785 125,875
Denmark, 16 2,152 694 51,907
Prussia, 270 42,567 903 174,439
France, 2,036 198,339 1,740 108,352
United States, 226 86,383 524 226,483
COLONIAL TRADE.
BRITISH.
Ships. Tons.
East India Company's Territories, Singapore and Ceylon, 227 97,034
New South Wales, . . 59 19,195
British Northern Colonies, 2,026 620,772
British West Indies, 900 237,922
