of similar roads in most other places. The great size of these two towns, and still more their intimate connection,-Liverpool being, in fact, the port of Manchester and of the entire cotton district,-occasions a very great intercourse between them: the number of passengers and the quantity of goods that are always in the course of being conveyed from the one to the other, is far greater than between any two equally distant places in the empire. If a rail-road had not succeeded in such a situation, it would have been madness to attempt the formation of one, at least as a mercantile speculation, any where else. No general estimate can be formed of the comparative cost of canals and rail-roads; as it must, in every given instance, depend on special circumstances. It is, however, certain, that the cost of rail-roads, and particularly of keeping up the locomotive engines, is far greater than it was supposed it would be a short time since. It is reasonable, indeed, inasmuch as these engines are only in their infancy, to suppose that they will be gradually improved, and that ultimately their expense will be materially reduced; but at present it is a heavy drawback from the other advantages of rail-roads. In as far as respects the conveyance of heavy goods, we believe that, even between Manchester and Liverpool, canals are generally preferred. It is not very material whether a ton of lime, or coal, or of manure, be moved with a velocity of 3 or 10 miles an hour; at least, the advantage of superior speed would, in such a case, be effectually overbalanced by a small additional charge. The wonderful performances of the engines between Liverpool and Manchester struck, in the first instance, every one with astonishment, and led to the most extravagant speculations. It was supposed that the whole country would be forthwith intersected by rail-roads; that locomotive engines would be as common as stage coaches; and that the only way in which the canal proprietors could escape ruin, would be by converting canals into rail-roads! Soberer and sounder views are now entertained. The price of canal stock has recovered from the depression which it suffered in 1826. And it seems to be generally admitted, that rail-roads between distant places, at least where a canal has already been constructed, must depend for returns chiefly on the conveyance of passengers and light goods; and that it would not be prudent to undertake their construction, except between places that have a very extensive intercourse together. Steam Carriages on common Roads.-The late committee of the House of Commons have collected a good deal of evidence as to the probability of advantageously using locomotive engines, or steam carriages, on common roads. Most of the witnesses seem to be very sanguine in their expectations; nor, after what has been effected, can such anticipations be deemed unreasonable. Mr. Farey, a very eminent practical engineer, declares that "what has been done proves to his satisfaction the practicability of impelling stage coaches by steam on good common roads, in tolerably level parts of the country, without horses, at a speed of 8 or 10 miles an hour." Mr. Farey further states, that he believes "that steam coaches will, very soon after their first establishment, be run for one-third of the cost of the present stage coaches." We suspect that the latter part of this statement is a good deal more problematical than the first; but since there is nothing better than conjecture on which to found an opinion, it would be useless to indulge in further speculations.' pp. 897-899. The article on 'Colonies' is one of the most extensive and important in the volume, embracing a sketch of the ancient and modern systems of colonization, an examination of the principles of colonial policy, and a statistical view of the British and other European colonies. Here we are upon debateable ground. Professor M'Culloch is the uncompromising and thorough enemy of all restrictions upon the colonial trade, as being injurious and unjust to the colonies themselves, and ultimately of no real use, but the reverse, to the mother country. He seems to contemplate the retention of colonies as, indeed, of little advantage. Has the independence of the United States,' he asks, 'been in any respect injurious to us?' 6 So far from this, it is certain that it has redounded materially to our advantage. We have been relieved from the expense and trouble of governing extensive countries at a great distance from our shores, at the same time that we have continued to reap all the advantage that we previously reaped from our intercourse with them..... The expense of the colonies is a very heavy item in the national expenditure-far more so than is generally supposed. Not only are we subjected, as in the case of timber, to oppressive discriminating duties on foreign articles, that similar articles from the colonies may enjoy the monopoly of our markets, but we have to defray a very large sum on account of their military and naval expenditure. There are no means by which to estimate the precise amount of this expense; but it is, notwithstanding, abundantly certain, that Canada and the islands in the West Indies cost us annually, in military and naval outlays, upwards of a million and a half in time of peace, exclusive of the revenue collected in them. And if to this heavy expense were added the vast additional sums their defence cost, during war, the debtor side of a fairly drawn up colonial budget would attain to a very formidable magnitude; and one which, we apprehend, could not possibly be balanced.' pp. 314, 318. 6 6 An argument is always to be suspected of involving some fallacy, that proves too much; and such, we must confess, appears to us to be the case in the present instance. If the only use ' of colonies' be, the monopoly of their consumption and the carriage of their produce,' as Lord Sheffield declared, (and Professor M'Culloch, while he rejects this opinion, does not clearly state what he conceives to be their real and legitimate use to the mother country,) and if at the same time this monopoly is of no real use, and the same countries would afford the same vent for our commerce, if they were not colonies,-what is this but maintaining that colonies are of no use whatever? The Author hopes that it will not be supposed, nevertheless, that he considers the 6 foundation of colonial establishments as, generally speaking, inexpedient. It is not to the establishment of colonies that he objects, but to the trammels that have been laid on their industry, and to the interference exercised by the mother country in their domestic concerns. Occasions may occur, when the soundest policy dictates the propriety of supporting and protecting them ' until they are in a situation to support and protect themselves.' But surely the right of interference, however much to be deprecated is the indiscreet exercise of that right, must belong to the protective Government. And so long as those colonies require such protection, it is but just that they should be made to yield some advantage in return to the parent State. But Mr. M'Culloch seems to doubt, with Sir Henry Parnell, whether colonies can, as such, be of any advantage to the mother country. Europe has been prodigiously benefited by the colonization of America, it is admitted, inasmuch as it has immeasurably extended the empire of civilization, and opened new marts for commerce; but it is the formation of such colonies, not our possession of them, it seems, that is so beneficial. That there should be such countries to trade with, is an advantage; but that they should belong to us, is a disadvantage. If they did not belong to us, we should save all the expense of governing them, and yet derive from them precisely the same commercial advantages. Now surely this is taking much more for granted, than is warranted by either facts or sober calculation.. What has created the commerce and maritime greatness of Great Britain, but her colonies ? And what are many of those colonies but out posts for the maintenance of our power? To represent the military and naval expenditure occasioned by the colonies as incurred simply on account of the colonies themselves, is palpably fallacious. If Malta, Gibraltar, and the Ionian Islands cost us the expense of a garrison, is the command of the Mediterranean of no advantage to our commerce? If the former two were ceded to Spain, and the latter abandoned to the protection of Russia, would our commerce suffer no detriment? Or if the Cape, the Mauritius, and Ceylon were given up to the Dutch, would our ascendancy in the Indian Seas, and the security of our Indian empire, be in no wise affected? Yet, all these would be sacrificed by Sir Henry Parnell's sweeping plans of colonial reduction. If perpetual peace could be secured, some of our possessions might be safely parted with; but upon his principles of financial reform, it were better to discard them all as useless incumbrances. If, however, our colonies be in fact the bulwarks of our commerce, the expense of maintaining them must be set against the total revenue derived from our commerce, not against what is furnished by the colonies themselves. If they are not in a si tuation to maintain their political independence, it were unreasonable to require that they should defray the whole military and naval expense of their being protected; for this would be in effect to protect themselves, which it is supposed that they are unable to do. But, for this political protection to which they owe their security, whether it be that of the mother country, or of any foreign power, they may justly be expected to yield some compensation; and if the monopoly of their trade can be made of advantage, it is but a fair equivalent. Yet, it is not for the sake of that monopoly merely, that they are of value, but as military and naval stations; and in protecting them, the mother country protects her own interests. That the colonies ought to defray the charges of their civil establishment and internal defence, is but reasonable; and this they do, with the exception, we believe, of our slave colonies, where the presence of a considerable military force is required, not to defend the islands against foreign enemies, but to keep down the black population. The expediency of retaining such colonies may, indeed, be questioned. The system of government in the West India islands, is upon the most expensive scale; and were slavery abolished, nearly the whole of the military expenditure which they entail, might be saved. The charge of their naval protection would then alone devolve upon this country; and that is the fair price of the security of our commerce. When colonies become strong enough not merely to govern, but also to protect themselves, and when they find it cheaper to do so, than to buy the protection of a distant State, then, being virtually independent because capable of asserting their independence, it may be for the interests of all parties, that a political separation should take place. At all events, it is likely to ensue. That the separation of the American colonies from Great Britain, was in no respect injurious either to them or to this country, we cannot indeed admit. The injury has been more than repaired; it has been exceedingly counterbalanced by the marvellous expansion of the united colonies into a powerful State, exerting a salutary moral re-action upon the decrepit governments of Europe. But at the time, the separation, being premature as well as violent, was productive of mutual injury. And had not Great Britain retained, by means of her Canadian and other colonies, the means of indemnifying herself for the loss, the blow to our commerce would have been fatal. As it is, our share of the American trade is now become more valuable than the monopoly of the colonial trade was prior to the separation; and the population of British America at this moment, is almost equal to that of the Thirteen Colonies at the middle of the last century *. * In 1748, their total population was estimated at about 1,100,000. Nova The greatest advantage that America has gained by the separation, has been, perhaps, the privilege of a pacific neutrality amid jealous belligerent nations, and security against aggression from any European power. Except as having escaped from implication in the politics of the mother country, she would otherwise have reaped little solid advantage. Prior to their becoming independent, Professor M'Culloch remarks, Every thing relating to the internal regulation and administration of the different colonies, was determined in the colonial assemblies by representatives freely chosen by the settlers. The personal liberty of the citizens was well secured and vigilantly protected. And if we except the restraint on their commerce, the monopoly of which was jealously guarded by the mother country, the inhabitants of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New England enjoyed nearly the same degree of freedom, when colonists of England, that they now enjoy as citizens of the powerful republic of North America. Their progress in wealth and population was in consequence quite unprecedented in the history of the world.' p. 312. For several years after the commencement of the French Revolution, the state of the political world favoured the enterprise of the Americans, whose vessels, as neutrals, were employed to carry from port to port the commodities of the belligerents. In fifteen years, reckoning from 1793, these favourable circumstances increased the amount of American tonnage from 491,000 to 1,242,000 tons. This accidental advantage resulting from the separation of the American Colonies from Great Britain, does not, however, fairly come under consideration, in estimating the general benefits of detaching colonies from the mother country. But for the war, it is not impossible that the progress of America in wealth and population would have been quite as rapid, had the colonies still continued to acknowledge the sceptre of Great Britain. At all events, before their separation can be regarded as a precedent establishing the advantage of getting rid of our colonies as fast as possible, it may be as well to inquire, in what respects the loss of Brazil and the Indies has redounded to the advantage of Portugal, what France has gained by the independence of Hayti and the loss of her other colonies, and how much Spain has saved by being relieved from the expense and trouble of governing Mexico and Colombia. Till this is satisfactorily ascertained, we really think that it would be unwise to sacrifice the Canadas either to financial reform or to political hypothesis; more especially as the Canadians seem at present to be too well aware of Nova Scotia contained only 13,000, and Canada about 70,000. The Canadas and Nova Scotia now contain between 900,000 and a million. |