Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

fore, my noble friend will find, that though the declared value of our exports may have decreased, that circumstance affords no proof of the trade being injured. Now, I can readily account for the increased quantity of the raw material consumed. There is a grow ing taste for silk manufactures; it is a taste which we cannot do better than encourage. Cotton and wool have been heretofore formidable rivals with silk; and cotton and woollen goods have entered into great competition with silk goods. But there is a growing desire in this country for silk; and will it not be better, by the low price of the article, to enable the people to consume it more largely? and shall we not be thereby affording the greatest possible advantage to the trade ?"

Twenty-five years ago, the silk trade attracted the attention of the House of Lords. That very tribunal referred to by Lord George Bentinck as being the body to do justice to those parties whose distresses he detailed-that very tribunal which he hoped would reject this measure, if it should pass this House-that very House of Lords came to a resolution, in 1821, that if a small duty only were levied on organzine silk, our manufactures would have nothing to dread from the competition of French silk, and that if even the duty were reduced to 12 or 15 per cent., a considerable augmentation of exports might be reasonably expected. The present Government had taken the largest of these two sums: so that, "after an interval of twenty-five years, having reduced the duty on organzine silk, and upon all the raw material, and having given every advantage for the introduction of the raw material as far as

we can--we propose, not their fullest reduction of the duty on the article for the benefit of the consumer, not their lowest amount of 12 per cent., but their highest amount of 15 per cent.; and when the House of Lords shall refer to the report of their own Committee, I shall be surprised indeed if they do reject the present measure of Her Majesty's Government."

The sympathies of the House had been excited in behalf of milliners and dressmakers; but Sir Robert thought that if one class more than another had injuries inflicted upon them by the illicit introduction of goods which ought to pay the duty, it was that very class. He believed that at any time, upon the payment of an insurance, silk goods and dresses to any amount might be delivered in a contraband way, at a sum not exceeding the duty now proposed. One great object of the proposed measure was to do away with this illicit traffic, by the substitution of moderate duties. From these changes the revenue would be improved, and the interests of all classes consulted and promoted.

Mr. Disraeli was anxious to say a few words on the reply of Sir Robert Peel to Lord George Bentinck, in which he had made one more effort to induce honourable gentlemen to vote with him. Great stress had been laid upon the temptations which the present duties supplied to smugglers, and the difficulty of resisting their operations when the duties were 30 per cent.; but what he was curious to learn from Sir Robert Peel was, how Her Majesty's Government managed to battle with the smuggler who, in the case of tobacco, had the inducement held out by a protection duty of 1,200 per cent.,

and in the case of tea by a duty of 250 per cent. Mr. Disraeli thought that the sufferings of the silkweavers in 1812 were owing to other causes than protection. It was a disastrous period of terrible war-a period when, he believed, wheat was at 120s. per quarter; it was a period almost as unfortunate for trade as the one to which Sir Robert Peel had referred the period of 1816, which remained almost unprecedented for the general commercial depression of the country. Sir Robert Peel had asked why the manufacturers had not complained, if the proposed reduction was likely to tell against their interests? To this question he had himself supplied the answer. The manufacturers had not complained, just for the same reason that gentlemen opposite were equally indulgent they wished the Corn Bill to pass. But the manufacturers of England, as well as honourable gentlemen opposite, would show to the right honourable Baronet that there was yet some sympathy with the working classes in this country, and that economical blunders would not pass without criticism where there was not a great object to prevent persons from being critical.

On a division, the numbers

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

venue: he did not think the French Government would lower their duties in return; he thought it would be better to retain the existing duty, and to abolish the duty on soap. Mr. Ewart thought the reduction would lead to an extension of our trade in France. The Marquis of Granby spoke of the demoralizing effects of cheap spirits. Mr. Cardwell mentioned, that the ordinary consumption of brandy in this country at the close of the last century was greater than at the present day; a circumstance owing probably to the duty having been increased from 6s. to 22s. 10d. In the case of Ireland and Scotland, it had been found that a judicious reduction of duty had improved the revenue and discouraged illicit distillation. Our trade with France was not what it ought to be; but the reduction of duties had led to a large increase, from 602,0001. in 1831 to 2,600,000l. last year. A division took place, and the resolution was carried by 64 to 35.

Upon the resolution being proposed for abolishing the duty on live animals, viz. asses, goats, oxen, sheep, lambs, &c.,

Mr. Miles opposed the motion. He regretted that Ministers had determined to remit the small duty which had been retained in the tariff of 1842, on the importation of foreign cattle. He showed that that duty had neither been prohibitory nor unproductive; and, if the supply of foreign beasts for the market at Smithfield had been recently stopped, it was owing to the reluctance of the importers to introduce any foreign cattle until the present duty was repealed. When that duty was taken off, the market would be quite "inundated" with foreign cattle. He thought that the duty ought to be retained until

the expiration of the Corn Laws; and such being his opinion, he moved, as an amendment, to strike out of the resolution the words, "oxen and bulls, cows, lambs, swine and hogs, bacon, beef salted, pork fresh, pork salted," &c.

Colonel Sibthorp seconded the amendment, and in the course of his observations remarked, that his constituents had expressed their deep regret that he had not accepted the challenge of Sir R. Peel, and applied for the Chiltern Hundreds; for they assured him that they would in that case have returned him without expense or trouble to himself, for the sake of showing how deeply they detested the principles and measures of the present Government.

Mr. P. Howard suggested the imposition of a small legislative duty on the importation of foreign cattle, for the sake of ascertaining the number of cattle imported.

Sir R. Peel justified the reduction of duty now proposed, and showed that it could not be productive of any injury to the agricultural interest. Competition with Irish cattle was quite as formidable to the English grazier as competition with Dutch and Danish cattle. And yet the English grazier competed successfully with the Irish grazier; why, then, should he be afraid of competing with the foreigner? It was said that the price of cattle had rccently increased. Now, did it never occur to the Protectionists that the increased price might be occasioned by increased consumption, and that increased consumption might be the result of the labouring classes having enjoyed, during the last year, better wages and more constant employment? At any rate you put a check upon extravagant prices, by increasing

the import. Now, if this reduction did no more than put a check upon extravagant prices, it did no injury to agriculture, and was a benefit to the rest of the community. In conclusion he observed, that Mr. Howard's suggestion was unnecessary, as the number of foreign cattle imported into this country could be ascertained by other means.

An agricultural discussion then took place, in which Mr. Finch, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Tyrrell, Mr. Villiers, Sir J. Trollope, Mr. P. Borthwick, Sir J. Walsh, Mr. E. Yorke, Sir C. Knightly, Mr. C. Bruce, and Lord G. Bentinck joined, and in which the speakers digressed into the most multifarious and discordant topics. The Excise duties were discussed, so too was the malt tax, and the comparative merit of malt and oilcake in fattening cattle. The influence of railroads was taken into consideration, as was also the state of Ireland, the predial outrages of its peasantry, and the want of employment among its population generally. The disinterestedness of the landowners and the selfish objects of the manufacturers in propagating free-trade principles, and in seeking the repeal of the Corn Laws, were dwelt upon ;-the impossibility of relying on the professions of Government, on the probability of Sir R. Peel's scheme being rejected by the House of Lords, and the certainty of the Protectionists obtaining a majority in the next Parliament, if an appeal were now made to the country. The House then divided, when there appeared

For the amendment
Against it

[ocr errors]

Majority against it.

[ocr errors]

72 111

39

The next discussion which took place of any importance arose upon the proposed reduction of the duty on timber.

The Marquis of Worcester moved that it be erased from the resolutions, on the ground that the timber trade and the shipping interest had been materially injured by the past relaxation of protection, and that they would be still more extensively injured by the reduction now proposed. The Canada timber trade was carried on by British ships alone; the Baltic timber trade was carried on by ships of which five-sixths belonged to the nations on the shores of the Baltic. Ought the House to legislate for the benefit of the nations on those shores, or for the benefit of Great Britain and her colonies?

Mr. H. Hinde expressed his astonishment that no Member on the Treasury benches had risen to explain the reasons which had induced them to propose this great and startling change in the timber duties. Those who had petitioned for that change were but a small portion of the ship-owners of this country. The ship-owners generally were not the disciples of free trade; they had been injured too much by free-trade measures to wish to have them extended to other classes. He then entered into a history of the timber trade, full of statistics, for the purpose of showing that it had been much injured by the past relaxations of protection; and wound it up by a declaration that the landed interest did not seek the maintenance of the timber duties for any selfish objects. The proposed reduction would be productive of the most injurious effects upon the relations between this country and her colo

nies. If the House should adopt it, it might as well make a present to the United States, not only of the Oregon, but of Canada and New Brunswick too. He concluded by putting this question to the Ministerial bench, "If you carry out the principles of free trade to their full extent, of what use will the Colonies be to the mother country?"

Mr. Cardwell defended the course adopted by the Government, and justified the resolution then before the House. He proceeded to show that under past relaxation the timber trade with Canada, instead of being injured, had actually doubled in value, and to infer therefrom that there would be no occasion to surrender Canada to the United States, as Mr. Hinde had predicted, but that the connection with this country would still be of mutual advantage. He also entered into a statement to prove that no injury either had been done or would be done by the relaxation of duty to the growers of British timber. The present prices proved that the relaxation of duties had conferred a great benefit upon them, for they were now 16 per cent. more than they were between 1833 and 1840.

Mr. A. Chapman implored the House to take care that it did not injure the shipping interest by transferring the timber trade from Canada to the Baltic. He had reason to dread that the interest of his constituents would be seriously injured by such a transfer. Timber was a fair subject for taxation, for it could not be smuggled; and with the great extension of railways which was now going on throughout the country, there must be a great and growing demand for it. He hoped that the maritime interests of the country would not

be affected by the reduction now proposed.

Captain Harris was of opinion, that this resolution, if adopted by the House, would strike a heavy blow against the North American trade; and that by so doing it would inflict a great injury on the service to which he had the honour to belong.

Mr. G. Palmer opposed the resolution as fraught with danger to every interest of the country, and more particularly to the shipping interest. Sir R. Peel claimed the merit of the first relaxation of protection, by which that interest had been attacked; and he (Mr. G. Palmer) would take care that he should have the full responsibility of proposing the last. He compared Sir Robert Peel to Ahab's prophet of old, who was permitted to deceive himself in order to bring down punishment upon others.

Mr. Warburton, having stated that he had once been largely engaged in the timber trade, proceeded to compliment Sir Robert Peel for the improvement which he had introduced into the mode of collecting and levying the duties on timber. He showed that great benefit had been conferred on the European timber trade, and also on the colonial timber trade, by the tariff of 1842; all the predictions of those who then opposed it had been falsified by events, for the duties, though much reduced, produced within 200,000l., the same amount of revenue as was formerly produced by the higher duties. When so much improvement was in progress in all parts of the country, ought the Government to stand still and allow the timber of the colonies to be raised to an exorbitant price? The Legislature might blame itself if the

ships trading to and from the Baltic were foreign bottoms, for this was occasioned by its absurd regulations respecting the importation of foreign corn. After recommending this measure as an excellent financial and mercantile measure, he proceeded to state several strong political reasons for restoring our trade with Norway to the condition in which it had been before the war of 1793. The Norwegians were formerly proud of serving in our navy, and of wearing on their breasts the medals granted to them for their share in our naval victories; a bar, therefore, ought not to be placed upon their ports. Our trade with them had ceased, and our Canadian timber trade had commenced in consequence of our two expeditions to Copenhagen. A considerable trade had since sprung up between Norway and France; and to draw it back into its ancient channel, we ought to give every encouragement to the merchandize of Norway.

Mr. Borthwick admitted that there were strong political reasons for encouraging friendly relations with Norway, but contended that there were still stronger political reasons for encouraging friendly relations with our fellow subjects in Canada.

He contended that the British consumer and the Canadian grower would be losers by the change now proposed. As it placed foreigners on an equality with our own subjects, he should certainly vote against this reduction.

Mr. Henley, in a short speech, declared his intention of supporting the shipping interest, and of voting against this resolution.

Mr. Hume should give his support to this resolution, although

« AnteriorContinuar »