there would have been no difficulty; but for this even England, advised by Mr. Huskisson, was not prepared. There must then have been a particular stipulation with each country, and an adjustment of duty on each article. One country would require the favourable admission of wines, another of timber, another of hemp. From one we should have required the reciprocal admission of hardware, from another of woollens, from another of piece goods. We should have had to decide, in each case, what among our exportable goods to select as most valuable, and what among foreign articles to admit as least injurious. We have a reasonable respect for Boards of Trade, but we doubt whether the wisest of them would have arrived at an arrangement by which they would at once have satisfied English interests, and made a good and acceptable bargain with the foreigner. Two countries press for the admission of the same article-France and Portugal for winesSweden and Russia for timber. We must take care that we sell to France the liberty to import wines for no higher a price on the admission of our manufactures, than we get from Portugal. Yet probably the price given by France and by Portugal would be in different commodities, and we might have to prove that the admission of razors into France at so many fraucs, was just equivalent, in point of advantage to England, to the admission of woollen cloths into Portugal at so many milreis. If not, we wrong the country from whom we acquire the more advantageous bargain. Or suppose we extend the bargain reciprocally to all manufactures; are they all to be admitted at the same duty? Will this be an equal bargain in the opinion of our manufacturers? No; then we must have a detailed adjustment: and thus we must fix the duties on all articles of export and import for a period of ten years or more. And in this arrangement we must include corn, so as to put out of our hands that article of necessary subsistence; or we must exclude it, which would necessarily occasion a corresponding exception, not of the same, but of some commodity deemed equivalent, on the part of Prussia, and America, and every corn-exporting country. And with respect to corn, as well as timber, we should have, in our colonies, a third and important interest to consult. We will venture to say that the system of "free trade, upon a fair principle of reciprocity," would prove to be the most artificial and complicated, inconsistent, unequal and unpopular arrangement, that even the restrictive school could advise. On the whole then, we are inclined to approve of the course which the government of 1825 pursued. Mr. Huskisson might be too sanguine in his expectations of an imitation of our policy by France; but he was not the less right in setting her the exam ple; and so thought, at that time, Mr. Baring himself.* Yet the petitioners are surely warranted in affirming that the adoption of a more enlightened and conciliatory policy, on the part of this country, would tend to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign states. "Independent," the petitioners proceed, " of the direct benefit to be derived by this country on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred." To this opinion we heartily subscribe, considering the establishment of a general and simple principle as one of the most advantageous results of the new system; and we are confident that the more nearly that principle approaches to the "laissez faire," the government will gain in safety, as well as in facility. The petitioners, after disclaiming all intention of requiring the repeal of custom duties imposed for purposes of revenue, conclude with a prayer" against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue; against all duties merely protective from foreign competition; and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection." We have now endeavoured to show, so far as the indistinctness of its own form could permit, what the "old system" was, from which England has recently departed; and what are the general principles upon which her "new system" is, or ought to be, founded. We have freely examined the reasonings by which those principles are supported. The opinion which we have formed may be stated in a few words. Perfect freedom is the true rule: subsistence and security are the only grounds of permanent exception which are admissible without abandoning the principle. Temporary exceptions, in favour of existing interests, are also admissible. But all these exceptions, permanent and temporary, are of doubtful propriety; they are not to be allowed without a strong case of necessity, and those which rest on temporary grounds are never to be rendered permanent. These are the principles which we offer for the guidance of our rulers. We think that we have already shown that they do not greatly differ from those of the theoretical advocates of the new system." It remains to be seen whether they are those upon which the late measures have proceeded, and particularly whether they have been adopted in regulating the exceptions. 86 Parl. Deb. N. S. vol. i. p. 176. Yas With this view we now proceed to state, in the order of their occurrence, the several measures which have been adopted for removing prohibition or restriction from the importation of foreign articles. With less of detail than we shall give, it would be impossible to understand the new measures. The intention to commence a new system was first announced by Mr. Robinson, in his financial statement* of the year 1824; and the first article selected for its operation was wool. At this time the exportation of British wool was prohibited, and a duty of sixpence per lb. was imposed on foreign wool. This duty had formerly been only one penny, and was raised in 1819, as Mr. Robinson stated, as a measure of revenue only.† Government, Mr. Robinson stated, had always said to the manufacturers, if you will consent to the removal of the restriction upon the exportation of wool, we will repeal the duty upon the import. There was a difference of opinion among the manufacturers on this point; but he now proposed to reduce the import duty to one penny, and to allow the exportation at the same duty. From this measure he expected a great increase of our woollen trade in all parts. Silk was the next object of the new arrangement. Mr. Robinson assumed that nearly all men concurred in opinion as to the impolicy of prohibition; and that the prohibition of silks was extensively evaded. That the prohibition was impolitic in regard to foreign nations, who might say that we attempted, with liberality in our mouths, to cajole them into the admission of our manufactures, while in fact we rejected theirs. Our silk goods, he said, were highly estimated abroad, and would, as he believed, if restrictions were removed, drive away others from the foreign markets. He proposed to accompany the repeal of the prohibition by a considerable reduction of the duty on raw silk and thrown silk, and that manufactured silks should be admitted at 30 per cent. on the value. Mr. Huskisson's arguments were similar, and he was satisfied that with the duty of 30 per cent. we should successfully compete with the French. He proposed that the reductions of duty on the raw and thrown silk should commence immediately, but that * Mr. Robinson's speech, 23d February, 1824. Parl. Deb. N. S. vol. x. p. 328. Upon this statement it is fair to observe, that Lord Castlereagh, in proposing the tax to the House, (Parl. Deb. vol. xl. p. 920,) stated that the then " duty of one penny per lb. was thought too low to protect the interests of the home grower of coarse wool," and therefore proposed sixpence," which would operate as a protection to the home grower of that article against foreign competition." Parl. Deb, vol. x, p. 800. the repeal of the prohibition should be postponed till the 5th of July, 1826. This measure was opposed principally by Mr. Baring* and Mr. Ellice. The former asserted that 30 per cent. would not be a sufficient protection, considering that the price of food here was double that of France. Probibition could be enforced in the interior of the country. There was no reciprocity in the arrangement between us and other countries. We were proceeding much too fast, and beginning at the wrong end. We should begin with the Corn Laws. There were reasons, he said, why certain manufactures flourished in particular places, and the principles of "free trade," whatever their general efficacy might be, could never remove them. Thus Lyons had obtained, and would keep, a superiority in the silk manufacture. It is to be observed that Mr. Baring objected to the duty on thrown silk, as one of the burthens upon the manufacture. Mr. Ellice, in opposing the measures, upon the same general grounds, stated nevertheless that smuggling could be effected at 10 or 15 per cent.; and that the wages of the labourers in silk, about six shillings per week, could scarcely obtain for them the means of subsistence, Mr. Ellice, however, after some arrangements had been made with respect to the stock in hand, &c. finally withdrew his opposition, and expressed the willingness of his friends at Coventry that the experiment of competing with the French should be tried. The bill may be said to have passed with the single opposition of Mr. Baring. In the year 1825, the government proceeded further in the abrogation of the prohibitory system. Mr. Robinson, in his financial exposition, expressed his intention of applying the then existing, or estimated, surplus of revenue, to the following objects 1st. Increased facility of consumption at home, in conjunction with increased extension of commerce abroad; 2dly. a combination of the first principle with the restriction of smuggling; and 3rdly, some alleviation of the pressure of direct taxation. In furtherance of the first two of these objects, he announced the intention of Mr. Huskisson to propose "the reduction within moderate bounds of all the remaining prohibitory duties;" but he himself suggested a reduction of the duties on iron. The demand for iron, and consequently the price, had so much increased, as to occasion the transference of orders from Birmingham to the Continent. He proposed to reduce the duty on foreign iron from £6. 10s. to £1. 10s. the ton, a measure from which he expected *Parl. Deb. vol. x. p. 814. an extension of the use of iron, which would be beneficial not only to the manufacturer but to the producer. "Another object which he had in view in reducing the duty on this and other articles of foreign produce, was, to set an example to other governments. There were some states which had manifested an unequivocal disposition to adopt a similar policy, but others did not as yet appear to have emancipated themselves from their former system." However anxious we might be to give to all countries the benefit of our example, and our practice; we were not bound to do so indiscriminately, or to abstain from making distinctions in favor of those nations whose views and principles are conformable to our own." It was therefore "not proposed that the reduction should immediately apply to all countries from which iron might be brought." On this occasion, Mr. Alderman Thompson expressed his approbation of the reduction of the iron duty: "He, who was largely intererested in the trade, was not afraid of the foreign competition."* Shortly afterwards, a petition was presented from the Chamber of Commerce, at Birmingham, praying for a reduction of the duty on foreign iron, copper, and other metals.† On the 25th of March, 1825, Mr. Huskisson opened his general scheme of reduction of duty upon foreign articles. Having ruled," he said, "that 30 per cent. is the highest duty which could be maintained for the protection of a manufacture, in every part of which we were much behind foreign countries, the only extensive manufacture which, on the score of general inferiority, stood in need of special protection, (he alluded here to the silk manufacture,) "it was time to inquire in what degree our other great manufactures were protected, and to consider if there be no inconvenience, no unfitness, no positive injury caused to ourselves, no suspicion and odium excited in foreign countries, by duties which are either absolutely prohibitory, or, if the articles to which they attach admit of being smuggled, which have no other effect than to throw the business of importing them into the hands of the smuggler." He first noticed Cotton goods,§ which were subject to duties ranging from 50 to 75 per cent. a duty quite unnecessary, as we were in this manufacture superior to all other countries, not excepting India; and exported in the last year £30,795,000. He proposed to reduce the duty to 10 per cent. which would be "sufficient to countervail the small duty levied upon the importation of the raw material into this country, and the duty upon Parl. Deb. p. 746. March 11th, p. 996. P. 1196. § P. 1198. |