§ The House in Committee on the Act 3rd and 4th Will. 4th, cap. 59, regulating the Trade of British possessions abroad.
§ Act read.
§ Mr. Labouchererose to move the following resolutions.
1. That in lieu of the respective duties of 7l. 10s., of 15l., of 20l., and of 30l., on every 100l. of the value of certain of the articles specified in the schedule contained in an Act of the 3rd and 4th year of William 4th, to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad, there shall be paid on goods, wares, and merchandize, not being the growth, production, or manufacture of the United Kingdom, or of any of the British possessions in America, and imported by sea or by inland carriage or navigation, a duty of 7l. for every 100l. of the value thereof, together with the amount of any duty levied at the same time upon goods, wares, and merchandize, the growth or production of the United Kingdom, or of the British possessions.2. That in lieu of the several duties payable under the said act, upon the following articles, not being the growth, production, or manufacture, of the United Kingdom, or of any of the British possessions in America, imported or brought into any British possession by sea, there shall be paid the following duties, viz.:—884
£ s. d. Wheat flour (except into Canada) the barrel 0 2 0 Beef and pork salted (except in Canada), the cwt. 0 4 0 Wine of all sorts, whether in bottle or not, for every 100l. of the value in lieu of all duties now payable thereon, under the Acts 4 Geo. 3rd, c. 15, and 3 and 4 Will. 4th, c.59 7 10 0 The bottles Free
Shingles (except into Canada), the 1,000 No. 0 2 0 Oak staves and headings (except into Canada), the 1,000 No. 0 7 0 Wood hoops (except into Canada) the 1,000 No. 0 2 6 Pitch pine, and other lumber, one inch thick (except into Canada), the 1,000 feet 0 7 0 Now prohibited, but the prohibition whereon is to cease:— Fish, dried or salted, the cwt. 0 2 6 ——pickled, the barrel 0 5 0 Together with the amount of any duty levied at the same time upon similar articles, the produce of, or imported from, the United Kingdom or the British possessions.3. That tea be permitted to be imported into British North America by inland carriage or navigation, on payment of the duty which may at that time be chargeable upon tea imported from the United Kingdom, together with 10l. per centum on the amount of such duty.4. That rum, the produce of places within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, and imported into British North America, shall pay the same duty as rum the produce of places in the British West Indies.5. That so much of the said Act as permits any sort of craft, food, and victuals, except spirits and any sort of clothing and implements and materials fit and necessary for the British Fisheries in America, to be imported into the place at or from whence such fishery is carried on, duty free, shall be repealed, except so far as regards the following articles (that is to say), bread, flour, pork, beef, bacon, butter, lard, cheese, molasses, (the produce of the British possessions), potatoes, oatmeal, pot barley, Indian meal, peas, rice, salt, oak-staves, shingles, wood hoops, leather and leatherware, and all sorts of fishing craft and bait, fishermen's clothing and hosiery, which shall be delivered duty free, for the use of the fisheries.6. That goods, the produce or manufacture of the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, or Sark, imported from such islands, be admitted into the British possessions in America upon the payment of the same duty as the like goods the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, or any of the said possessions.The right hon. Gentleman said, that when he first proposed to the House the resolutions of which he had given notice, he entered so fully into the principles on which they were founded, and the manner in which it was proposed to carry them into effect, that he did not feel it necessary in the first instance, until he heard any objections stated against them, to make many observations respecting them. With regard to the first resolution which 885 he was about to lay before them, he would only make a few observations on the reasons which had induced him to make some alteration in it, since he first proposed it to the House. At that time, he proposed, that the ad valorem duty in the West Indies and the British North American colonies, which now varied from 7½ per cent, to 15 and 20 per cent., should be reduced to two duties, namely 7½ per cent, ad valorem, and ten per cent, ad valorem, which should comprise all articles on which the former duties were now levied. But he was induced to think, in consequence of representations that had been made to him by persons connected with those colonies, that there would be a material advantage in pushing somewhat further the reduction he had originally proposed. He had, indeed, been induced to suppose, that if all those duties were repealed, and instead of them one uniform duty of 7 per cent. ad valorem were imposed on all foreign commodities introduced into the British North American colonies, and the West Indies, over and above the amount paid on British commodities, it would be highly advantageous to those possessions. To that alteration he had had no difficulty in acceding, so that he might place the West Indies and the British North American colonies on the same footing as that on which our East India possessions were placed. Thus at the Cape of Good Hope at that moment there was a duty of 10 per cent, oil foreign commodities, and 3 per cent. on British commodities. According, also, to the scale which he now proposed, if there were a duty of 3 per cent, on British commodities, the duty on foreign commodities would immediately rise to 10 per cent; so that in the British North American colonies and the West Indies there would be the same system which was at present established at the Cape of Good Hope, which had been found to work well, and which the merchants of this country had never complained of—namely, a differential and protective duty of 7 per cent, ad valorem, over and above that which was paid for foreign goods. If they turned to the duties in India, Ceylon, and Australia, and our other possessions in the East, they would find there was a differential duty with regard to British and foreign commodities lighter than that which he had already mentioned, and yet those connected with commercial interests were satisfied with that scale of 886 duty, and never apprehended that they would be excluded from those markets under that system. But the reason that more particularly induced him to male this alteration was, that it had been strongly urged on him by persons connected with the West Indian islands, that by a reduction of these duties, great advantage would result to the transit trade of those colonies. Thus, in Trinidad, which was only a day's sail from the Spanish main, it was thought that under a duty of seven per cent, on foreign commodities there would be facilities afforded to the trade between that island and the continent of South America; and also to the trade of our British manufactures, by their being mixed up there with those of' foreign production, as assorted cargoes. It was true, that in St. Thomas's the duty was much lower; but the vicinity of Trinidad to the coast of South America would in a great degree compensate for the differential duty, and it might reasonably be hoped, that much of that large trade which was now enjoyed by St. Thomas's, would be transferred to some of our own islands. On that representation being made to him, and being unable to see the slightest injury, that would be produced by it to any British interests, he had had no difficulty at all in acceding to the demand that was made on him to reduce the 10 per cent. duty to 7 per cent. He believed, that to the consumer, this alteration would make no great difference, but that to the transit trade, it would be of great advantage. As he stated before, until he heard whether any objections were made to this resolution, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any further observations upon it. He would, therefore, place in the hands of the Committee the following resolution. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first resolution.
§ Mr. Goulburnwished the right hon. Gentleman had reserved the present resolution for an occasion when there should be a fuller attendance of Members to discuss a subject of so much importance, and especially those Members who were most conversant with the matter to which the resolution referred. He thought it would have been better to have waited for a full discussion, than that the House should be led blindly into the adoption of so serious a change in our colonial duties. The right hon. Gentleman had stated this to be a mere isolated case, quite distinct 887 from our general commercial legislation—a matter of mere local interest—but he (Mr. Goulburn) did not by any means agree in this view of the question. He did not deny, that as regarded the West-India colonies themselves, the change would confer on them substantial advantages, but this was not the whole view that ought to be taken of the case. If this change is made as a compensation to the West Indies for the equalisation that is made in respect of duties between them and the East Indies, he thought it an advantage which the West Indies would cheerfully accept. He thought, however, that it was very desirable, that the right hon. Gentleman should give the House some explanation of the extent to which he meant to carry out his principle. It was impossible, that they could have a satisfactory idea of this question until they knew distinctly what measures, if any, the Government intended to produce with other produce, which would be placed in competition with East and West-India produce. The question was not confined to the interests of the colonies alone, but was calculated to inflict material injury upon the interests of the mother country. He thought, that the resolution now before them was not framed in a manner calculated to give them that full information which, upon a matter of this kind, it was desirable to have placed before the House. The resolution was so general in its form, that it would leave a great portion of the community ignorant of the extent to which that resolution proposed to go. It was true, the resolution stated, that all duties were to be reduced to the proportion of 7 per cent., but it would be much better that the committee should be aware what was the variety of commodities to which this resolution was to apply, and it was in order to supply this deficiency, that he had moved, that details of this nature should be laid upon the Table of the House. They ought to look back to the articles that would be affected by this resolution, and when they saw what these articles were, they would then see whether or not the mother country would not be materially involved in the present question. It appeared, that under a duty of thirty per cent, the following articles were admitted into our colonies, namely, the leather manufactures, the linen manufactures, and the silk manufactures of foreign countries, He only stated, a few 888 of the more considerable articles, in order that the public might have some idea of the extent to which this measure would affect the commercial interests of this country. Besides those articles admitted under a duty of thirty per cent., there were other articles admitted under a duty of twenty per cent. Amongst those latter were cotton, glass, soap, refined sugar, and various other articles. There were various other articles admitted under a duty of fifteen per cent., such as hardware. Let it not be supposed that these duties were introduced at any very remote period. On the contrary, they were continued after full consideration in the bill of 1833, when Mr. Poulett Thomson was at the Board of Trade, and when it must be supposed, that they must have well considered the extent of the duties necessary to maintain and keep up the colonial principles upon which this country had heretofore acted. He thought with respect to those duties, that having received the sanction of Parliament, they required something more than the mere general statement of a principle to convince them that those alterations ought now to be made. They should recollect that they were now dealing with those principles on which this country and her colonies had always reciprocally acted. The rule hitherto had been, that in return for the protection which Great Britain afforded, she was secured the colonial market for the disposal of her home produce and the encouragement of her shipping interest. But they might be told that a duty of seven per cent, would be sufficient for that object, but if so, they had a right to be shown how, by such resolutions, that object could be accomplished. He called on the right hon. Gentleman to show him how a duty of seven per cent, would be sufficient to protect British manufactures before the right hon. Gentleman asked him, or asked the House to consent to his proposition. He thought on a question of this kind they ought to act with the utmost deliberation, and to consider well before they took a step or committed an error which they might afterwards find irretrievable. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this resolution would have the effect of introducing into the colonies a large proportion of foreign manufactures, and he thought they had a right to see whether other advantages were likely to arise to compensate for the loss that 889 would be sustained by the manufacturing interests of this country. The amount of manufactures which went from this country to the West Indies under the present prohibitory system was very large. It appeared that in the West Indies alone the amount of our manufactures annually consumed was two millions and a half, whilst the North American colonies consumed three millions and a half. Now the greater portion of these consisted of articles which required a great amount of labour in the production of them. The estimated value of this colonial trade exceeded five millions annually, and the greater portion consisted of articles requiring a great amount of labour in their production, employing a great number of hands in this country, and giving a spur to the national industry. The colonies are under great obligations to the mother country, for we exposed ourselves to hostilities in protecting their interests as well as our own. If, therefore, the colonies were under great obligations to us, it appeared to him (Mr. Goulburn) to require great consideration before they abandoned what had heretofore been considered the counter advantages which we had derived from them in securing more extensive markets for the produce of the mother country. The object of this measure must very materially affect the interest of our home manufactures. Let the House consider what will be the effect of this measure upon our domestic industry; and with respect to our manufactures, let the House consider what must be its effect upon the shipping in which those manufactures were at present transported to the colonies. If upon this change of duties, Belgium and France were able to supply our colonies with their manufactures, and take back the colonial produce in payment, they would of course prefer to carry on this trade with their own shipping, unless it could be shown that navigation in the ships of this country was cheaper than in their own. Therefore, besides the injury that would be inflicted on our domestic industry, there would be the additional injury inflicted on the commercial marine of this country. He had hitherto addressed his observations to what was proposed by the first resolution; but as that was the only resolution before them at present, he thought that it would be more convenient to deal with all the resolutions together.
§ Mr. LabouchereI think it would be better to discuss the resolutions separately.
§ Mr. GoulburnThey are so connected, that in any argument respecting them, it would be difficult to separate one from another.
§ Mr. Laboucherethought that there was a considerable difference between them, and that it would be better to deal with them separately.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, if he was going to oppose the adoption of the resolutions on the present occasion, he would be willing to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but he merely wished to discuss the principle in which they all generally agreed. The first resolution appeared to him to be one which would have a most material effect upon the industry and the shipping of the country, and it was a resolution which, if not explained, would make a very serious alteration materially affecting the interests of this country. The second resolution was an important one, considering its effects upon the trade between our North American possessions and the West Indies; and the right hon. Gentleman carried into that trade the same principles which he applied to the trade of foreign countries. It was proposed materially to reduce the duties at present payable upon articles that would be brought into competition with North American produce in the markets of the West Indies. It was well known how very likely people were to imagine that even the best considered measures of commercial change were calculated to affect their interests, and considering the present state of our North American colonies, be thought that this was not the time to alarm their fears, or give them any cause to apprehend that their interests were likely to be endangered by any act of the Imperial Parliament. He thought that they ought to take care not to alarm the apprehensions of the inhabitants of these colonies, who, seeing a change of this kind, might apprehend that a similar change would be carried into effect with respect to the timber imported from those colonies to Great Britain. He thought that they ought to avoid anything which was calculated to excite the fears of those colonists. They ought to recollect, that they had taken a moment to legislate for the commercial interests of Canada when that province had no representatives, and at a 891 time when the representatives of that province had not been as yet called together and when that House had no information as to what was the feeling of the people of Canada on this subject. He feared that the effect of this measure would be to injure our North American colonies, and to injure the trade at present carried on between those colonies and the West Indies. Those colonies at present divided the lumber trade, and it was obvious that this trade was so nicely balanced that the alteration which it was proposed to introduce might have the worst results—might excite alarm amongst those engaged in the lumber trade, and might for a time create substantial injury and difficulty. The third resolution was one, the policy of which he (Mr. Goulburn) did not in reality understand. So far as he could comprehend it, its object seemed to be to remove the prohibitory duty at present existing with respect to the introduction of tea into Canada by land. This was done on the ground that the present system gave great encouragement and facilities to smuggling. In the wisdom of that principle, he (Mr. Goulburn) fully agreed. He thought that where there was a large frontier easily accessible at all points, that it was the best way to put down the demoralising practice of smuggling by taking away the inducements that led to it. But the right hon. Gentleman's resolution did not mend the matter in the least, for how was smuggling to be discouraged by keeping up a large duty on the importations of tea. If a certain kind of lea was prohibited, they might detect the prohibited article after it found its way into the province, and punish the person who brought it; but if they allowed the article to be imported upon the payment of a certain duty, how were they to be able to tell whether the duty on the article was paid or not. The duty proposed to be maintained was 25 per cent, for tea imported by sea, 27½ per cent. for tea introduced by the frontier. With such a duty as this, it was quite idle to expect to prohibit the importation of the article. If this change were to be made, it ought to be effected by some measure of the Canadian Parliament, and, as was done by Mr. Pitt in 1785, when he lowered the duty on tea in England, he took care that the change of duty should not be a means of gain to the smuggler. He must beg to hesitate before he agreed to apply the 892 same principle to the produce of China, when brought in English ships, as when imported in American ships. He could not consent to place them on the same footing. Then with respect to that part of the resolution which concerned the importation of fish, he had some fears whether it would not be injurious to our fisheries. With respect to the trade with Canada, he was willing to give the Canadas every advantage possessed by other colonies. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy them that the reduction of those large duties would be attended by some compensating circumstances that would prevent the injury it was calculated to inflict. He was strengthened in the opinions that he entertained respecting those resolutions, by seeing that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not entertain very decided or definite opinions on the subject. The first time he introduced this subject, he proposed that the duties should be reduced to 10 per cent. He afterwards came down to the House and proposed to reduce them to 7 per cent. This uncertainty showed that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject were not very decided; and when he (Mr. Goulburn) and others who had considered the subject objected to these reductions, he was sure the House would treat their objections with the more indulgence when they found that the Government themselves, with ample time and opportunity to give the subject consideration, were uncertain in their opinions, at one time proposing a duty of 10 per cent., and then coming forward to propose a reduction of 7 per cent. There was another point to be considered. What was the moral effect that these measures were likely to have on our North American colonies at the present moment? When they should have heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and when those returns which he had taken the liberty of moving for should be before the House, they would then be in a better situation to come to a deliberate conclusion on this important subject.
§ Mr. Laboucherehad listened to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman with very great satisfaction; because it showed that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience and all his knowledge, could not make a valid or good objection to the resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently not favourably inclined 893 to a liberal commercial system, and he there -fore was quite satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman had any definite objections to the resolutions they would have been stated by him. And yet what had they heard from the right hon. Gentleman excepting those vague apprehensions which they always had to encounter whenever they attempted to carry into effect a more liberal commercial system. If the right hon. Gentleman could have stated any definite objection to the resolutions, he was perfectly able, as it was plain he was abundantly willing, to have stated it on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so; and he must now say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that in proposing these measures he had endeavoured to acquire the fullest information, and he was prepared now to say, that let any Gentleman show how the interests of this country or the colonies would suffer by the resolutions proposed, and he would do his best either to remove his apprehensions or to refute his objections. But then, when there was an absence of any allegation of any specific danger which could be defined, he asked how was he to meet allegations of such a vague nature as those stated by the right hon. Gentleman? It must strike the House that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether evaded the argument which rested upon the system which we had pursued in the eastern portion of our colonial empire. He had not even attempted to explain to the House why moderate protective duties were safe and beneficial there, but would be dangerous and inexpedient in the West Indies and British North America. The onus probandi, he conceived, lay upon those who insisted on retaining one system in the east and another in the west. Whatever excuse there was for preserving such a system, it could only have been acted upon as long as they were resolved upon placing the East and the West Indian colonies upon a different footing—it might have been preserved while they carefully excluded the produce of the East and admitted that of the West; but now they were acting on a more wise and just policy—now, that they were admitting the rum and the produce of the East Indies, there was no excuse for their maintaining prohibitory duties on the West Indies. He would be ashamed, if, when he had brought forward a measure favourable to the East Indian produce, he did not seek to 894 reduce the duties which had an unfavourable effect, on the agriculture of the West Indies. When he had been arguing the question with regard to the East Indian rum—the only argument that was put by the opponents to the measure, that he felt it difficult to answer, was that of the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. G. Palmer), who said, that it was most unjust to put East Indian produce on the same footing with that of the West Indies, when the latter was subject to duties from which the former was exempt. He admitted the force of the argument. He could not answer it then; but he answered it now. The argument was a good one, and he felt that he only did an act of justice when he removed these prohibitions. But then the right hon. Gentleman said, he admitted the measure was an important one, and that it was likely to be of benefit to the West Indian interests? He had no doubt but that would be the effect; for he had had the gratification only a few days before of receiving a memorial signed by all the agents of the West India colonies having local legislatures, excepting one—the agent of Tobago, who happened to be out of town; and the language held to him, with regard to this measure, was this:—
The undersigned agents for the West India colonies possessing legislatures consider that they would not be justified in withholding the expression of their entire concurrence in the measure embraced in the proposed resolutions of the President of the Board of Trade, 'on the trade of the British possessions abroad,' because they consider it will be highly beneficial to the colonial interests entrusted to them. Such a measure has for many years been urgently solicited, and had it been granted would have afforded very great relief. In the former state and relations of colonial society, it would have been a boon from which the planters would have derived the principal advantage. But now, when the whole population will participate in that advantage, there are considerations of sound policy, no less than of moral right, which induce the undersigned on behalf of their constituencies, to regard this measure of relief as losing none of its importance. They beg, therefore, to express their acknowledgments to her Majesty's Government for having brought it forward.Was it, he asked, doing nothing to conciliate these important interests. He believed that as a commercial measure it would be found beneficial and advantageous; but he also believed that the House would take a very narrow view of this matter if they merely looked upon it as a 895 commercial measure. He was satisfied it was a great colonial measure. He was glad to believe that the British colonies would be contented with it, and, as far as the British manufacturers were concerned, he believed that they would be satisfied with a moderate protection. These resolutions had now been published for a long time, and he said it with pleasure, that he had not heard from any one of the British manufacturers any representation by which there was demanded a protection beyond that proposed to them. It was a pleasure to him to state this; for it inclined him to believe that the manufacturers were beginning to see that their real interests did not depend upon an enormous protecting duty. They only required fair play, and they were sure that by their innate energy they might defy rivalry, and gain a fair share in the markets of the world. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the cotton manufacture. Was it possible that the right hon. Gentleman meant to state that their cotton manufacturers had any fear as to their forcing their goods, wherever they could meet their rivals upon fair and equal terms, or that they could have any fears when they had a protecting duty of seven per cent. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman came to elude the question as to the manufacturers being satisfied with that duty which opened to them the markets in the colonies composing their eastern empire, and yet have apprehensions for the west? That which was good for the east must be good for the west. He could not see how that which was advantageous in one place must be ruinous in another. But then the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that this was not merely a question as of manufactures, but it was also very important as regarded shipping and navigation. He admitted that it was so—that these resolutions must have much to do both as regarded shipping and navigation; and these were points which he trusted the House would look to very carefully. He had considered the question with respect to the navigation of the country; and if any Gentleman could state that these resolutions would be injurious to navigation, he trusted that he should be able to adduce reasons to show they could not have that effect. He had looked carefully to the effect they would produce upon navigation, and he was prepared to state that he was perfectly convinced that their only effect upon our navigation must be 896 beneficial, and could not by any possibility be injurious. He had looked long and sedulously to all the considerations that were bound up with this part of the subject. He should mention only one point to show that their ships could not lose the colonial trade. Their trade with the West Indies was almost a coasting trade. Now, he need not remind the House that foreign ships going to one of their free ports must discharge their cargo at that port—not a part of the cargo, but the whole of the cargo. That was a circumstance which threw such an impediment in the way of ships carrying manufactured goods, that it was sufficient in itself to retain the advantage now possessed by British ships. British ships would go to, one island, there discharge part of their cargo, then to another, discharge another portion of the cargo there also, and then to a third; so that it was impossible that any other nation could deprive them of the coasting trade with their colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had, in a manner that was rather inconvenient mixed up at the same time the discussion upon all the resolutions but as the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to do so, he would now make a few observations upon the points to which he had adverted. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he apprehended very injurious consequences to British North America, from the alteration in the duties proposed in the second resolution. He was one of those who must regret, if at any time they were to make alterations in their commercial system which would have an injurious effect upon colonies, that had the best right to a favourable consideration from that House; but then he was satisfied that the alteration that he proposed would have no such effect. There were some of the articles in the lumber trade which were best produced in the United States, and others in which British America had such an advantage, that she now sent them in large quantities to the States. It was true that the circuitous trade by which some kinds of wood goods were now obliged to round by New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, before they were brought to the West Indies might be checked; but he could not look upon this as a species of commerce which it was fair upon the West Indians to encourage by excessive duties. With respect to the tea duties in Canada, it was very difficult without a great deal of local knowledge, to ascertain exactly the amount of duty which would be most proper, and be 897 most likely to promote the public revenue. Upon this point he (Mr. Labouchere), however, had referred to Lord Sydenham, who said, that he thought that the amount he now proposed would be in every respect a most satisfactory duty, would entirely do away with the smuggling which went on at present, and would probably lead to a receipt treble in amount to that received at present. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the fourth resolution, that relating to the duty on rum, he (Mr. Labouchere) must say, that he thought these observations came rather ungraciously from the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as it was really at his suggestion that he had given his attention to the matter. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman drew his attention to the fact, he felt the injustice of the existence of an unequal duty on rums coming to Upper Canada, and he resolved to take the earliest opportunity of doing away with such a ground of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken also with regard to the fisheries. The evil now complained of in this quarter arose out of the exemptions which the British fisheries enjoyed from all duties upon articles required for their own use. This principle, which in itself he thought a very proper one, led to so extensive a system of smuggling, that he was told that in Nova Scotia the whole of the provincial customs had been absorbed by it. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary that some remedy should be applied to so crying an abuse. But the right hon. Gentleman said, that the measure now proposed would open the door so wide, that all the evils would exist to the same extent as before. He did not think it would be found so. The article upon which the greatest smuggling took place was sugar, and sugar was not to be included. True, molasses was included, but he believed, that it was possible, by providing sufficient restrictions, to prevent any fraud on that article. The whole of the object which he (Mr. Labouchere) had in view in framing this measure was, to allow the fisheries to have all the articles required for their own use free from duty, and, at the same time, to take care that through that indulgence frauds were not committed upon the colonial revenue. He did not know whether he need trouble the committee with any further observations at present. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted him for having made certain alterations in his project since he first brought 898 it forward. When he (Mr. Labouchere) took up subjects of this kind, he endeavoured to frame the duties he should propose in the best manner he could, and upon the best information he could obtain. The House was aware, however, that he could not consult the trade, and that he was prevented by the line of his duty from allowing to be made public the duties he projected until he had laid them before the House; and when this circumstance was considered, it would be acknowledged that it was almost impossible he should altogether avoid error in some point or other of his calculations. No false shame, however, and no ambition to keep up a show of consistency, should ever prevent him from remedying any such errors whenever he found them out. His object in altering these duties was to make their application as favourable to the interests of the colonies themselves as to the mother country, and he believed that this object he should go far to attain in the present instance. Of course, it could not be expected that any measure on such a subject could be framed so as to give satisfaction to all parties; but he believed, that this measure had received a larger and more general share of approbation from the various commercial interests of the country than any measure of the kind within his recollection. Nothing could be more gratifying than the liberal and temperate tone in which the various manufacturing interests had expressed themselves on this subject. He was glad to find, that the parties engaged in these great interests now began to perceive that enormous prohibitory duties were not advantageous even to them; and that their interests must be promoted by all that promoted the general welfare of the community at large. The gentlemen connected with the fisheries had also expressed their approbation of this measure in the most gratifying manner. It was true, on the other hand, that it had met with some opposition from a few quarters for instance, from parties engaged in the provision trade in the south of Ireland. But after considering to the best of his ability all the objections which had been made to him on the subject, he was bound to say that he did not think that any sufficient ground had been made out for a higher system of duties on provisions than those which he now proposed. With regard to the sugar duties, to which the right hon. Gentleman had also referred, that was certainly a most important subject but it was 899 not one which he felt himself called upon to enter upon on the present occasion. He was not, however, fond of making matters of this kind a subject for barter between one party and another. In considering colonial questions, such as those which were now before the House, he was desirous of doing so in a large and liberal spirit; and when the House came to legislate upon the various other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he was satisfied that they would consider them with a due regard to the many important considerations which they involved.
Mr. Colquhounquite concurred in most of the principles stated by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. His objection, however, to the right hon. Gentleman's measure was this, that he thought his performance did not equal his promises. When the right hon. Gentleman said, that this measure would place the East and the West Indies upon the same footing, the right hon. Gentleman stated that which he thought was not the fact. He would beg to direct the attention of the committee to a few of the leading articles in the right hon. Gentleman's resolution which affected the West-India colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had said on a former night, that one of the most important articles of consumption in the colonies, particularly for the negro population, was fish, and yet upon this article he found a duty proposed of 25 per cent. Then upon beef and pork there was to be a duty of 15 per cent., and upon flour of 10 per cent. Now he could not imagine what local advantage any one of the colonies could derive from any one of these duties. The Canadas would certainly not be benefitted by the duty of 10 per cent, on flour, whilst the West Indies would be severely prejudiced by it. Then there were the articles of white and yellow pine and of shingles, most extensively used in building in the West-India islands, which were to be charged with a duty of 15 per cent. These articles came from America; and, he would ask, what part of Great Britain, or what interest in it, could be in the least benefitted by such a duty? Soap and candles, also, were to be charged with a duty of 7 per cent. Now, to show the disparity between the 'duties proposed to be levied upon the same articles in the East and West Indies respectively, woollen manufactures were to be charged with a duty of 2 per cent. in the East Indies, and 900 of 7 per cent in the West Indies. Cotton manufactures 3½ per cent in the East Indies, and 7 per cent in the West Indies. Articles in linen, silk, glass, and leather, were to be admitted in the East Indies without any discriminating duty whatever, whilst in the West Indies they were to be charged with a duty of 7 per cent. And yet they were told that this measure would place the East and West Indies on an equal footing—would open for the first time the pure principles of free trade, as the hon. Member for Wigan had said the other night, an assertion which he maintained to be utterly inapplicable and incorrect. He admitted that some advantages would be conferred upon the West Indies by this measure, but they would still be burdened most severely by the duties which were left. These duties might be necessary for the protection of the various shipping and commercial interests of the country, but whilst they existed it could not be said with correctness that an equalization had been effected between the customs of the East and West Indies. He fully admitted, that this measure was a very useful one as far as it went, but it only diminished burdens which, as long as they existed, would give the West Indies a good right to call the attention of the House to their interests and claims.
§ Mr. Humesubscribed to almost every sentiment which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and was particularly pleased with his speech, coming as it did so soon after one of a very different character, from a right hon. Gentleman who had recently spoken from the opposition benches. At a time when the commercial energies of the country required more perhaps than in any previous period to be encouraged and called forth, he thought that the whole community of the kingdom had cause to be greatly obliged to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade for the measure which he now proposed. He must say, also, that he was surprised at the doubts and objections which had been made by the right hon. Member opposite, to this proposal, recollecting, as he did, that that right hon. Gentleman had been a colleague in office with that great statesman, Mr. Huskisson, whose views this measure did but go to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman having been a colleague with Mr. Huskisson when, at different times, he 901 propounded his views on subjects of tin's kind, could not oppose those various measures as they were brought forward, but he (Mr. Hume) must say, that to him, it was surprising to hear the right hon. Gentleman uttering fears and alarms and calling upon the President of the Board of Trade to give instances and proofs that the alterations he proposed would not be attended with evil results, when he recollected that all these projects, all these views, had been fully laid down and explained by Mr. Huskisson at various times, between the years 1815 and 1825. At that time Mr. Huskisson was met in all his financial projects with objections and opposition from various manufacturing and commercial bodies, who represented that they should be ruined if his proposed alterations were carried into effect. Mr. Huskisson did himself great credit by the firm manner in which he resisted the futile objections which were then made to him; and in treating the subject now, the House had this great advantage over Mr. Huskisson, that the latter could only speak of what he expected would be the case, whilst they had now the results of experience to go by, and confirm them in their views. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken about the colonial principle, but he would ask, what was that principle but the keeping up of a monopoly in favour of the colonies, which, in operation, were equally disadvantageous to the mother country, and to themselves. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that these resolutions did not go far enough in abolishing that pernicious system, but he hailed them as a step towards this great and desirable object, fie would ask, for instance, of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, was it right to maintain the duly upon linen or upon calicoes r If they meant to deal with the West Indies upon equal terms with the East, let them abolish the customs department in the West Indies altogether, and leave the colonies to look to their own revenues. The time was coming when all prohibitive and protective duties should be done away with, and the customs looked to only as a means of revenue. It happened, however, that as a matter of revenue, our colonial customs were not only wholly unproductive, but, to a certain extent, a charge to the mother country. The total amount of customs levied in the colonies was 555,000l., and not only did no part of this sum find its 902 way into the treasury of this country, but about 14,000l. further was obliged to be contributed towards maintaining the necessary establishments. The abolition of those establishments would interfere certainly with the patronage of the Government; but, he believed, with nothing else, and he thought that the day was gone by when the government of this country required to stand by means of patronage, or ought to be allowed so to stand. He hoped, therefore, that they would no longer keep up any system of imposts for such a purpose. Let the President of the Board of Trade and the committee, look to the results even of the partial commercial relaxations which had been made during the last fifteen years; in no quarter of the world were these results more striking and gratifying than in the East-Indies. In many instances of fiscal relaxation, an increase had taken place in the total value of the exports of the country. In 1814, the exports amounted to 1,874,000l.; in tin; twelve years which followed the partial relaxation which took place at that period, they amounted to 3,495,000l.; and in the litter period, ending with the year 1839, the average amount had been 5,600,000l.; being an increase of four to one, and clearly showing that as commercial restrictions were taken off, the commercial resources of the country were promoted in an equal proportion. He recollected very well, that upon each change being proposed during the period to which he referred, the cry had always been, take care that our shipping trade be not ruined; and in 1815 it was confidently predicted, that if these views were persevered in, America would swallow up all our shipping, and wrest from us our naval supremacy. Now what had been the, fact? Whereas our shipping trade inwards was 1,379,000 tons at that period, last year it was 3,101,000 tons. He must also beg to state the results of the relaxation in the silk duties, to which he had been happy to say, he was partly instrumental. In 1824, the duty on raw silk had been reduced from 5s. 6d. to 1d. a pound, and on thrown and fine silk from 14s. to 1s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. And what had been the consequence of these alterations? The average consumption of raw silk during the ten years ending 1824 had been l,940,000lbs.; whilst under the partial free system established in the latter year, though the trade was still greatly fettered, the average consumption of raw silk in the twelve years 903 ending 1836 had been 4,169,0001bs.; in the year 1839 it had been upwards of 5,000,000lbs. It would be curious to read the petitions which were presented between the year 1814 and 1824 against these relaxations, and to compare their predictions of ruin with the happy results which had actually taken place, and the perusal of these petitions, coupled with their reflections, would form the best reply to the warnings which were now held out against the still further relaxations now proposed by her Majesty's Government. He should mention also, that the export of manufactured silk during the last year had amounted in value to 868,000l., of which 66,000l. had been sent to France, a country which it was supposed would never have had occasion to import that article from us. No article exhibited a better proof of the benefit of a relaxation of duty than linen. Mr. Huskisson reduced the duty on that article to a low amount, and the consequence was, that the trade had greatly increased. In his opinion all duties ought to be removed, except the duties necessary for revenue; there should be no protecting duties at all. He thanked the Government for what they had already done, but he trusted they would not stop there. He counselled the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, who he must say had taken a most enlightened view of this question, to allow the colonies to regulate their own affairs, and to free themselves from those shackles that checked industry and impeded prosperity. He would not trouble the House upon the general question, and he would only again express his hope that this would not be the last step which the Government should feel bound to take to free the commerce and industry of the country. He trusted the House would allow him to make a few observations on a subject, which, although personal to himself, were still connected with the question before the House. He, as Chairman of the committee of last Session, had been assailed in the other House by a noble Lord (Lord Ashburton) formerly a Member of that House, and then Mr. Alexander Baring. That noble Lord had thought proper to challenge the proceedings of a committee of this House. For many years he had had the satisfaction of acting with that noble Lord, who was one of the most able and ardent of the advocates of free trade in that House. He recollected when that noble Lord presented the celebrated petition from the city of 904 London. That petition asked neither more nor less than was now asked, or than was the tendency of the evidence taken before the committee of last Session. That committee recommended no more than Lord Ashburton himself moved for. He was sorry the noble Lord had altered his opinions; but his own, he could say, were unchanged. With the noble Lord's change of opinion, however, he did not find fault with that noble Lord for bringing forward serious charges against a committee of that House which had no foundation. He was sorry that noble Lord had been induced, without due information, to have brought charges against a committee of that House. The noble Lord had stated, that that committee had been unfairly chosen. Now, so far from that being the case, seven Gentlemen were taken from the opposition side of the House, who were known to be opposed to the free trade principle, and seven from the other side of the House; and he having been Chairman, and having a strong bias on the question, of course there was a a majority of one. He had consulted with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk), as to the selection of the committee, and he thought, under these circumstances, to charge the committee with having been unfairly constituted was most improper. It was also stated, that evidence against the free trade principle had been tendered and refused. He had been absent from the Chair but one day, and he must say, that, to his knowledge, no evidence had ever been tendered and refused. He should like to know the name of any individual that had tendered evidence that was refused. It was very unfair to say, that the committee had refused evidence. The committee was also charged with abstaining from asking questions, the answers to which might have proved unfavourable to the principle of free trade. Why, they had the attendance of Gentlemen from the opposite Benches, who might have asked any questions they pleased. The noble Lord had been very much misinformed and misled; but, as the noble Lord had allowed himself to be so misled, he felt it necessary to give his charges a contradiction—a contradiction which he had requested another noble Lord to repeat elsewhere. He would only add, that the noble Lord who brought the charges was mistaken, and that his statement was not in any way borne out by the facts.
§ Mr. Herrieswas not aware of what had been uttered by the noble Lord to whom 905 the hon. Member for Kilkenny had referred, but he begged to take that opportunity to address a few observations to the committee upon the subject of the committee of last Session. That committee had to report upon a subject of vast importance, embracing questions of the deepest interest to the commercial welfare of the country, and it was of the utmost importance that that report should not be brought to a conclusion in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory manner. He did not mean to throw any blame upon the committee, and he only made this observation as a matter of regret. He felt and admitted the actual necessity of carrying much farther the inquiry whether there should or should not be a continuance of the system of protecting duties. He begged to remind the House that Mr. Huskisson endeavoured, by the effect of his legislation, to adjust, not to abrogate protecting duties. Mr. Huskisson endeavoured to find the point at which protecting duties were indespensably necessary, and he proposed to dispense with every shackle upon commerce that was not necessary. That, he apprehended, was the real principle on which Mr. Huskisson acted. He begged to remind the House of the object for which the inquiry into the import duties was undertaken. When the motion was made for a committee, a noble Friend of his suggested the necessity of some explanation as to the nature of the proposed inquiry, and the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) was, that he was not responsible for the committee, as it had been appointed upon the motion of an individual Member of the House, but that he believed the object of the inquiry would be to ascertain the character of existing duties. At the same time the hon. Member who moved for the committee, (Mr. Hume), in explanation, stated that the object of the committee was to classify existing duties, and to exhibit to the House and the country the state of duties chiefly as compared with other countries. His noble Friend considered the explanation perfectly satisfactory, and it was under this impression that the committee was formed. The committee, however, had gone into a different course of inquiry; and here he must say, that as far as the labours of the committee had gone, he did not throw out any objection. On the contrary, he thought all the information collected was exceedingly 906 good. Some of the evidence was exceedingly valuable. To some of it, which he had read attentively, he gave his entire assent; from some other portions of it he strongly dissented; and with respect to some of it he entertained doubts; but as far as the labours of the committee went, he was satisfied that they had been productive of a great deal of service to the public. There was one point to which he wished to address a few remarks. It should be recollected that this subject was of immense importance, and involved a complete revolution in the commercial business of the country. Looking at the character of the question, to the circumstances connected with it, and to the short time given for its consideration; looking also to the fact, that the evidence, at present given, was, what might be considered ex parte, he asked, would any Gentleman on either side of she House, let him even subscribe to all the opinions expressed by the committee, think it a matter to be endured, that any step should be taken upon a subject of such immense importance, without hearing all parties? Any person who read the evidence would see that it was of the greatest importance that all who might be injured in any interest connected with any change should have ample opportunity of being heard before any practical measures were adopted. He entertained a strong expectation that before this the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would have proposed the appointment of a committee to continue the labours of the committee of last Session, especially as it was alleged by the committee, and, indeed, was manifest, that they had not had sufficient time to explore the whole subject. The committee having gone so far, and having awakened the public attention, and looking to the very great activity with which those who took a part upon this question, and whose opinions were supported by the evidence taken before the committee, had circulated the report of the committee in order to produce an impression on the public mind, he was in hopes, and he thought it but right, that before this time, the right hon. Gentleman would have appointed another committee; whether composed of the same Members as the committee of last year, or whether composed differently, and of a more enlarged character, so as to consist of Gentlemen of opposite opin- 907 ions, and of greater experience in that branch of public affairs to which the inquiry related, he was, at all events, in hopes that there would have been further inquiry, and he still hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would not propose to institute any measures upon a report of this description without further inquiry. Such inquiry was just, in every point of view, before they adopted any step founded on the report of the committee. For his own part he felt bound to express the great satisfaction he felt upon every occasion when any measure proposed and carried into effect upon the legislation promoted by Mr. Huskisson produced the benefits which had been anticipated. He himself, as far as his humble endeavours went, had always acted with Mr. Huskisson in the promotion of the principles which that statesman entertained on this subject. He had never, on the subject of the principles of free trade, had any difference of opinion from that right hon. Gentleman, and he could say, as all those who had acted with him could say, those who had beer spoken of as illiberal, while Mr. Huskisson had been praised as liberal—he could say for his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, as well as for every other colleague of Mr. Huskisson, that they had given a most cordial concurrence in all those measures which Mr. Huskisson, in concurrence with them, had proposed. It was not fair, therefore, to draw the distinctions that were so often heard. Mr. Huskisson never was an indiscriminate promoter of free trade, and it was equally unjust to suppose that those who acted with him were not as liberal as he was in the view which he took in adapting our commercial system at the close of the war, and in a new state of things, to that of other countries, and in relieving our commerce from all those shackles that could possibly be dispensed with. He was glad to hear his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Goulburn) support the same principles as Mr. Huskisson—namely, the principle of preserving those duties which were requisite for protection, and he was also glad to hear the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, in the whole of his discourse, propound the principle of protection. If that then, were the case, the only object on both sides of the House must be to discover the point at which protection ought to be 908 maintained. There was no individual on cither side desirous to keep a rate of duty in any case, for the sake of protection, beyond what was indispensably necessary; and the object of all parties was to reduce protection to the lowest point. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeded upon that principle, and he trusted he would, he might be assured of receiving as hearty support from that (the Opposition) side of the House, as from the other; as nothing could be more in conformity with those who trod in the steps of Mr. Huskisson. With respect to the duties which were the subject of the resolutions, as there would be a further opportunity for discussion, he would not waste the time of the House by entering into details. He was not prepared to offer any objection, but he reserved to himself the power of dealing with the subject when the bill was before the House. There was one point, however, to which he wished to advert, for it concerned a large body of persons who would be aggrieved by the resolutions as they at present stood. The resolution he. alluded to was that which referred to the duty on tea conveyed by land between the United States and Canada. It was true, that as long as a duty of 25 per cent. was imposed by the Colonial Legislature, and there was no duty in the United States, it was obvious that smuggling would be carried on; but he thought this smuggling would increase if they put on a duty of 27½ per cent. instead of the prohibition that now existed. It was difficult with such an extent of frontier to guard against the introduction of smuggled tea, and it was certain that nobody would pay 27½ per cent. if it could be avoided, so that the one duty would be as much a prohibition as the other. He thought, moreover, that there would be greater temptation and facility for smuggling against a duty than against a positive prohibition. The only remedy was a reduction of the duty, and he therefore believed the contrivance of the right hon. Gentleman, however laudable, would be found ineffective. He would recommend him to re-consider this part of the subject.
§ Lord John Russellwished to address a few observations to the House after the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; because, interesting as this conversation, rather than a debate, had been, there was no speech from which he had 909 derived greater satisfaction than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He agreed with him in his description of the general policy of Mr. Huskisson, although, perhaps, there was something to be added to that description. He was pleased, however, to hear, that in that policy, which had been so justly praised, the colleagues of Mr. Huskisson had cordially concurred; that Lord Liverpool, who was at the head of the Government, had fully approved of it; and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, not then in his place, had warmly participated in it, and in all those plans and measures which had been brought forward by Mr. Huskisson. It was well known, too, that Mr. Canning, the friend and associate of Mr. Huskisson, eagerly supported the principles involved in those measures. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had himself declared his adherence to them; and he rejoiced to hear from testimony so valuable and undeniable that such principles were likewise to be found amongst the most enlightened of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged; because the last thing he should think of would be that of arrogating to any party, on either side of the House, the merit of the principle they were prepared to adopt upon the present occasion—principles which he should be glad to see concurred in by the House generally, and being both sound and useful, carried into effect by the largest possible majority. And if the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in showing that the whole merit of those principles belonged to former Ministers, that Mr. Huskisson and his colleagues were the authors of them, and that her Majesty's present Ministers were but the humble imitators of those men, and the humble followers of their schemes—so that those schemes were successful—so that the trade of the country was improved—so that the industry and consumption of the country were promoted—so that her revenues were increased—and so that her prosperity and general standing in the world were heightened—so that these consequences followed, he would willingly allow all the merit and all the credit to be given to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, provided they would but let him and his colleagues have the satisfaction of thinking that they had in some degree aided in carrying those schemes and principles into effect. 910 The right hon. Gentleman who began this debate (Mr. Goulburn) had, he thought, spoken in rather a different tone, and not intending as he certainly did not, to follow that right hon. Gentleman through those details which had been answered by his right hon. Friend near him he thought that the real sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was this, that the resolutions would confer considerable advantage on the colonies, that it was quite true, that if they were adopted the people in the colonies would be able to consume articles which they now bought dear at a cheap rate; that instead of getting bad articles, they would get good; that where they now got good articles, they would get better; and that although undeniable advantage would be gained from these resolutions, yet, said the right hon. Gentleman, if you give such an exemption to the colonies, who can say what will follow?. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be afraid that the people of this country might like to have articles cheap and good—that they were setting an example that was catching, not that it was injurious or ruinous, but, on the contrary, that other benefits, other advantages, other obligations of industry might follow from this example. He really could conclude no otherwise from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But, supposing he had misinterpreted that speech, then the right hon. Gentleman must intend to say, that the resolutions proposed would confer advantages on the colonies; that they proposed to do what he did not deny would be a benefit; but that if something else was proposed which might be disadvantageous, and against which there were sound objections, the present resolutions would be making a precedent for it. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, that the present resolutions would be injurious, on the contrary, he said they would be useful: and, surely, if they were to propose what would be not only useless, but might be perilous and ruinous, they would have no ground on which they could succeed, and the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in defeating any such proposition. The principle on which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed was this, that you must give advantages to the British manufactures against the colonies. The colonies must take their silk and leather, &c.; then the people of the colonies say we feel ourselves aggrieved by this re- 911 striction, and to satisfy them you say they shall have advantages against "the farmer and labourer of the United Kingdom;" then they complain, and you, to satisfy them, give them advantages against the manufacturer, and so you go on in this vicious circle of constantly endeavouring to do something for the advantage of a particular class instead of looking to the benefit of the whole community. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last in the definition he gave of the policy of Mr. Huskisson, that it was not a policy of complete and free trade, but a policy of protection. He proposed certainly a certain protection to the manufacturing and other interests of the country, but not such as was immoderate and set all competition at defiance. He did not propose a protection amounting to a prohibition, and say that however had an article might be, no other should be consumed, on the contrary, he said, Do away with prohibition, give that protection by which you will make your own manufactures compete with foreign manufactures; and endeavour to make as good an article, if not a better." The right hon. Gentleman said, he conceived the general principle of the policy of Mr. Huskisson to nave been protection. He thought it sound at the time, and certainly it had been corroborated by experience; for he found, with regard to Mr. Huskisson's policy, that it had been acted upon by another great authority, a Tory authority; he found that in 1786, Mr. Pitt tried an experiment with regard to cloth and crockery, similar to that tried by Mr. Huskisson with regard to silk and gloves, and it was admitted that with a moderate, instead of a prohibitory duty, they not only obliged the manufacturers to produce a far better article than before, but that it had promoted the increase of that very manufacture the ruin of which was confidently anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of introducing foreign articles, giving protection to the home manufacturer, at the lowest rate required. If the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to this principle so stated—namely, to the principle of the lowest rate of protection really required, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find much difference of opinion between himself and the Members of the Government. He thought the principle a sound one. He considered it needless to enter, even if there was a larger house 912 and a more formal debate, into the genera principles upon which the question of duties in a country entirely free, or at least not in the situation of this country, ought to be regulated. It was enough to say, that in the present state of this country it was necessary that protection should be granted, but that that protection should be very carefully considered. It should be moderate where they had one class with superior advantages as against other classes. They could not say to one class of manufacturers "you have less ingenuity, you require greater protection, and the article you produce shall therefore be very dear," and to another great interest such as the cotton manufacturers, "you produce an excellent article, you require very little protection, and therefore we will frame a system which shall give you no advantage whatever." The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had spoken of the incomplete evidence which had been taken before the committee which sat last year, and proposed that another committee should be appointed for the investigation of this subject. It was not his province, but that of the proposer of that committee, to vindicate its proceedings; but when the right hon. Gentleman said it ought to have examined witnesses of more experience, he ought not to forget that there had been a gentleman before that committee—Mr. J. D. Hume—who was long engaged in that department of public affairs, and very much in the confidence of Mr. Huskisson in many of the changes he made. That Gentleman's opinion might be sound or unsound; but with regard to experience in that department of the public service, he thought they might go further without faring much better in that respect. It might be, that the opinions of that committee did not coincide with those of many Gentlemen in that House; but it could not be denied, that the evidence given before the Import Committee afforded very valuable information, which had been in part forgotten, and part of which consisted of new facts; and very great credit was, in his opinion, due to those who had taken the pains to bring that evidence before the country. When any measures, however, were brought forward by the Government on this subject, they must be based, not only on such evidence, but they must be based according to the views of Mr. Huskisson, and of every minister who had presided over that department— 913 first, on a sound consideration of the general principles affecting this country; next, on the position of the country as regarded all its colonies and foreign relations; and, lastly, from u knowledge of the various interests in the country which might be affected by any measures which might be brought forward. These were the topics with which a minister was bound to deal; these were the topics which a minister was bound to consider. He should think any ministers were acting a very unsatisfactory—he had almost said, a mean part, if they brought forward a measure, and declared they had nothing else to say for it, but that it proceeded from the evidence of the Import Committee. He thought if the evidence before that committee were unfounded; if the witnesses came to false conclusions, they were not bound to pay attention to them; but with regard to the facts testified before that committee, they were bound to sift them, and not only to give them that consideration which was their due, but to weigh them in relation to the general opinion of enlightened men throughout the country, who are particularly conversant with this important subject. They did endeavour to take into consideration all those important topics; they did endeavour to form the conclusion which struck them as best, on each particular subject which had been brought before them, either by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) or by any other Member of the Government, or by any body which thought fit to lay its views before them; and they did endeavour to consider them, with a view of proposing such measures as seemed to be most useful for the country. On all those subjects, continued the noble Lord, be our opinions right or wrong, there, is a general agreement in the Cabinet: on all these subjects the Cabinet is prepared to act unanimously, whenever they think right to do so, with a view to the advantage of all the interests to which they refer. It will not shrink from any responsibility that may belong to it. Whether the measures we bring forward are useful measures for the country, it will be for this House, the other House of Parliament, and the country in general to consider; but this, at least, I may say, that we are not insensible to the immense importance of this subject, and that in bringing forward this question now, we are bringing forward that which is ex concessu, 914 an undeniable good: that we will endeavour, in every measure we submit, to take that which is supported by the greatest weight of argument, and confirmed by the longest experience; and if we are not mistaken in our views, we think that, by carrying on a policy of this kind, with due deliberation and at proper times, we shall render this country very great benefit, and that, if we fail, we shall have the consolation, at least, of thinking that our plans were taken with an honest intention of promoting the commerce, the industry, and the fortunes of this mighty empire.
§ Mr. Herrieswas anxious to correct a misapprehension into which the noble Lord had fallen, in conceiving that he had complained of the witnesses before the committee, having only an imperfect knowledge of the subjects to which their evidence related. Nothing of that sort fell from him. As to the individual to whom the noble Lord alluded, no one more highly appreciated his merits than himself. While in office, he had the good fortune to have a long and constant acquaintance with that Gentleman, and he would be the last to speak disparagingly either of his opinions or general intelligence. What he had said was, that he hoped before any measure was taken the subject would be more fully investigated before a committee, comprising amongst its members a large proportion of persons who had been connected with the administration of the affairs of trade. He thought the noble Lord was not likely to dispute that proposition. He also much regretted that the inquiries of the committee had been of so partial and limited a nature; for, although he might concur with all the witnesses examined, fairness required that those on the other side of the question should have had an equal opportunity of placing their opinions upon record. This was the more necessary, because however accidentally it might have happened, the fact was, an opinion very generally prevailed, and the examination of the late Secretary to the Board of Trade, to a great extent, countenanced the supposition, that the inquiry was promoted and superintended by Ministers, and that the opinions recorded on the evidence, un-contradicted by any antagonist statements, were those of the present Government. He would give a single instance of the mischievous effects of this mode 915 of procedure. Mr. M'Gregor produced a paper before the committee, in which he stated what the existing duties were, and how he could procure by a great reduction, an additional annual revenue of 6,000,000l.—a mine of wealth which no doubt Ministers, in the present exigencies of the Treasury, would be roost happy to explore. In that paper, which appeared in the appendix, the existing duties were set forth in a very partial and apparently most invidious manner. Opposite to "wheat," for instance, he found this entry:—"Prohibited, except at a nearly famine rate." Such was not Mr. Huskisson's system of corn duties; such was not the law; such was not the fact. This might appear to be a trifling circumstance, but it had its effect, and it gave an impression which certainly was by no means favourable to the general character of the report.
§ Mr. LabouchereThe right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had asked why he had not re-appointed the committee on exports this Session. He had, since he filled his present office, never moved for a committee to investigate a subject of this nature, and never opposed such a motion when made by any hon. Gentleman. He thought that committee had adduced extremely valuable information, but that a Minister ought not to shelter himself behind any committee, but to act as he thought best. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny should think proper to continue this committee this year, he should not resist the motion; but he should altogether oppose its re-appointment being made the pretext for interminable delay in legislation. He would never allow, that there was not ample information before the House and the country on all the great interests of our commercial policy, and if the right hon. Gentleman threw out the suggestion of the appointment of a committee, with the view of showing the impropriety of legislating on this subject, or forbidding it from availing itself of the opportunities which might offer for its adjustment, he thought such an argument ought not to be listened to for a moment. And when he said this, he confessed his principles so far coincided with those of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was in favour, not of absolute free trade, but of a moderate protection. But the whole question was—what was that moderate protection? The moment our duties 916 reached that point which compelled our colonies to take bad English articles when they could get better and cheaper elsewhere, they became factitious and burdensome in their nature. He held, then, that our North American and West-India duties were immoderate and excessive. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the evidence of a gentleman, who had for many years been Secretary to the Board of Trade. He meant Mr. Hume, who had given his evidence before the Import Duty Committee, and of whom he had spoken in high terms, but not higher than his character, talents, and services deserved. This was not the first time that gentleman had been examined before a Committee of the House of Commons. He had given his evidence before the Select Duties Committee of Mr. Huskisson, the Timber Duties Committee of Lord Sydenham, and he could only say, that as long as he presided over the Board of Trade, he should not only permit, but encourage the officers of that Department, to give every information in their power, when called upon by such bodies. He did not deny, that the suggestions of some of the witnesses appeared to him to be somewhat chimerical, or that he should not recommend his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to frame his budget on the plan which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) alluded to, without considerable modifications, but this he would say, that the labours of the committee had, on the whole, produced the most important benefits: it called the public attention to the present state of the duties, and it was only necessary to direct that attention to them, to show that important changes might be effected with the greatest advantage. They should act with circumspection, and on information due to the importance of the subject: but he heartily rejoiced, that every day furnished evidence of an improved feeling and increased information in the country, which, if properly reflected by the Legislature, must lead to important and useful results.
Mr. Villierssaid, that after the important and satisfactory speeches of the President of the Board of Trade, and the noble Secretary for the Colonies, he felt some scruple in troubling the House with any remarks, as they certainly had, in the opinions they had professed, said what was quite sufficient to recommend the measure to him. They had avowed themselves, with 917 great distinctness, advocates of the policy which was avowed by Mr. Huskisson, and had expressed that confidence in the justice of his and their own opinions, that made them independent of further inquiry. They seemed from their speeches to be aware of the wants of the country and of the colonies, and only to desire the power to give effect to their liberal views. After the speeches indeed he had heard from them that night, he should watch their course with interest and with hope. He wished now to say one word as to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harwich, with reference to the committee on import duties, of which he (Mr. Villiers) had been an active member. In one respect, what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman in his allusions to that committee had not surprised him, for he had spoken of it, and of the witnesses that gave testimony before it, with that caution and respect that became a man of sense and honour, feeling as he did that against their object or their motives he had nothing to allege—and thus at once distinguished himself from speakers in another place, who had thought it right to impugn the conduct and motives of members of that committee. The right hon. Gentleman had honestly said, that he had nothing to say against the fairness of that committee, he believed, that they had conducted their proceedings justly; that he knew that Members on his own side had been consulted as to its composition, and that the character of the witnesses, more especially the one that had been referred to, was deserving of all respect and credit, from his integrity, intelligence, and experience. And, indeed, no person whose opinion was worthy of respect would venture to utter one word against the gentlemen who had given the principal evidence before that committee. What the right hon. Gentleman complained of, if he understood it, was the result to which the evidence had led the committee. The right hon. Member seemed to think that if there had been more time, that evidence might have been adduced to shake the evidence which was taken, Now he would take leave to set the hon. Gentleman and others who had commented on this matter, right in one respect, namely, that the evidence did not derive its importance from the particular witnesses or the opinions they expressed, but from the facts taken from official documents, and explanations given to them by persons, whose attention, 918 from the nature of their office, had been particularly directed to them. The object of the inquiry was to ascertain with what view and purpose the duties on imports had been imposed; there had been some confusion on this subject in discussions in this House, and his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, proposed to move for this inquiry—the question being whether they were for revenue, or what is called protection? The real importance, then, which attached to the report of this committee was, from the startling facts which it elicited in the exposition of this subject, and there is no delay, no fresh committee composed of members possessing what is called enlarged experience or high commercial character, that could vary in the least (if they were indefinitely to postpone their inquiry) the facts which result from comparing the taxes which are imposed for revenue and the taxes which are imposed for protection, or in other words, imposed to swell the incomes or secure the profits of particular classes at the expense of the community. It is the enormous burden imposed by this means upon the people by enhancing the price of the necessaries of life, that startles and surprises the community, that has angered those that are interested in maintaining the corn-laws, and induced them now to cal the committee partial and one-sided. He remembered when he requested the President of the Board of Trade to allow the hon. Member for Kilkenny to have this committee: he said, why he can only elicit facts that are already known, or at most give them the authority of an official document; and that is really what has been done. They had examined the persons who were, or who had long been, in the public service, and who explained the purpose and operation of the import duties, and they showed how various had been their objects and effects, and how time and circumstances had contributed to alter their intended operations. But he contended that the facts that were really damning to the existing tariff were those which could not be controverted, and which had been established by respectable and competent witnesses. But it was perhaps a diversion to refer to this committee upon this occasion. The resolutions before that House were not immediately founded upon it; and though resting on principles which the report of that committee went to uphold, were in fact independent of it, and indeed there was nothing which had fallen 919 from the President of the Board of Trade that had not been distinctly stated by Mr. Huskisson in 1825. He (Mr. Vivian) supported these resolutions which were now submitted to the House, because they seemed to assert one principle of policy, and abandon another. They assumed, that colonies, like independent countries, required liberty of trade to prosper; and on the other hand, that it was unwise, as it was unjust, to sacrifice the interests of colonial communities to the interests of the parent country, or to particular classes connected with them. And the real question which was raised by these resolutions was the one of monopoly or freedom—and he, for one, did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge's speech, who advocated the cause of monopoly. He consistently urged every argument in favour of protecting particular interests, and opposed himself to the system of promoting the common interest before the interest of the class or the individual. The hon. Member threw out a variety of suggestions and objections to the measure, but they all turned upon the evil to the interest, and did not refer to the good of the country or the community. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, did not object to the measure as regarded the colony, or to its immediate effects elsewhere; but his real alarm was for the precedent it might afford at some distant day in dealing with interests nearer home. Here, then, he and the right hon. Gentleman met on distinct grounds, for it was precisely in the precedent that it offered for future legislation that he saw its chief merits; and this was doubtless also the only ground on which it could be opposed, for he did not suppose that any person questioned the evil that was produced by the present system of duties, which really was one system of reciprocal mischief between the mother country and the colony, and between one colony and the other for, at present, the mother country was at great disadvantage, obliged to take exclusively the dear sugar of the colonies, and in return the colonies were obliged to take the dear provisions of the mother country. Nobody would deny, he supposed, that that was a great disadvantage to both Again, Jamaica was obliged to take fish from Nova Scotia, and our provinces in America were obliged to take sugar from Jamaica—thus, in each case, getting what they wanted at the dearest market. It was altogether an 920 unsound system. It was an attempt to benefit the colonists and the mother country, by inflicting injury on each in turn; it was a system, in short, which was only aptly illustrated by the ludicrous image of the late Member for Hull (Colonel Thompson), who compared the protective system to so many monkeys in different cages each stealing from his neighbour's pan, and each losing as much as he had stolen. The present measure acknowledged the sounder principle of freedom of trade. It was for that reason that he should not now complain of its imperfect character, or remark upon its little interest or importance to the people of this country, for he approved of a measure that recognized the policy and interests of the community in procuring the necessaries of life, and what else they might require at the market where they could be procured the best and the cheapest. That was a principle, and one that he should always uphold, and he did not well see how that should be applicable to a population of negroes, and not be on some day applied to the fairer portions of her Majesty's subjects. He trusted that the day was now at hand when all would be alive to the advantages of allowing men to exchange the fruits of their industry at the best market. He thought great progress had been lately made on this subject, and if a bill founded on these resolutions was carried, and the injustice and folly of imposing protective duties on human food acknowledged, it would not be long before this country would be allowed to benefit by a similar policy. It had been said in jest that some of the persons that had laboured so zealously to procure negro emancipation had at last persuaded themselves that a black man was a better man than a white one. It almost seemed by this case as if the Legislature was tainted with a philanthropy, somewhat similar for, while the white men of this country were suffering the greatest depression from laws that raised the cost of food, consideration could only be procured for the wants of the blacks. However, he looked forward to some good being ultimately got for this country by this measure, and he supported what the right hon. Gentleman proposed with pleasure and satisfaction.
§ Mr. G. Palmerobserved, that he had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the peculiar views entertained by Mr. Huskisson with regard to protective duties, and that those views were modified 921 very far below what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Members for Kilkenny and Wolverhampton had shown plainly enough by their speeches, what would follow if these resolutions were carried, and their intention was not even disguised, to found upon them a sweeping attack on the landed interests of the country. The principle which was now applied to rum, would be speedily caught up and applied in a variety of other directions; and the Irish provision and Canada timber trade would be deprived of the protection which they at present enjoyed. The ultimate result would be, that not one article of protection would be given to British interests in any quarter of the globe, more than to those of any foreign power whatsoever. The effect would be most disastrous on their shipping interest; and he need scarcely say, that if they checked in any way their mercantile marine, they necessarily went to impair their naval power. He begged to call the attention of the Government to the following statement, which he had derived from the most authentic sources. During the twelve years of war, from 1803 to 1815, the average loss was 7l. 13s. 5d. per cent.; from 1815 to 1823, when the system of reciprocity took place, the average loss was 6l. 17s. 8d., and this in time of peace, making a difference of 16s. per cent. But the average loss since that period had not been less than 11l. per cent. How was this accounted for? The ships were of an inferior description, of an inferior make, and inferiorly provisioned, because they could not compete with the commerce of foreign countries on any other terms. If, then, the protective duties were removed, must not the effect upon their colonial shipping be altogether ruinous? He had watched with much interest the progress of mercantile affairs for many years, and it was his decided opinion, that it was necessary to protect trade; it could not go on without protection.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, his principal object in addressing the House was, to state that the language used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was as inconsiderate and rash as were the propositions which emanated from the committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, and wholly unworthy of notice. He thought that some of the resolutions before the House would do a serious in- 922 jury to the British colonies. He would not enter into details, as he should have other opportunities of doing so. He complained of the manner in which the examination had been conducted before the committee.
Mr. Villierswas not aware to what observations of his the hon. Member who spoke last referred, but if they were meant to apply to what had been said in another place, respecting the conduct of the import duties committee, he wished it to be understood that he repeated all that he had stated.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, that he certainly had referred lo those observations upon what had passed in another place, and which were expressed with the flippancy which generally characterised the hon. Member's remarks.
Mr. Villierssaid, that what he felt, with respect to the observations made by a noble Lord in another place was, that they were "personal, offensive, and unfounded;" and he was justified in this. The noble Lord to whom he alluded, had said that the conduct of the committee savoured more of design, trick, and contrivance, than any thing he had ever known. It was for the House to determine whether those were terms which ought to be applied to a committee appointed by itself. When the hon. Member said, that his (Mr. Villiers's) remarks savoured of the flippancy which characterised everything which fell from him, he could not, of course, reply to such observations without disturbing the order of the House. He treated it with the most perfect contempt, and would not waste the time of the House by alluding to it further.
§ Mr. Humedefended the conduct of the committee, and was about to read an extract from the speech of the noble Lord in another place, when
§ Mr. Goulburnrose to order. It was a rule of the House, that no reference should be made to what occurred in debate in the other House of Parliament. That rule had already been violated in the course of the present discussion, and the consequence had been the occurrence of an unpleasant misunderstanding.
§ Mr. Humedid not wish to excite angry feelings; he only wished to put the House in possession of the explanation he had received from the noble Lord alluded to, of what he had stated in the House of Peers.
§ Mr. Bernal(the Chairman of the Committee) said, that a great portion of the discussion which had taken place that evening had been altogether irregular. Many points had been debated which had no reference to the subject before the committee. He was sorry to say, that since he entered the House the rule which prohibited reference to what occurred in the other House of Parliament had been much disregarded. The consequence was, that he, when sitting in that chair, did not like to interfere to prevent such references, because at other times he heard they were made without being checked. He was, however, quite sensible of the irregularity of the practice, and of the evils which resulted from it. Now, that notice had been taken of the breach of order, he trusted that the good sense of the hon. Member for Kilkenny would dictate to him the propriety of desisting froth the course upon which he was about to enter.
Mr. B. Baringsuggested that the reports of what had passed in another place might not be strictly accurate.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that he had guarded against that objection, by sending the passage upon which he was about to comment, and which appeared in the report of the Morning Chronicle, to the noble Lord who had been alluded to, and the noble Lord admitted that it was correct. However, he would not read the passage, since it was supposed that it might excite Unpleasant feelings. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should, however, recollect that when persons were attacked they were naturally anxious to defend themselves. He might be allowed to state, in justice to the noble Lord who had been referred to, that his Lordship said he never blamed the witnesses who had given evidence before the committee; he merely considered the proceedings of the committee irregular.
§ Mr. A. Whitethought the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, conducive to the interests of our colonial empire; and he should not have troubled the House but for an observation of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who seemed to labour under the impression that the reciprocity treaties were not injurious to the shipping interest of this Country. Unquestionably there had been a considerable increase in our coasting trade, parti- 924 cularly in our foreign trade with countries with which we had no reciprocity treaties: but evidence of the injurious effect of the reciprocity treaties upon the shipping of this country was to be derived from the fact that from 1820 to 1839 there had been an increase in the foreign tonnage of 157 per cent., but in the tonnage of British shipping trading with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Prussia, and the United States only 40 per cent.
§ Mr. Bernalsaid, that before he put the question, he felt it necessary to take notice of some unpleasant words which had been used in the course of the discussion. He was sure that they were the result of misconception, and had been used, on each side, in a moment of irritation. He hoped the committee would confirm the impression which the matter had made on his mind, and second his efforts in calling upon the two hon. Members to whom he referred, to consider the language which had fallen from them, and, so much as they possibly could to explain and retract.
Mr. Villiers, who had been speaking to a Member behind the Chair, during Mr. Bernal's address, now resumed his seat.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his hon. Friend had been absent from his place when the Chairman addressed the Committee; perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat what he had said.
§ Mr. Bernalrepeated his observations.
§ Viscount Morpethexpressed a hope that the hon. Members would be willing to run a race with each other in retracting expressions which they had used under the influence of excitement. Under the circumstances it was not unnatural that the hon. Members should have expressed themselves warmly—one being the relative of a noble Lord, and the other a prominent Member of a Committee, upon whom and which severe strictures had respectively been made.
Mr. B. Baringhe was, of course, in the hands of the House, and was ready to apologise if he had transgressed its rules. If he had offended, it was unintentional; but he had certainly felt hurt at the expressions used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He was ready to retract what he had said, if the hon. Member would retract what had fallen from him.
Mr. Villierssaid, he was ready to retract the expressions used by him, that the hon. Member considered personally 925 offensive to himself, understanding that the hon. Member had done the same by him. What he had said had been drawn from him by the remarks of the hon. Member's relative, in another place, and which the hon. Member seemed to have thought could not have been used, but which, however, it now appeared, had been acknowledged by that noble Lord himself. The House would feel, that he had been justified in expressing himself warmly towards the hon. Member, when it recollected the observations that the hon. Member had used towards him.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, he still thought that there must be some mistake as to the offensive expressions attributed to his noble relative, for such language was abhorrent from his nature. He need add no more to what he had already said, which he believed, was considered satisfactory.
§ Mr. Bernalthen put the question, that the resolution be agreed to.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the whole of his argument had been directed to the purpose of eliciting an explanation. Why the duties of 40 per cent., introduced by Mr. Huskisson, and confirmed by Mr. Poulett Thomson, as proper protection duties, had so entirely changed their character as to require the present alteration, as yet no satisfactory reason had been given. With respect to the committee on import duties he would not say a word; but he was anxious to know whether this was only one of a series of measures, and he thought that upon that he had been a little enlightened, not by the Government, but by other hon. Members on the other side of the House. He had been a little surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, taking the field against committees as guides for the opinion of the Government, for if there ever was a Government which had placed itself in the hands of committees, it was that Government which he now had the honour to address.
§ Mr. Laboucheresaid, that what he meant with regard to committees was, that with regard to customs duties he had always thought, that it was not his business to move for a committee of the House of Commons, because that would amount to an intimation to the public of the opinion of the Government, that those duties ought to be altered; and any such opinion ought to be reserved until the Government 926 came down to move such an alteration. But it was a different thing when other hon. Members moved for committees, to which he often cheerfully consented, because the public and the Government derived a vast deal of important information from the labours of those committees. He adhered strictly to the principles which Mr. Huskisson had laid down on moving his colonial resolutions in 1885; but he did not think, that the measures which that right hon. Gentleman proposed were in accordance with the principles which he had himself laid down, and believing that he saw an opportunity of carrying those principles into full effect, he gladly availed himself of it.
§ Sir Charles Douglassaid, that having been a Member of the Committee on import duties last year to which allusion had been made, he felt bound to state, that he shared largely in the opinion which had been expressed, that the report of that committee and the evidence taken before it were calculated to give an unfair, because a partial, view of the ease. He begged attention to this fact, for which he would refer to their proceedings, and which was a perfect contradiction of the assertion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the inquiry had been fair and impartial. The first paragraph of the report stated that—
The evidence was so valuable, that the committee could hardly do justice to it in detail, unless they proceeded step by step to a complete analysis, which the advanced period of the Session would not allow.And then, in another paragraph, they stated that they—Recommended that, as speedily as possible, the whole system of differential duties should be considered, and that a change should be effected.And when he (Sir C. Douglas) moved an amendment to that report to the effect that the evidence, though "valuable," was so "partial and limited," that they could only suggest the re-appointment of a committee to continue the investigation," he was in a minority of two to five. So determined were the committee to give the evidence to the House of those only whose opinions were against the Corn-laws; and no wonder, for as to the constitution of the committee it was composed of nine; Government (or anti Corn-law) Members, to six of his side of the House; and the principal object of the majority had been 927 to receive evidence against the Corn-laws, although the Government had given a distinct understanding on the motion for the committee, that it should not touch upon them. Except the hon. Member for Whitby, he (Sir C. Douglas) was the only Member on his side, who had attended the committee regularly. He had done so in the discharge of his duty, and though he had felt that want, which the importance of the subject should have prevented—namely, that Members of greater experience and of official knowledge in such matters should have been placed on the committee, he should at the proper time show, that as far as the Corn-laws were concerned the evidence taken was of little value—and how had the committee proceeded? It was appointed on the 6th of May, and did not meet for business till the 6th of July, after which it sat for fifteen days examining twenty-nine witnesses; every one of whom entertained opinions against the Corn-laws, and then on the 6th of August, the committee insisted on reporting their recommendation without hearing any other evidence whatever. Was it not, then, absurd to say, that both the evidence and the report were fair and impartial? He would never consent to legislate on the recommendation of a committee so constituted and on evidence so adduced. It might have answered the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and the majority of the committee; for, although the country had hitherto been misled, by the report and evidence, by its ex parte nature, it had promoted excitement, and so given satisfaction to the anti Corn-law party. A book called a "Digest of the Evidence" had been circulated, which was, if possible, worse than the original being calculated to convey an unfair and erroneous view of this most one-sided report.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that there was no inconsistency in the report; for although there was not time for the committee to analyse the evidence, yet they thought that there were facts enough upon the evidence to enable the Government to reconsider the system of differential duties. That was the opinion of the majority; the hon. Gentleman was in the minority, and of course complained of the course which the majority had taken. But as to the charge of unfairness, he appealed to the hon. Member himself to say, whether there was any disposition to prevent any ques- 928 tion being asked, or to exclude any evidence that could be offered. As to the constitution of the committee, he had asked Sir G. Clerk to put on the committee from the other side of the House hon. Gentlemen who would attend, and he had changed two or three for others who promised to attend, but did not. In the committee not a question had been put directly bearing on the Corn-laws. But that was a question so intimately connected with the whole subject of investigation that it was impossible to put a question which did not resolve itself into a question about the Corn-laws. The hon. Gentleman said, the digest of the evidence was unfair, but he challenged him to point out one single error. He maintained that it brought the facts fairly and shortly before the public.
§ Sir C. Douglassaid, that he was bound to say, that no impediment had been thrown in the way of asking any question of the witnesses examined before that committee; and it was certainly true that the hon. Member had asked him whether he would attend the committee. He had replied that he would, but he felt that on a subject of that description he ought to have been supported in the committee by gentlemen of more experience on his own side of the House.
Mr. Villierssaid, that he thought he could explain why the hon. Gentleman was not better supported by his friends, by the sentiment which the only friend that did support him, namely, the hon. Member for Whitby, expressed to him, before the committee was broken up—which was, that he really believed, that if the committee lasted for another week, that he should be as good a free trader as himself.
§ Mr. Herriessaid, that the reason why Members who opposed the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, did not attend the committee was, that they did not expect the inquiry would take the course it had taken. When the committee was moved for, it was distinctly stated, that the operation of the Corn-laws would form no subject of inquiry before the committee. In answer to his noble Friend (Lord G. Somerset), the hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated, that finding on reference to the British tariff, which was erroneously supposed to be more simple than that of other nations, no fewer than 1,150 articles had duties imposed on them 929 his object in moving the committee was only to show what articles paid taxes which were not productive taxes; on which his noble Friend had stated, that after what had been stated, that the committee would not touch upon the Corn-laws, he should withdraw his opposition.
§ Mr. Humedenied, that he had given any pledge on the subject. The majority of a committee always determined what course the inquiry should take, within the orders of the House.
§ Viscount Sandonsaid, that it was quite impossible, that questions of such enormous importance to the commerce and manufactures of the country could be justly investigated without the examination of one witness, except on one side. The consequence of the publication of the evidence of the Under-secretary of the Board of Trade had been, that when it was found, that an official personage had come down to the committee and stated, that he would change this and change that, it was supposed, that he spoke with the authority of Government, and sales in several branches of trade were suspended. He could affirm this to be the case.
§ Mr. Wardsaid, that the sin of the committee had been, that they had brought out most valuable facts, which had been more quickly and thoroughly appreciated by the mercantile and manufacturing part of the community, and had laid a firmer hold upon the public opinion in general than the facts elicited by any committee he was acquainted with. That was the gravamen of the charge. If it was a report which the House was called upon to adopt immediately, as in the French Chambers, there might be good ground for what had been said. It appeared to him, that no subsequent evidence could shake the firm conviction that was spreading among the great towns of the kingdom, that the resolutions before the House were the proper basis of legislation. The country would receive with the greatest satisfaction the declarations that had been made by many of the Members of her Majesty's Government.
§ Viscount Sandonsaid, that was his complaint. He complained, that impressions and views, which the President of the Board of Trade had declared to be delusive and visionary in regard to several leading facts, should have been put forward by a committee who had only gone into one side of the question. Both sides 930 ought to have been heard before any publication had taken place. It was most objectionable, that an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade should have stated before that committee in language which might be translated, and materially influence the conduct of foreign merchants, that the duties on certain articles were prohibitions, except at famine prices, and stated this, too, as if it were the law, and not merely an interpretation of the law.
§ The resolution was agreed to.
§ On the question being put, on the next resolution,
§ Mr. Laboucheresaid, in answer to a question, it was his intention, in the bill to be founded on the resolutions, to enact, that it should not come into force until the 1st of January, 1842, which would enable the various colonies to make the arrangements that would become necessary in consequence of the alterations.
§ All the resolutions were agreed to.
§ The House resumed.—The report to be received.