HC Deb 10 August 1843 vol 71 cc493-516

The Order of the Day for the second reading of Exportation of Machinery Bill having been read,

Mr. Gladstone

said that, in moving the second reading of the bill, assured the House that he had never approached any question with a more clear and entire conviction of the policy and justice of the course that he recommended. He was aware that some gentlemen took a different view of this question, but at the same time there were many who were prepared to give their hearty approbation to the proposition which he was now about to make. He entreated of the House to look at this question in a practical point of view. For his part, he should only look upon the question as bearing upon the trade and labour of this country. He called upon them to consider the results likely to occur from a perseverance in the law, and, on the other hand, the results to be expected from an abrogation of the law. The object of the present bill was to do that openly and legally, which was now attained by indirect means. Those who objected to the exportation of machinery did so, saying that the question was, whether certain manufactured goods should be made in this or in other countries. If they kept the machinery here, they considered the goods would be made at home, and, therefore, they would increase labour and employment at home. If they allowed the machinery to go abroad, then those goods would be manufactured abroad, and they considered it desirable to prevent that. Now, he was prepared to contend that a removal of all restrictions on the exportation of machinery was, under the existing circumstances of trade, the best course that could be pursued by Par- liament for the promotion of the commercial interests of this country. The first position which he had to press upon the attention of the House was this, that the existing law, so far as it prohibited certain machinery from being exported, was, nominally, prohibitory, but in practice it was nugatory. This was the conviction of the officers of the Customs. So long ago as 1824 it was stated by Mr. Deane that the law was evaded in numberless instances—that the law was inefficient; and after a lapse of seventeen years, Mr. Deane, upon being further examined, declared that his opinion had undergone no change as to the inefficiency of the law. Through the facilities afforded by the coasting trade, there were abundant means afforded of carrying out the prohibited machinery, and of taking out the different parts of that machinery. New and valuable articles of machinery were not included in the prohibition; it was directed against old and clumsy articles. A seizure of the parts of a machine afforded no adequate remedy for the smuggling carried on. The Custom-house officers could only seize certain parts; those parts were valueless without the whole, and in one case out of a hundred there was no one to buy these parts, or the original owners bought them for a nominal sum, and they were then exported. The committee, in the 5th page of their report, remarked, that Much more had been stated in the evidence, to show the inefficiency of the law prohibiting the exportation of machinery and tools. The law could not be executed, and, therefore, it became necessary to have it amended or totally repealed. So far, as the amendment of the law was concerned, he conceived that to be altogether impossible. Then, as to the other alternative, it was that he thought which common sense and political judgment required. The enforcing of customs prohibitions outwards, was very different from enforcing prohibitions inwards. In the one case, it would be according to the system carried on in this country impossible to enforce them. In the other it was not so, because even after the prohibited article passed the customs it was not safe. It was still liable to seisure. If, indeed, there were a general system of collecting export duties, if they had officers to examine every parcel going abroad, then there might be adequate provisions made for enforcing the existing law; but the House knew that the idea of a tax upon exports was abhorrent to this country, and if it were attempted, it could only be done by an enormous increase to their customs establishment, and at an expense which the country would never endure. It was the opinion of practical custom-house officers, and had been since 1824, that was for nearly twenty years—it was their judgment that this was a law incapable of execution. For twenty years, too, this law had been labouring under a stigma, inflicted on it by those whose duty it was to administer it. The law was not what it professed to be—prohibitory of the exportation of machinery abroad. What, then, was its effect? The difference in the cost between machinery made in this country and in other countries was a small one. He admitted this principle that they ought not to sacrifice their trade in manufactures for the sake of their trade in machinery; they ought not to sacrifice a great trade for the sake of a small one. It was quite true that their trade in machinery was a small trade, while their trade in manufactures was great. He said, however, that the cost of the machinery was small, compared with the value of the goods turned out by that machinery. It would be difficult to make a statement as to the amount of difference between the machinery in this country and abroad. The price of the foreign machine-maker was about 20 to 30 percent. more, as compared with the price of the machine-maker in England. Before machine making was established abroad, the foreign manufacturer laboured under greater disadvantages than at present; for then he had to depend upon the smuggling of machinery from England; he then had to pay 50 per cent. more than the British manufacturer on the cost of machinery. The House need not be informed that it was no longer a question as to whether foreigners should have machinery of their own; but the question was whether this country should not have the machine making of the world? A considerable portion had passed from their hands, and they had now to see, whether, by a vigorous effort, they might not recover it, or acquiesce in the loss. He believed, that since the foundation of machinery establishments in Belgium, that for machines equal in execution to those of this country, the foreigner paid 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. more than the British manufacturer paid. Suppose, then, the law were repealed, the foreigner would have to pay on British machinery the cost of carriage, 10 per cent. The import duty then was from 10 to 15 per cent., so that the whole of the gain must be 5 to 10 per cent. In 1841, some of the parties who were opposed to the exportation of machinery calculated that the value of the machinery could not be more than 5 per cent. on the goods when produced; if that were so, then all that would be done by the removal of the prohibition on machinery, taking into calculation the cost of the machine, the time it would last, &c., would only amount to a quarter per cent., or a half at the most, on the goods produced. To maintain a prohibitory law for this, and to prevent their foreign rivals from having so slight an advantage, was most invidious. They had a certain advantage themselves, and because a benefit might be done to another they refused it. He was not one to justify smuggling, nor did he think it was a matter to be spoken of lightly. He did not say that a bad law afforded a justification for breaking it. He thought that persons were obliged to obey the law as long as it subsisted, but then when a law was said to be, by those acquainted with its working, impracticable; when it was shown that there were the strongest inducements to break it, then it became the duty of Parliament to amend that law, or, if it were consistent in its policy, to repeal it. Let them compare the case of smuggling in this article with smuggling in other articles. He would take the case of brandies or of tobacco. No one denied that smuggling was a very great evil, that smuggling in these articles was carried on to a great extent. In the latter case, however, an immense revenue was at stake. Whether rightly or wrongly a great national interest obliged them to maintain the existing laws, even though they involved the evil of smuggling. There was no such national plea in this case. There was no question of revenue, and he contended that there was no matter of national policy. Let them see, then, the situation of the machine maker with reference to this law. They were not to justify the machine maker for smuggling; but they gave him an excuse which no other smuggler possessed. He was not aware that there was any other of the productive classes, except the machine maker with whom the law interfered to prevent the sale of the article he produced. The law relating to machine makers in this country was such as no other branch of manufacturing industry in the country was subject to. And why? Was it because being a trade in which we particularly excelled above all other countries—being a manufacture in which the hands and minds of our artificers were peculiarly and most happily turned, that we should inflict on them a prohibitory law, which was not only a hardship in itself, but which our own Custom-house officers told us it was impossible to carry into execution? He thought that he had a right to call upon any Gentleman who opposed the present bill for repealing a law so peculiar in its nature, to offer some peculiar grounds in support of its continuance. When this law was first enacted, the ground alleged was to place the foreign manufacturer of articles involving the use of machinery at a great disadvantage in respect to British manufacturers, who possessed, by reason of their machinery, an amazing pre-eminence. The notion then was that machine making was a kind of secret, a sort of mystery, the enjoyment of which we could keep to ourselves if we took the necessary precautions. Indeed, the wording of the act of 1696 distinctly recognised this view of the matter, by using the word "mystery'' in reference to the making of machines and tools. The substance of the preamble to that act stated: That whereas a very useful and profitable invention, craft, or mystery existed in this country for the making of silk stockings and other articles; and that, whereas, some machines had been exported out of England, whereby the said commodities in foreign parts, which heretofore had been only made in this country, much to the detriment of the manufacturers of this country, and that, therefore, be it enacted, that such exportation of the machinery be prohibited. It was the belief at that period, that, by prohibitive enactments, they could ensure to the people of this country the exclusive enjoyment of certain branches of manufacture, and for some time, undoubtedly, experience seemed to confirm us in this monopoly. But now the case was different. These branches of manufacture had found their way abroad; other countries are determined to manufacture for themselves instead of taking them from us, and the only question now was, whether we should inflict the small additional charge upon the prosecution of foreign manufacturing enterprise which the prohibition of the exportation of our machinery seemed to enable us to do. He must say, that if the principle upon which this prohibition was founded—namely, that of preventing foreign manufacturers from ob- taining the means of carrying on their trades—if this principle were to be carried out to the limits it was susceptible of, it would be fatal to almost every branch of our commerce. After all machine makers were manufacturers, and they had a right to claim to be put upon the same footing in regard to the exercise of their trade as all other manufacturers. Had not the machine maker, then, a good ground to say, "If you prohibit the exportation of my machinery, which is cheaper and better than can be made abroad, I call upon you to prohibit in like manner the exportation of cheap iron; I call upon you to prohibit the exportation of models of machines; I call upon you to prohibit the exportation of cheap coal—which are all made use of by foreign machine makers for the purpose of rivalling this country in her machinery and implements of manufacture:" Nay, more, he would have a right to ask for the prohibition of the emigration of our artisans, without whom foreign machine makers could do nothing. Until the year 1824, the law actually did prohibit the emigration of artisans; and he must say, he thought that the arguments by which that prohibition was supported were quite as strong as those which were now alleged in support of the prohibition of the exportation of machinery. But that law was an impracticability, and it was repealed. With regard to the prohibition upon machinery, experience showed that it could not be carried into effect; that in spite of it our machinery did find its way abroad; and, therefore, he thought he had a right to call upon the House to abrogate a law which, unjust in itself, exhibited a constant proof of the inability of the Legislature to carry its intentions into effect. He would tell the hon. Member for Ashton, whom he saw opposite, and whose constituents were so largely interested in spinning, that if the principle of this prohibition upon machinery were a fair one, it ought to be made to apply to the exportation of yarns and twist; for the possession of these yarns enabled the foreign manufacturer to rival us in our finer fabrics. It was permitting our yarns and twist to be exported which enabled the German Customs League. by putting a duty of only 6 per cent. upon them, to exclude our more finished articles of manufacture, in which those articles were involved, from their markets. Many strong complaints had been made upon this very ground, and it could not be denied that, in all that had been said and written in support of the law of which he now complained in regard to machinery, if the word "twist" was substituted for "machinery," the argument would hold equally good. The argument in both cases was, that by the exportation of certain articles of manufacture, as machinery in the one case, and twist in the other, the foreign manufacturer was enabled to produce the finer and more finished fabrics cheaper than we could sell them to him under the heavy duties imposed abroad upon them. The fact was, that this was not merely a proposition of his own, nor of the Government to which he belonged, but one which had received an amount of sanction from competent authorities, which would be overwhelming—if any amount of authority could be overwhelming—independent of the discussion of the merits of the question. He would refer, in the first instance, to the report of the committee of 1825; at a time when there was scarcely any machinery made abroad. The report of this committee stated, that the committee were of opinion that the law relating to the exportation of tools and machinery should be regulated upon the same principle as that applied to other articles of manufacture, and concluded by Recommending that, until some alteration was made in the law on this subject, the Privy Council should exercise a discretion to permit the exportation of tools and machinery in those cases where it appeared not to be prejudicial to the trade of the British empire. Mr. Huskisson, he would add, entirely concurred in the above opinions, and was for revoking this illiberal prohibition. He came now to the committee of 1841, which had also decided in favour of the above liberal views. An impression had got abroad that this committee had not been unanimous in favour of a repeal of the law. It was even said, that the principle of repeal was carried by a bare majority of six against five. This, however, was a mistake. It was true, that the general proposition for the total and unconditional repeal of the prohibition having been moved, and being met by an amendment recommending an immediate change, but proposing to leave the nature and extent of that change to the consideration of Government and this House, the original proposition was carried against this amendment by a majority of six to five only. But at the same time it was evident by another division, which took place on the same day (the 3rd of June), the hon. Member for Manchester being in the chair, that the committee were almost unanimous against the continuance of the present law; for on the hon. Member for Montrose moving, That the law prohibiting the export of machinery should be repealed, and the trade of machine-making be placed upon the same footing as other departments of British industry. The hon. Member for Tiverton moved as an amendment, that The committee could not recommend an immediate and unconditional repeal of the laws prohibiting the exportation of machinery. For this amendment only one vote was given, that of the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, and against it were the votes of all the other eight Members of the committee present. He thought, therefore, that he stood on strong grounds of authority for the course which he was now proposing to the House. He apprehended, indeed, that if the late Government had remained in office, they would have considered it their duty to have brought in a measure to repeal the law on this subject, in accordance with the recommendation of that committee. But as the House was aware, that Parliament was prorogued almost immediately after that report was presented, and that in the Session which succeeded, namely, last year, the attention of Parliament was deeply occupied with other commercial questions of greater magnitude, so that it had hardly been possible to bring a measure upon this subject forward at an earlier period. At the same time he would say, that if there was any fault to be found with this measure, he thought that it was on account that it came not too soon, but too late. He did not wish to cast any censure upon those who imposed this prohibition, but he thought that Parliament would have done more wisely, and have better consulted the real interests of the trade of this country, if they had repealed it some time ago. It was in consequence of this prohibition that Belgium was now making machinery upon an extensive scale, which was sent into other countries, and this branch of manufacture was not only important in amount, but was largely on the increase there. In 1834 the Belgian machine-makers exported machinery to the value of 69,000l., and in 1838 to the amount of 236,000l. The latter year, it was true, was one of extraordinary speculation, but the average exportation of Belgian machinery for the five years last past was 146,000l. Within the last three days he had seen a gentleman, an Italian, at the office of the Board of Trade, who afforded him some strong corroborative evidence of the impolicy of the present law. This gentleman, he would observe, he had previously seen in the course of last autumn. Upon that occasion he said, that he was going to Sardinia to get orders for machinery, and told him, that if he could undertake to remove the prohibition upon the exportation of machinery from this country, he would get the machinery he wanted from England. He was not, however, in a condition to make any such promise, and the consequence was, that upon the last occasion, three days ago, when he saw that gentleman on his return from Turin, he informed him that he had sent his orders for machinery to Belgium, instead of to this country, in consequence of our prohibitory law. He had also recently had an interview with a deputation of machine-makers headed by Mr. Hetherington, at the office of the Board of Trade. The memorial presented by that deputation declared— The conviction of the memorialists that a relaxation of the law would occasion orders to be sent to Lancashire to the amount of not less than 300,000l.; whilst otherwise the orders would not exceed one-tenth of that amount, great part of which would be for models of machines. The memorial went on to state, that a foreign gentleman connected with manufactures stated, that at Zurich making cotton machinery had been given up since the prohibition to export it from her had been relaxed, in consequence of the competition of the machine makers of Lancashire; and that, in respect to flax machinery, which was still subject to prohibition, the Zurichers were ready to give extensive orders to the machine-makers of Leeds, provided they could export it without risk; but that, if not, they would send their orders to France and Belgium. This memorial was signed by Messrs. Taylor, Wordsworth, and Co., Messrs. Murray and Jackson, and Mr. Fairbairn. He had also received a communication from the Belgian minister, stating that the machine makers of Belgium had sent to him a deputation, who stated, that in consequence of the relaxation of the prohibition upon the exportation of some descriptions of machinery from England, they were being superseded in the manufacture of such machines in their own country. All these authorities were strong evidence of the fact, that the making of machinery was a branch of productive industry which this country might carry on under peculiar advantages, and to a large extent, if the law permitted it. The value of this branch of trade consisted very much in this—that in all its features it was, as it were, indigenous to this country. He thought, as a general principle, that it was far better to cultivate a trade whereof we commanded all the elements within our own soil, than one for which we depended for the staple raw matreial upon another country. For instance, to take the cotton trade; he would not say that there was any probability that we should ever be deprived of our supply of raw cotton from the United States; but still, was it not a striking advantage in the manufacture of machinery, over that of cotton even, that all the materials were of native produce, and that, through this circumstance, full 80 or 90 per cent. of the value of the manufactured article went direct into our own pockets. But there was another ground upon which he was most anxious that this law should be repealed. He had a great aversion, on principle, to vesting a discretion in the Board of Trade, as to whether the prohibition against the exportation of machinery should or should not be relaxed in particular cases. One object of all laws should be to limit, as far as possible, all such discretionary power on the part of the Executive, and to lay down a clear principle, which should be applicable alike to all. He would not say, that there had ever been any grounds to suspect that the Board of Trade, in the exercise of this discretion, had afforded any fair grounds for complaint; he knew that in the country some impression of the kind had sometimes prevailed; so much so, that persons labouring under the expectation that to obtain a relaxation of the prohibition from the Board of Trade was a matter of great favour, or, at least, of much difficulty, had thought it advisable to appoint some trusty friend to manage the matter for them. Another objection which he had to the present system was, that it offered peculiar opportunities and inducements for smuggling. Orders were obtained for the exportation of a large quantity of machines. It was very difficult, in the first place, to lay down and define the exact quantity which should be exported, and the consequence was, that the parties obtaining the order, exported portions of the whole quantity from time to time, keeping a debtor and creditor account of the quantity which the order authorised the exportation of, and the quantities so from time to time exported; and by separating the parts of machines, it was rendered extremely difficult to identify and ascertain that the machinery exported was precisely of the kind for which the order has been granted. It appeared, then, that the prohibition had been gradually relaxed—that, in fact, it could not be maintained, and that the mode in which it had been relaxed and evaded, had led to great vexation and frauds. Some descriptions of machinery being prohibited, and others not, and the principle of relaxation being applied from time to time to different descriptions of machinery, so that parties did not know what they might expect, and what they might not. Looking at the principle involved, he should be prepared to say that the system, under the present law, was in its nature unconstitutional. He thought that it was too much to lay restrictions upon the manufacturing and commercial enterprise of the country, and then to leave the enforcing of those restrictions at the discretion of the executive department. It was true the First Lord of the Treasury had a dispensing power in cases of revenue; but it could not be pretended that the prohibition upon machinery was a question of revenue. This prohibition could not be defended upon considerations of finance. What, too, was its effect upon the minds of foreign countries? Why this—that when we endeavoured to persuade them to adopt our notions of freeer trade, they cast it back in our teeth that we ourselves in this most important article in industrial enterprise, were in the highest degree restrictive, our object being to prevent them from having the means of competing with us in certain branches of manufacture. He had before him some observations on this subject by a Belgian gentleman, which were to the following effect—That Great Britain offered surrounding nations the principles of reciprocity, but violated them herself in the article of machinery—preventing them from having the use of the means of competing with herself in her own manufactures—her object being to insure herself a monopoly in the mechanical arts. The proposed relaxations would have the certainty of securing a steady and valuable trade—most valuable as ministering to the subsistence of the labourer, and the materials of which were entirely native and indigenous to our soil. So far, therefore, he could hardly conceive that any gentleman would be disposed to say that the time had not arrived for opening up this trade. By doing so the British manufacturer would not be deprived of his peculiar advantages. It was not in the power of laws to deprive him of these. So long as the country was the great seat of manufactures, so long would it be the great seat of machine making. Machine making always followed manufactures. Why was it that machine making was not principally carried on in the iron, but in the manufacturing districts? Wherever great manufactures took up their seats, there would machine making take up its seat also. To be removed from the seat of the manufacture was a very great disadvantage to the machine maker. The course of improvement in machinery was rapid. Every change which took place in its construction lessened labour, and consequently expense. In 1841 and 1842, years of great commercial and manufacturing depression, great improvements in machinery took place. Indeed, he might mention that in Bolton, in the very depth of the depression, a new factory was opened, because it could command the advantages of a slight improvement made in machinery. So valuable then were improvements, that, while other factories which possessed machines made a short time before were unable to keep open, it was found worth while to go to the expense of setting up and opening a new factory, merely because it possessed more improved machinery. If the present system should be permitted to continue he was impressed with the conviction that inventors of improvements in machinery would be driven from the country, and foreign inventors would be prevented from carrying out their improvements here. Inventors would naturally go to the country which gave them the greatest facilities both of construction and as regarded markets. Admitting that this country could offer these advantages to inventors, and that they were to be so offered, then British manufacturers would have the advantage of being free from the cost of carriage for improvements, by these improvements being made at the seat of their own manufacturing industry. They would likewise have the first access and the most entire command of new inventions and im- provements in a trade in which such facilities were of the most inestimable importance. But while they had this advantage—it was no unfair advantage—they had no secret—no monopoly. They had the means of producing the best and the cheapest machines, just as they had of producing the best and cheapest cotton cloth. With respect to the present feelings of the manufacturers as regarded the export of machinery, no person of that class had remonstrated with the Government on the course which they had pursued last year of granting licences for exportation. That course would not have been adopted had the cotton and woollen manufacturers, as a body objected to it. With respect to flax and linen machinery, however, he must make a reservation. The parties interested in that came before the committee sitting in 1841, to oppose the abolition of the prohibition to export machinery to make articles of flax and linen, upon account of peculiar circumstances connected with the trade. That machinery, had, therefore not been included in the licensing system, Many of the linen and flax manufactures of France, however, were carried on by English-made machinery. He proposed now to abolish all the restrictions upon the exportation of machinery. The prohibitions, at present existing, furnished a strong argument against them in foreign states, when we applied for reductions of their import duties; and yet the system had been found quite ineffectual, it had caused England to be mocked at all over the world, on account of the inefficiency of the prohibitory arrangement; and all this was endured, not to carry out a great and comprehensive principle of policy, but for the miserable purpose of inflicting some small and scarcely perceptible disadvantage upon the foreign manufacturer. He did not propose to substitute any export dues in its place of the abolition, for if they did they would run a great risk of losing what they aimed at—a steady and considerable trade in the manufacture and exportation of machinery. He had shown to the House the authorities by which, in making his proposal, he was supported—he had shown that the existing law was stultified by the licensing system, and he did think, that he had said enough to induce the House to assent to the second reading of the bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Hindley

regretted that he was obliged to offer any opposition, or to impose any impediment, to the recognition of the principle of the bill. It was sound in principle, and, believing that it was a part and parcel of the great system of free-trade, he would like to see that principle carried out in the proper time and place. But what was the conduct of the Government? After having turned out the late Ministry for their proposal to take some steps towards the principle of free-trade, after leaving the manufacturers thus saddled with the difficulties which, after the defeat of their projects, remained upon them, Government now came down with the very extreme of free-trade notions, and said that the result of the ingenuity and industry of the manufacturers should be entirely given away. This was most inconsistent conduct, and he opposed the second reading of the bill before the House, on account of the time at which it was brought forward, and of the circumstances under which the manufacturers were placed. The principle of free-trade should always be carried out with a due regard for the interests of all the members of society. In 1841, a committee sat upon the subject, but, from the constitution of that committee, it was impossible that they could have come to any conclusion other than that which they did arrive at, even although it should not have examined a witness at all. The late Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he would observe, was the only Member of the late Government who attended the committee; and his authority upon mercantile subjects could not be expected to be very great. It had been established by the committee of 1841, that the English were superior to the foreign machine makers, and an attempt was made to prove that it was impossible to put a stop to the smuggling of machinery out of the country. That, he contended, was a great fallacy. They could prevent exportation, not, perhaps, by the medium of Custom-houses; but by causing the machine manufacturers to give in a regular list of the machines made by them. When machinery was made for exportation, the fact was well known to the workmen employed upon it, and to the district generally. To say, indeed, that they could not stop the exportation of machinery, if they had a mind to do so, was to assert something widely inconsistent with fact. The advantages gained by exclusively possessing the best machinery were so great, that the House should pause before consenting to part with them. The committee of 1841 had established several points; but it had not established, that the advantages of allowing exportation would not be overbalanced by the increase of competition in those manufactures to which it would give rise. The relaxation of the law would certainly produce a better trade in machine making; and so trade would be also benefited by relaxation of the Corn-laws. Improvements in machinery were invented as well by those who were concerned in working it as those whose occupation was to frame it. And thus, when manufacturers gave to machine makers the benefit of their experience and ingenuity, they were to allow the latter to dispose of the fruits of that experience and ingenuity where they best could find a market for them. The manufacturers were not free and unencumbered. They had to contend with a duty upon cotton. Why did not the Government do away with that? They had to contend with a duty upon flour, not merely as an article of food, but as an article entering into the fabric of the goods which they produced. They put three-quarters of a million of exclusive taxes on manufacture, and then told them to enter into competition with nations which possessed food at half the price which, in this country, the manufacturers were obliged to pay for it. If the Government would but repeal the Corn-laws, then he would be very glad to unite with it in supporting and carrying through this bill. Let the manufacturers of England enter into competition upon fair grounds, and he had no fears for the result. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had said that a discretion was vested in the Privy Council as to the exportation of machinery, which was unconstitutional. He had intended to have put a question to the Attorney-General on that point, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place. He believed, however, that if the manufacturers had been inclined, they might have objected to its exercise. But when they considered the want of employment which then existed, they did not think it right to oppose this means of supplying a livelihood to many individuals. But this reason for abstaining from remonstrance existed no longer. He had had a letter from a manufacturer that day, who said that a machine-maker could not execute an order of his, he was so engaged; and his belief was, that in Manchester they were in full employment. The right hon. Gentlemen must know, that for the last four years the manufacturers had been in such a state, that they could not avail themselves of improvements in machinery. But if there was any hope of their obtaining profitable remuneration, the machine-makers would find full employment at home. Was it right that the most important bill of the Session (so far as consequences to our mandfacturing powers were concerned) should be proposed for a second reading on the 10th of August? He saw by the papers, that the noble Leader of the Opposition had paired off that morning, and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Heathcote), who would no doubt have opposed the bill, had also left town. Before he concluded he wished to call the attention of the House to two answers from Mr. Marshall, the extensive manufacturer. He was asked:— Would it not be unwise to try any experiments which would have the effect of disturbing a prosperous manufacture in our own country?—Certainly; unless there was a reasonable expectation of deriving a greater benefit than the loss in amount received. But is not the obvious policy to be content with a prosperous trade, when once established?—I should say so, unless there were good reasons for making a change. And without strong reasons, you would not make any change?—Certainly not. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had given no reasons whatever as to the effect of this bill in admitting of foreign competition. He should move, therefore, as an amendment, that a select committee be appointed to examine into the laws relating to the exportation of machinery.

Mr. S. Wortley

must take leave to say, that on a subject involving interests of an extensive and important nature, it would have been more becoming to have laid this bill on the Table—he should not say on the first, but on an early day of the Session—in order to give Members a fair opportunity of considering the subject, and also to enable the country to take some opportunity of noticing its provisions. He did not, however, think this a sufficient reason for giving a decided opposition to the bill. Supposing we had a decided advantage in the manufacture of any article, he did not hold the doctrine that we were not perfectly justified in retaining it. Nations, like individuals; were justified in taking advantage of peculiar circumstances or natural advantages. The question now was, whether under existing circumstances, there was any ground for maintaining these laws. Having given the best consideration to the facts stated by his right hon. Friend, and coupling them with the course taken by the department over which he presided, he thought there was really little worth fighting for, and that it was not worth while to maintain the enactments which it was the object of this bill to repeal. For a long time past steam-engines had been exported. And tools were also allowed to be exported, which gave foreigners the power of manufacturing on their own premises several articles which were here supposed to be confined to this country. There was a letter issued some time ago by the Board of Trade, which was intended to give free permission to those employed in cotton and woollen manufactures to emigrate. What restrictions were left then but the small residue, which, securing no advantage to us, it was the object of this bill to abolish? His hon. Friend (Mr. Hindley) had made a powerful appeal on the assumption that we really possessed advantages which it was the object of this bill to forego, whereas his belief was, that whatever advantages we might have possessed, we had allowed them to slip from our hands, and we had no further power to retain them. He was inclined to reimpose obstructions which the executive had abolished. He must say, too, that those interested in the manufacture of machinery had a right to protest against any interference with a trade which the Government had allowed to grow up within its cognizance. He saw it stated before the committee that foreigners being allowed to export machinery, an inducement would arise for our best artizans to emigrate, in order to make in their adopted country the machines which they now supplied at home. But he did not believe that this allowance would increase emigration, for it was clear that even now when a foreigner wished to establish a manufacture on an extensive scale, he did not rely on the assistance of persons totally unacquainted with machinery, but availed himself of the services of those who had a practical knowledge of his business. He did not think, at all events, that the question of emigration was any longer open to discussion, the artizan having a perfect right to transfer his services to any country he chose.

Mr. Labouchere

would give his support to a bill for abolishing the last prohibition which deformed the statute-book. He was sure that by doing so he should promote the interests of the British manufacturer, and also the lasting and well considered interests of the great body of the people generally. The only objection of any weight he had heard against the bill was, that it ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. He, however, knew the difficulty that a Minister had to contend with in finding time for trade measures in this House. At the same time, knowing how strongly the manufacturers of this country felt on the subject, he thought the question should have been submitted to the House before the Members whose opinions were of consequence had left town. He could not, however, refuse his assent to the bill on that ground. He must say that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashton was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. If the hon. Member had said he should resist this bill from the facts declared before the committee, there would be reason in such course, but to say that this subject should be examined again by a committee after having been discussed again and again, was a course which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly accede to. The hon. Gentleman had made a sort of personal attack on him because he bad not taken the chair of the committee. He found he was not able to attend so sedulously as so important a question required, and he had, therefore, requested his right hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Sheil) to take his place. He was astonished to hear the sort of sneer in which the hon. Gentleman indulged as to his right hon. Friend's commercial knowledge. The hon. Gentleman shared in what was a very common mistake, that it was impossible for one of the great and extraordinary abilities, and brilliant eloquence of his right hon. Friend, to apply his mind with advantage to practical subjects. If he (Mr. Labouchere) had ever entertained such a notion, his intercourse with his right hon. Friend would have dispelled it; for he knew his right hon. Friend applied his mind, not only with the greatest willingness, but with the greatest success, to many commercial questions. He admitted that it was a matter of regret that ministers had not included corn and sugar in the changes of last Session; but that they had not done so was no reason for resisting such a bill as the present. It was much more advantageous to have the manufacture of machinery here than to deprive foreign countries of the opportunity of procuring it from us. He remembered when he was one of a commission to treat with the French, one of the commissioners whom he met, said there was no one thing it was so difficult to persuade the people of France of as that we desired fair terms of commercial intercourse, when we kept up this prohibitive law as to machinery. And he must say with good grounds, for how could we ask the law as to silk manufacture to be changed and put on a footing of fair interchange, when this anti-social, anti-commercial prohibition was staring them in the face. He quite agreed with Mr. Deacon Hume that whatever duties were levied for revenue on imports our exports should be left as free as possible. We should make England the workshop of the world, and every one should be free to take away our manufactures without let or hindrance. It would be, perhaps, ungracious to ask why the principle announced to-night by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, was not acted upon in the tariff, and why such a wretched duty as that on China clay was retained? He was glad that the Government had not proposed a duty on the exportation of machinery; the only wise course was the complete abolition of restriction. The choice which, under existing circumstances, we had to make was whether we should export machinery, or the ingenious mechanics who made machinery. For many years past large numbers of our most skilful mechanics had been taken abroad to manufacture machinery there. It was not yet too late for England to become the machine mart for the world, and that he trusted would be the result of the measure.

Mr. Brotherton

could not support the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton. It was impossible to prevent the exportation of machinery. During the past year 500,000l. worth of machinery was exported through the Custom-house, and it might fairly be assumed that twice as much was smuggled out of the country. This being the case, it was advisable to legalise the export, and he was satisfied that the interest of our manufactures would not suffer by it. The manner in which manufacturers had come forward to support this measure ought to convince the Government that they were sincere in advocating the removal of all restrictions on commerce.

Mr. Hume

was delighted in comtemplating the proceedings of the House that evening, involving as they did the recognition of a great principle for which he had long contended in spite of much opposition, and the ultimate triumph of which he now witnessed. The law respecting the exportation of machinery had hitherto been a dead letter; it would now he placed upon a proper footing. He would mention a fact which would show the injurious effect upon the employment of labour which resulted from the absurd restrictions in the exportation of machinery which at present existed. Last autumn a gentleman whom he knew, received an order to make a 100,000l. worth of machinery for a foreign country. He said he could not undertake the order until he knew whether he could have a licence for exportation, and as the matter was pressing, and no delay could be allowed, the order was sent to be executed abroad. As soon as the new system came into operation, this country would have the benefit of every new invention from abroad; all would be brought to this country to be manufactured. He hoped the present measure would prove the harbinger of future changes in the direction of free trade. He thanked the Government for what they had done, and gave full credit to the right hon. President of the Board of Trade for the able statement which he had made.

Mr. Ross

said that a general desire prevailed amongst all parties interested in the flax manufacture in the north of Ireland that the bill should not immediately become the law of the land. The flax manufacturers of Ireland were at present labouring under difficulties which had resulted from the restictions imposed by France on the importation of linen yarn. He knew that some manufacturers had carried on their business during the winter at a very small profit, whilst many had suffered severe losses. On this occasion, he spoke the sentiments of his constituents for himself was a free-trader, and thought that the arguments of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade were unanswerable. His constituents, also, were free-traders, and, with them, the passing of this bill was only a question of time.

Mr. Duncan

said, that he had not heard a single individual engaged in the flax manufacture express any objection to the bill.

Mr. Cobden

expressed regret, that any amendment should have been moved to the motion for the second reading of this bill, by a gentleman holding free-trade opinions. He was acquainted with many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ashton, and he firmly believed that very few of them would be found to agree with that hon. Gentleman. He should be wanting in justice if, on the present occasion, he were to withhold his support from the Government; at the same time, though he approved of the bill, he could not approve of the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had recommended the measure. He gave his support to the bill because he was opposed to every description of monopoly, and he believed, moreover, that the measure might easily be justified with reference to the interests of the manufacturers themselves. A few years ago they would have arisen as one man to oppose any proposal for allowing the exportation of machinery. At that time there was a restriction, not only on the exportation of machinery, but also on the exportation of artizans. Neither restriction had, however, been of any real avail. In every large town on the continent there had long been an abundance of English spinners, weavers, and other artizans, all helping to teach the natives to rival us in our machinery, and instead of our having a monopoly, there might be said to be schools all over the continent for teaching the latest improvements in machinery. He should not mix up the question of corn, or other matters with the present discussion; but he could not help saying, that he saw the time fast coming when the farmers, for whose benefit, it was said, the Corn-laws had been passed, would become as warm advocates for the repeal of those laws, as many of the manufacturers now were for the abandonment of all restrictions on the exportation of machinery.

Mr. Williams

said, that if the working classes of this country were in the same position with respect to the prices of food as the working classes of foreign countries, there could be no objection to the proposed measure: but one-half the wages of the English artizan were taken from him by the laws which regulated the prices of corn, and other articles. He wished Government not to deal thus with parts, but to bring forward rather a great and comprehensive measure embracing the whole of our commercial policy. Let Government do this, and he would have no ap- prehension as to the result. But there was great danger in taking the system piecemeal. In proof of this, he might instance the effect which the change introduced last year into the watch making trade. The reduction had had the effect of throwing a very large number of workmen out of employ. With respect to the argument that we ought to set an example of liberality to foreign nations, he would ask, after what they had seen, what chance there was that foreign nations would follow the example we set them? By a comprehensive measure the Government would be enabled to relieve the industry of the country from the pressure that now weighed it down. They must come to it at last, and the sooner they did so the better. He did not say that a measure like this ought not to pass, but he thought there ought first to be some further inquiry.

Dr. Bowring

said, that there could be no danger to our manufacturers in allowing the exportation of machinery, for, of course, machinery would continue cheaper in the country whence it was exported, than in those to which it would be carried.

Sir R. Peel

said, there was one argument of the hon. Member for Coventry on which he was desirous to make a few observations. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the proceedings of some foreign governments, which, notwithstanding the reduction that had taken place in this country in the duties on their produce, had nevertheless, increased the restraint on the introduction of British manufactures. No doubt some foreign countries had acted in such a spirit, but he (Sir R. Peel) wished that those who directed public opinion in those foreign countries could hear some of the complaints that had been made in this country with respect to that course. He wished they could hear the statement of a Gentleman of great judgment and experience, Mr. Herdman, of Belfast, whose evidence on the subject now before the House had been more than once referred to that evening. Mr. Herdman was an opponent of the measure under discussion, and complained much of the recent restrictions imposed by France and Belgium on the introduction of linen yarn. He called those countries our commercial enemies; but he wished that the manufacturers of those countries could hear what, according to Mr. Herdman, had been the effects, on time linen manufacturer of those restrictions. Mr. Herdman said:— The policy of France in this case has been most injurious to her own interests. Under the system of admitting English linen yarn, she had increased her native manufactures, was becoming almost independent of Belgium, and was beginning to compete with us in foreign markets. On the reduction in the price of linen yarn here, caused by the French tariff, the price of the manufacture has been enhanced to the French consumer, and a great part of her own people have been thrown out of employment; at the same time the reduction in price of yarn has enabled us so effectually to compete with French linen that we have completely driven it out of the foreign market. The Belgian manufacturers, in consequence of the enhanced price, have lost nearly every foreign market, except France. It was at the instance of France, be it remembered, that Belgium imposed this increased duty on yarn. Mr. Herdman went on:— As matters stand, I consider that by the hostile tariffs of France and Belgium those countries have lost much more than we have lost. He did not despair, notwithstanding these hostile tariffs, that in a short time the effects of those tariffs on the countries that had imposed them would become so apparent as to lead to a relaxation of the system of which those tariffs formed a part. He had himself been a Member of the committee which sat in 1841 for the purpose of inquiring into this subject, and he thought there had never been an inquiry more creditable to the mercantile intelligence of this country. The whole question was exhausted in the course of that inquiry, and it would be a complete farce now to renew it.

Sir R. Ferguson

said he would not have risen, but that the right hon. Gentleman, in reading the statement of Mr. Herdman, had stopped in the middle of a sentence, and he (Sir R. Ferguson) was anxious to complete it. Mr. Herdman went on to say:— But if we give them the weapons by which we have obtained the commercial victory, without any corresponding concessions on their part, we shall only deserve what in a few years must take place—the total annihilation of the mutual trade between the two countries. That was the opinion of Mr. Herdman, and if machinery was allowed to be transferred to the Continent, he must join him in thinking that such a policy would be likely to inflict a severe injury on our trade.

The House divided on the question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of question." Ayes 96; Noes 18: Majority 78.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Bannerman, A. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Barclay, D. Lincoln, Earl of
Baring, hon W. B. Lyall, G.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Barnard, E. G. Mackenzie, W. F.
Beckett, W. Marsham, Vict.
Blackburne, J. I. Masterman, J.
Boldero, H. G. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Borthwick, P. Morison, Gen.
Bowring, Dr. Napier, Sir C.
Boyd, J. Newport, Visct.
Broadley, H. Nicholl. rt. hn. J.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Brotherton, J. O'Brien, A. S.
Bruce, Lord E. Oswald, A.
Buller, C. Palmerston, Visct.
Clerk, Sir G. Pechell, Capt.
Cobden, R. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Peel, J.
Collett, J. Plumridge, Capt.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Protheroe, E.
Cripps, W. Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Round, J.
Duncan, G. Scott, R.
Dundas, Adm. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Eliot, Lord Smith, B.
Elphinstone, H. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Escott, B. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Ewart, W. Stanley, Lord
Forster, M. Stewart, P. M.
Fuller, A. E. Stuart, Lord J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Stuart, H.
Gibson, T. M. Sutton, hn. H. M.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Tennent, J. E.
Gordon, hn. Capt. Tomline, G.
Gore, M. Trench, Sir F. W.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Wakley, T.
Greene, T. Ward, H. G.
Hale, R. B. Wawn, J. T.
Harcourt, G. G. Wood, B.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Wood, Col.
Hawes, B. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Hill, Lord M. Wyse, T.
Hope, hon. C. Yorke, H. R.
Hope, G. W. Young, J.
Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Hume, J. TELLERS.
Hutt, W. Baring, H.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Pringle, A.
List of the NOES.
Acton, Col. Forman, T. S.
Allix, J. P. Grogan, E.
Archbold, R. Henley, J. W.
Broadwood, H. Ingestre, Visct.
Darby, G. Mitchell, T. A.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Morris, D.
Flower, Sir J. O'Conor Don
Ross, D. R.
Rushbrooke, Col TELLERS.
Sheppard, T. Hindley, C.
Sibthorp, Col. Williams, W.

Main question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.