§ Mr. Blackburnepresented a Petition from the merchants, manufacturers, and other inhabitants of Manchester, praying a removal of those restrictions by which our commercial intercourse with other nations was impeded.
Mr. Philipsexpressed his satisfaction at finding that petitions of this kind were presented from such extensive manufacturing, districts as those of Manchester and its vicinity. It was a convincing proof of the progress of information on the true principle of commercial policy. It was to be lamented that, while such respectable bodies were proceeding thus, another body of persons, the agriculturists, should continue to, call for separate protection and relief. He regretted to find that the exploded doctrine of partial protection should still be adhered to by any one set of persons in the country. It was impossible that any such protection, extended exclusively to one branch of society, should not injure not only itself, but the other branches also. He was of opinion 479 that the agriculture, the commerce, and the manufactures of the country had but one common interest. Whatever injured any one must also be prejudicial to the others. He was sorry to see such unceasing attempts made, to excite prejudice in the public mind on this subject. By no one was this more strongly persevered in than by a gentleman who had lately circulated papers among the members on the subject. The gentleman to whom he alluded was Mr. George Webb Hall, who was chairman of the Agricultural society. He must say, having looked over those papers, that he had never witnessed a greater confusion of ideas, or ignorance of political economy manifested. For instance, he proposed the exclusion of foreign imports, on the ground that by encouraging it we should encourage foreign labour. The persons, however, though more immediately concerned, thought differently; they said it was delusive to expect that we could export our produce, without admitting that of other countries. This gentleman said, that if we encouraged the introduction of foreign produce, we should discourage domestic industry. This was a specimen of the confusion of the writer's ideas on the subject. He would notice another error. Mr. Hall took the year 1813 as that of our greatest prosperity; and this prosperity, he said, was caused by the high price of our agricultural produce in that year. Here, clearly, he was confounding causes and effects. So, then, the exclusive monopoly of the continental markets, which we enjoyed in that year, had nothing to do with adding to our prosperity. But if the gentleman would inquire, he would find it was that monopoly which enabled us to bear the very high price to which agricultural produce had been raised.—The hon. gentleman, after some allusions to the difference of our currency in 1813 compared with the present time, concluded by expressing a hope, that a full and impartial inquiry into our restrictive system would shortly be entered, into. If we removed those retrictions, we should set an example to other nations, which would be as readily followed as our very opposite and injurious policy of imposing them had been.
§ Lord Stanleybore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners. He hoped that their liberal and enlightened views on the subject of our commercial policy would be acted upon. Whenever any 480 such measure should be brought forward, he would give it every support in his power.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.