HC Deb 22 May 1823 vol 9 cc435-9
Mr. Huskisson

said, he had given notice yesterday that he meant to call the attention of the House this evening, to the objection which had been taken against proceeding with any bill intended for the regulation of trade, unless the subject were first referred to a select committee, in conformity with the Standing Order of that House, agreed to on the 23d of June, 1820. After the best consideration he could give the subject, it appeared to him impossible that the true meaning of the standing order could be such as was contended for yesterday. It evidently applied to cases where parliament were about to restrain trade by some additional statutory regulations. Now, the object of the bill which he had brought in was not to restrain trade, but to throw it open. He might infer from the history of that standing order, that such was the intent and meaning of the House in adopting it, as well as of the hon. gentleman who was the mover of it. It was true, in common parlance, if a person said he would take away certain restrictions, it might be affirmed that he was regulating that that to which those restrictions applied. But such was not the feeling of the House when the order of June 20 was proposed. How did the matter stand with respect to this particular case? Some years ago, the House had, by a particular bill, imposed certain regulations on the silk trade, and those regulations they were now about to remove. Surely that could not justly be called regulating a trade, but taking away all the regulations. If the house intended to extend the Spitalfields act to every part of the country, that would be imposing new restraints; and, in the language of parliament, regulating the trade. There the order would apply. But what was there in this bill to regulate trade, when, by it, all regulations were to be removed? On examining the Journals, he had found, that in the very week after the adoption of this standing order, there were half a dozen bills in progress through the House, all of which went to regulate trade; one related to the bounty on salt, another to the stamping of linen, &c.; none of which were previously referred to a select committee. The old standing order was a very different thing. It directed, that no bill for regulating trade generally, should be brought before the House, until the subject had been considered by a committee of the whole House, and their report had been made thereon. What situation, then, would, they be placed in, if the interpretation now sought to be given to the order of 1820 were correct? Why, after a committee of the whole House had examined a question, and reported that certain alterations were necessary, it must be again referred to a select committee, to inquire whether that which had been agreed to by the committee of the whole House, was or was not proper. They had, for instance, a committee on trade. That committee had made a voluminous report to the House on the ware housing system, &c. A committee of the whole House had adopted their suggestions; but now, upon this new principle, these subjects were to be referred to a committee up stairs. Such a proceeding would be an Utter absurdity. But this order went still further. The bill, according to it, could not be read the first time, before it was examined by a select committee. So that before individuals were acquainted with its provisions, before it was known what the committee were to inquire into, it was to be sent up stairs! This order was most objectionable. It was impossible to carry on the business of parliament, if they were, in the first instance, to act on the old standing order, and afterwards oh the new one. The hon. member for Yorkshire, to whom they owed this admirable application of the standing order, had told them triumphantly of a bill which he had caused to be referred to a committee up stairs. But that bill was so referred, because it affected the interest of particular parties. It could not have been referred to a committee in conformity with this standing order, because it had been read a first time. To find out what the true meaning of the standing order was, he would propose to refer it to a select committee, who should be instructed also to report, whether it was fitting that a standing order, which had remained a dead letter since its formation, should be suffered to continue on the order-book. The right hon. gentleman then moved, "That the said order be referred to a select committee; and that they do report their opinion, whether the same is applicable to bills for taking off restrictions or regulations imposed by any act of parliament upon the manner of conducting any trade, and as to the expediency of the said order being continued as a standing order of this House."

Mr. Stuart Wortley

contended, that this order was introduced for the very purpose to which it was now applied; namely, to prevent any new regulation, or any alteration being made in the laws which related to trade, without due notice being given to the parties concerned, so that they might be heard at the bar. The old order applied to regulations respecting foreign trade and the general commercial policy of government; but the new one referred to the regulation of any branch of our domestic trade. There was a bill now on their table relating to the stamping of linen, which showed the necessity of this order. Many persons in Scotland connected with the linen manufacture were, he understood, dissatisfied with that measure. It was supposed, that an intention existed to throw the monopoly of that trade into the hands of the great capitalists. He did not say that that was the fact; but certainly those who complained had a right to be heard on the subject. He had no objection to the standing order being referred to a committee, who, he had no doubt, would view its meaning as he did.

Mr. D. Browne

defended the standing order, and argued that its provisions ought to be complied with. In that part of the empire from which became, he had never heard any person say, that the taking off the stamp from linen would not be ruinous.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said; the standing order in question was introduced, not to prevent parliament from removing restraints on trade, but to prevent them from suddenly, unwisely, and improvidently imposing restraints on it. If, when it was before the House, he had imagined, that it would hinder them from taking away restrictions, he would have opposed it, instead of giving it his Support. [Hear.]

Sir R. Fergusson

said, he was in correspondence with every part of Scotland in which the linen trade was carried on, and he had not heard a voice raised against the measure introduced by the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. Calcraft

contended, that the standing order was imperative. Why not, then, yield to it, and particularly when the object was, to promote a bill which seemed to give general approbation? The right hon. gentleman said, that this order was a most indiscreet tampering with the right principles of trade. He was glad to find this new light broken in upon him, and was sorry it had not shed its rays before he introduced his naval and military pensions' bill. The right hon. gentleman might take credit perhaps for having given up the lottery; but the fact was, that the lottery had given him up. The current report was, that the usual contractors had lost so much money by the scheme, that they would have nothing more to do with it. Unless some doubt could be fairly thrown upon the words of the standing order, why refer it to a committed?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that as to the lottery, the only thing that had occurred was a five minutes' hesitation on the part of the lottery-office-keepers, whether they would bid or not.

Mr. Brougham

was ready to give the principal members of his majesty's government some credit for the adoption of more liberal principles respecting trade. He considered the present bill just, necessary, and expedient. He rejoiced in the conversion of ministers to these principles; particularly in the conversion of the fight hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson); and still more in that of the more illustrious convert near him (the chancellor of the exchequer). The former, it was true, had always entertained liberal opinions upon such matters, without acting upon them; but there was no saint in the calendar whose conversion was more marvellous than that of the chancellor of the exchequer. That right hon. gentleman had on a proposition on the subject of free trade, passed to the order of the day. With reference to the standing order, he thought it would be better to refer it to a committee.

Lord Milton

asked, whether it would not be the shorter course at once to give a select committee upon the bill, rather than on the standing order?

Mr. Ricardo

was glad to see this contest for the adoption of liberal principles in matters of trade. He hoped they would persevere in getting rid of such obnoxious and impolitic regulations.

Mr. Canning

thought, that the best course would be at once to settle the application of this standing order, by referring it to a committee.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.