HC Deb 06 December 1826 vol 16 cc291-8
Mr. Hume

presented a petition from the Machine Makers of Manchester, praying for an alteration of the law prohibiting the Exportation of Machinery. The hon. member said, that the petition involved a principle of very great importance to this country. He recollected hearing the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade say, that he hoped the day would soon arrive when the word "prohibition" would be expunged from our commercial system. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman in the sentiment, and he appealed to him whether it was right to continue a system of prohibitions with respect to machinery, when he was endeavouring to abolish that system with regard to every other article of industry? The object of the petitioners was to obtain a repeal of the law which prohibited them from exporting the produce of their ingenuity and labour to the markets that would afford them the best remuneration or reward. This object, at all times just, was rendered infinitely more necessary now that the markets at home did not afford a demand for their industry. The petitioners declared themselves to be totally out of work, and in a state of absolute starvation; the British manufactures affording them no employment, and the foreign markets being shut against them, by the prohibitory system persevered in by ministers. Every man was now allowed to export the produce of his industry to where he could find a purchaser, except the unfortunate maker of machines. The consequence of this was, that the machinists of England were in a state of destitution, whilst their sufferings were increased by a knowledge that it was in the power of ministers, by opening their trade, to relieve their distresses. Those who opposed the exportation of machinery were like those who had opposed the opening of every other trade, in order to augment their individual gains, and to secure to themselves a monopoly. He might illustrate the truth of this by referring to many trades, but particularly to the silk trade. The persons engaged in that trade had done every thing in their power to persuade the country and the government, that removing the prohibi tory laws would ruin the whole silk trade of England. Ministers, however, had persevered in their enlightened views; and so far from the English silk manufacturers having been ruined, they were even benefitted by the new system. The opposition to the exportation of machinery arose from the same narrow views and personal motives, and he did not see why the government should not extend their principles to that branch of our industry. The House had been so strongly impressed with the impolicy and injustice of preventing British artisans taking their capital and ingenuity out of the country, that they had come to a unanimous resolution of allowing artisans to export themselves wherever they pleased. The rational consequence of this measure ought to be, that artisans should be allowed to export their machinery as well as themselves. If the exportation of machinery were to be prohibited, artisans would export themselves to an extent to prove highly injurious to the country. The effect of the law, as it now stood, was to encourage the emigration of our most useful machinists. No apprehension could be entertained of foreigners being enabled to rival us in manufactures; by obtaining our machinery, for it was in large works that required the use of machinery, in which our supplies I of coal and iron, our canals and our large capital, gave us the advantage over foreign manufacturers. In works that required little combinations of capital, and only the application of small machines, foreigners might rival us. Labour in France, considering the relative value of money, was almost as dear as in England. The law, as it now stood, was so contrary to good policy, that it could not be carried into effect; and it accordingly operated solely as a bounty upon the smuggling of machinery out of the kingdom. The law in its details was most absurd. He expressed his most anxious wish that it might be speedily abolished, and moved, that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Huskisson

appealed to the hon. member, whether a question of such vast importance could with propriety be discussed at a period when thousands of manufacturers were either out of employ, or but partially employed? He assured the hon. member, that if a bill were to be introduced, which had for its object the abolition of every restriction upon the exportation of machinery, it would be pro ductive of serious alarm in the manufacturing districts, and would give rise to the presentation of numerous petitions from all purls of the country to that House. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would confine himself to the presentation, of the petition, and would not follow it up with any specific motion. It had been generally agreed, that some alteration in the law respecting the exportation of machinery should take place; and the question having been agitated some time ago, a regulation was made, giving to the Board of Trade a discretion, as to the kinds of machinery which might or might not be exported. The discretion thus vested in the Board of Trade was of a most disagreeable and unpleasant nature. It was, moreover, liable to this objection, that in whatever way the Board of Trade decided, the party refused the right of exportation conceived himself injured and wrongly dealt by. Upon this ground alone he felt the necessity of establishing some fixed and settled principle of exportation and prohibition of all articles of machinery. He had himself endeavoured to lay down a rule by which the discretion vested in the Board of Trade should be regulated; and that principle was—that where machinery was of great bulk, and contained a great quantity of the raw material, no objection should be made to exportation, as he considered that no injury could be done to the country by it. But where machinery was of modern construction, and depended mainly upon the ingenuity and excellence of the mechanism, and where the raw material used was trifling, then the exportation of such machinery was prohibited. It was a notorious fact, that many manufacturing establishments were at this moment standing still, under the expectation of obtaining machinery from this country. Under such circumstances then, and particularly in the present state of the manufacturing interests, he implored the hon. member not to agitate the question at this period. He had no objection to the petition being brought up and read, and, if necessary, printed; but he did not wish it to go forth to the public, that the whole law with respect to the exportation of machinery might be safely repealed.

Mr. Littleton

protested against the sweeping doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Aberdeen. As a representative of a large manufacturing county, he would say, that if such doctrines were to go abroad, and to be acted upon by that. House, the greatest alarm would be created throughout the country. He meant nothing offensive to the hon. member for Aberdeen, when he stated with confidence, that the alarm existing among the manufacturing interests was not at all diminished by the fact, that that hon. member had taken the lead upon this important question. There was not any one great town in England, from Nottingham downward, that did not entertain alarm at, and that had not expressed a wish to be exempted from, his measures relative to trade. For himself,' he thought it a most difficult question for any person, or set of persons, to define the kinds of machinery which might be exported, and those which were to be prohibited. Under this impression, he thought that the most advisable course would be for the right hon. gentleman to present the skeleton of a bill, accompanied by schedules of the allowed and prohibited machinery, and to refer that bill to a select committee, who should have the power of filling up the blanks. That a revision of the law was necessary was beyond all doubt; because as it now stood, though the exportations of certain machines was prohibited, yet it was much doubted whether that law prevented the exportation of the same machinery in parts. Upon this question of the exportation of machinery, a memorial had been some time since presented to the Board of Trade, from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, containing such sound and practical arguments against indiscriminate exportation, that he wished it was possible to have it printed and laid before the public. That memorial stated, that if the finer and more ingenious parts of machinery were allowed to be sent abroad, the artisans and manufacturers would soon emigrate after them. He hoped the hon. member would not follow up the petition with any motion on this delicate and important subject.

Colonel Torrens

said, that, although he agreed in principle with those who looked upon free trade as a great advantage, he was far from going along with them to the extent to which they proposed to carry it. He thought that the principle of free trade must be ever limited by another principle; namely, the policy of each country reserving to itself the sole benefit of those exclusive advantages, which, cither from nature or by acquisition, it might enjoy. Why should we not take advantage of the materials which were placed exclusively in our hands, and confine the enjoyment of them to ourselves? We had, for instance, coals at a cheap rate from our mines. He had some time ago been told by a manufacturer on the Seine, that he could not work his steam-engine, on account of the dearness of fuel. Now, he thought that if a duty of fifty per cent were levied on coals exported to the continent, it would produce two good effects. In the first place, it would, to a certain extent, benefit our revenue; and in the next, it would prevent the foreign manufacturer from competing with us. He was, generally speaking, a friend to free trade. But, in every science, there must necessarily be exceptions. There could be no universal principle applicable to all circumstances. Now, it was admitted on all hands, even by the hon. member for Aberdeen, that we made better machinery than our rivals; that they could not compete with us in that branch of art; and that our manufactures were, in consequence, cheaper and better. If such was the case, he would ask, why we should give up our exclusive advantage? He would contend, that we ought to keep, with a firm hand, all our exclusive advantages, because they evidently ministered to the wealth and the prosperity of the country. The country was now, as it were, in a storm, and we ought to keep the ropes tight, and let nothing go, until fair weather came round again.

Sir H. Parnell

did not conceive that any mischief could arise to any branch of our trade or commerce, by the exportation of machinery of whatever description. The use of that machinery would enable other countries to increase their wealth, and we should ultimately derive a proportionate benefit from such increase. It appeared to him unjust to withhold this liberty from the manufacturers of machines. They formed a large class of the community; and he could not see why their interests should be sacrificed to those of other manufacturers, the produce of whose industry was exported.

Mr. Baring

said, he thought that it would conduce to the economy of the time of the House, if hon. members would avoid making long speeches upon presenting petitions, and reserve themselves until the specific questions to which such petitions related came property under their consideration. It would, in his opinion, be much better to adopt this course than to fatigue the House, night after night, with arguments and disputations without end. The opinions just delivered by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he was sure he had heard him repeat more than twenty times before; and he could not but think, that they would better suit a discussion upon a specific measure. He was, however, pleased that this debate had taken place, as it had called forth a gentleman whose talents promised to be a great addition to those who thought with him. It had been for so long a time the habit to look upon any man as a Goth who dissented from the modern doctrine of political economy, that he could not help congratulating the House upon the accession of the hon. member for Ipswich (colonel Torrens), and he hoped to find that hon. member frequently coming forward, upon his side of the question. It was true that the heavier articles of our machinery, such as cylinders, wheels, &c. were exported without injury to our trade or commerce. They were composed of a large quantity of the raw material, but the articles proposed to be prohibited were, as far as the material was concerned, of trifling value, and were only prized because of the ingenuity and skill exercised in their construction. As the law now stood, however, it was almost impossible to define what might and what might not be exported; so that, after all, it would be most advisable to appoint a board, who should have power to regulate the whole question of the exportation of machinery. If we were driven to the question of an unqualified exportation, or a total restriction of machinery, he, for one, should prefer the latter. But we were not driven to this extremity; and the best course would be, to appoint a proper tribunal, which should have the power of deciding the articles of machinery which might be exported, and those which ought to be prohibited.

Mr. Warburton

was of opinion, that the discussion of such an important subject as this ought not to be confined to one field-day, but that it ought to be frequently brought under the consideration of the House. The speech of the hon. member for Ipswich rested entirely on the assumption that this country possessed a monopoly of the more ingenious machinery, and therefore ought to enforce it. Now, he denied that this assumption was correct, and therefore his argument went for nothing. The fact was, that nine tenths of our machinery was open to all Europe, and there remained only one tenth for the protection of which we had to struggle. But even if we had that monopoly, how could we hope to retain or enforce it? How could we prevent persons from copying the different models of that machinery which were regularly given in our Encyclopædias and other publications? The fact was, that by this monopoly we were sacrificing a certain profit for an uncertain gain. He trusted that no specific measure would be introduced upon this subject, but that the regulation would be left as it was at present with the Board of Trade. He could not help expressing his surprise, that the people of Manchester, who had been the first to petition for a free trade in corn, should have lent themselves to the getting up of such a memorial as that alluded to by the hon. member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), relative to the exportation of machinery.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, that when the hon. member for Aberdeen, in the last parliament, had expressed his determination to introduce a measure for the repeal of the present law, he had urged him to postpone it, because he thought it was due to the feelings of the manufacturers not to make so great an alteration at that particular time; and, in his opinion, the present was as little suited for such an experiment. They had been told that it was quite absurd to continue this law, and to prohibit the exportation of machinery, because drawings of the different machines were to be found in the Scotch Encyclopædia. But, since the year 1821, when that Encyclopædia was published, many improvements had been made in those machines. [Mr. Warburton, "Then they are secrets."] Then, if they were secrets, why should not the country profit by them as much as possible? This was a question which ought not to be hastily taken up. They had already had some experience of the ill effects attending a precipitate decision on long-established laws. When the hon. gentleman brought forward the repeal of the combination laws, he laid down some broad general principles, which sounded very well. He called on the House to put the master and the journeyman upon the same footing; and he inveighed against the then existing law as a mass of absurdity. But, what was the result? Why, in about ten months, having become wiser by experience, they found it necessary to retrace their steps. They did not, it was true, go back to the old laws; but they were obliged to adopt new ones, to remedy the defects of the measure which was to have wrought wonders. The right hon. gentleman stated, that he fully agreed in the expression of satisfaction that had fallen from an hon. member opposite, as to the conclusive and able statement made by the hon. member for Ipswich (colonel Torrens) respecting the true principle on which our commercial policy should rest.

Mr. Bright

observed, that the effect of particular systems of law was frequently over-rated, their real operation being ascertained correctly, as soon as they were repealed. Such had been the case with the combination laws; and, as soon as the statutes forbidding the exportation of machinery should be abrogated, it might be found that they had materially contributed to the protection of the manufacturer. He trusted that, in the present session, the true principles of political economy would be better understood, and that no sudden change in the existing law would be attempted.

Ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.