§ Mr. Leycestersaid, he thought that the duty imposed upon foreign corn imported into this country was a sufficient protection under ordinary circumstances; but, if there should be a deficient crop, the situation of the British agriculturist would be far from enviable. He differed from those who thought that the duty ought to be lower, because he was satisfied that the consequence of a lower duty would be the sacrifice of the English gentleman to advance the interests of the German baron.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he observed, with 346 great regret, a clause in the bill as now printed, which he thought was in complete violation of the principle upon which the present measure was introduced. The new clause was described in the margin "Reciprocity of Duties in the Trade of Corn," and the object of it appeared to him to be to put a stop to the importation of foreign corn altogether. By that clause, power was given to his majesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, to prohibit the importation of corn from such foreign nations as should impose upon our vessels carrying goods to those countries, greater duties than those imposed upon national vessels. He wished to know from the right hon. gentleman whether his view of the clause was correct?
Mr. C. Grantsaid, the object of the clause certainly was, to enable his majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council, to prohibit the importation of corn from Russia, Sweden, or any other foreign nation, which might abuse the generosity of England, by taking all the benefits of our system of relaxation, and imposing higher duties upon our shipping and goods in that country, than were exacted from the subjects of that nation who might import, in foreign ships, foreign corn into this country. In introducing that clause, the originators of the present measure had acted upon the principle which had regulated the measures hitherto introduced for the repeal of duties upon foreign goods imported in foreign vessels. In the year 1822, when his right hon. friend brought in his bill for allowing intercourse with the West Indies, there was inserted a clause, giving to the king in council a power of prohibiting all intercourse with those colonies in any such cases as those alluded to. In 1823, when they had gone a little further, and had done away with all discriminating duties as a principle, did they then deprive themselves of the power of imposing upon foreigners the necessity of adopting a reciprocity of duty, or else of shutting them out altogether? Certainly not. There existed then, as well as now, a clause, giving his majesty's government a power to re-enact those restrictions, and to establish a prohibition, should any foreign power shew a disposition to abuse our generosity. Upon this same principle, it was now proposed to act. The foreigner was told, that we had for our own benefit relaxed our prohibitory system of commerce, but that as he was 347 also to benefit by that relaxation, we should expect a like liberality upon his part; if not, we reserved the right to protect ourselves against his attempt to abuse our generosity. Having stated the principle upon which government meant to act, he must add, that he had not the slightest apprehension of those disastrous consequences, which some honourable members feared would arise from it. Besides, it should be recollected, that it would not rest with the king in council to bring this act into operation. The foreigner must first by his own act bring himself within the operation of the law; and therefore, being forewarned, the blame, if any, must attach to him.
§ Mr. Humetook the clause to be a deviation from the principles on which the bill had set out. He had no objection to the establishment of countervailing duties; but he thought that to recognize a prohibition under any circumstances, was repugnant to the measure before the House. It would place a most offensive power in the hands of the government, and might militate, in a very serious manner, against the shipping interest.
§ Sir J. Newportrepeated the objections he had urged against that part of the bill which allowed the importation of flour, as it must tend materially to the injury of Ireland; but, as he had already taken the sense of the House upon it, he would abstain from going any further at present. The House having assented to the principle of the bill, he thought it right to allow it a fair trial, and not make it a measure of annual experiment. With this view, he hoped it would be allowed to continue in operation for a fixed period; say three or five years.
Mr. C. Grantexpressed his regret at having been obliged to oppose the right hon. baronet, whose opinions and judgment he highly valued, upon that part of this measure, which affected Ireland; and he sincerely hoped and trusted, that the right hon. baronet would find himself mistaken in the result. As to having this bill fettered down to any fixed period, he thought it would be most injurious, and counteract the object it was proposed to effect.
Mr. Warburton.opposed the clause, and said he meant to move that it be struck out. It was retracing our steps, and going back from those principles which ministers professed to establish. 348 The hon. member then referred to the 4th, 5th, and 6th, of George 4th, to shew, that by the system of reciprocity which those acts established, his majesty was only allowed to levy a duty on the goods of those countries in which a higher duty was levied on our manufactures, of one-fifth of the whole amount. The clause was an unwise departure from the system of countervailing duties. The hon. member concluded by moving, that the clause marked A be struck out.
Mr. C. P. Thompsonseconded the motion. The precedents quoted by the right hon. gentleman were, in his opinion, no precedents at all. All the former acts went on the principle of establishing countervailing duties, but this clause re-enacted the old system of prohibition. He was persuaded, that it would have an unfavourable effect in foreign countries, with whom we must preserve our relations, if we meant to have any commerce at all.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he was perfectly satisfied that from the observations made on the clause, gentlemen concurred in the general principle; but he was equally satisfied that the objections which had been made in the course of those observations, arose from a misunderstanding. The first objection arose from confounding two distinct things under the word prohibition. The measure before the House, as had been correctly stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen, did abolish prohibition; but it was a prohibition quoad importing grain into this country. The prohibition in the clause was not a prohibition quoad this country, but quoad the country whence it was imported; the clause, therefore, did not touch the principle of the bill. The second objection which had been made by the hon. member who spoke last, arose from his supposing there was some inconsistency in the mode of dealing with that country, which might not deal favourably with us, and very different from our mode of dealing with other countries. But the principle was precisely the same By the bill we repealed the law prohibiting the importation of grain; and by the clause, we left the offending country precisely in the condition where we found it. As thus, we repealed the discriminating duties generally—he was then speaking of former acts—but we reserved to ourselves the right of levying those duties on the countries which did not choose to imitate our 349 liberal system. He contended, that it was the same as to the present law. By the law as it then stood, there was a practical prohibition to import corn into this country—by the present law that prohibition was repealed; but we also said to that country, which would not entitle itself to the benefit of the new law, we would not inflict any additional punishment on it, we would leave it where it was before the law was passed. In both instances the practice was the same; and the confusion he had noticed arose from considering prohibition, as applied to the importing country, and as applied to the country whence the corn was exported, to mean the same thing, He contended, that the principle was precisely the same, and that it was the best way of dealing with the business. He concurred with his right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer, in hoping that the case contemplated may not, and in believing that it would not, arise.
The original clause was agreed to.