Sir J. Grahampresented a Petition from the Lead Miners and others engaged in the manufacture of Lead, in the parishes of Alston and Allendale, Northumberland, complaining of the distress they suffered from the competition of foreign manufacturers of Lead, and praying for a higher protecting duty. The hon. Baronet entered into some details, showing the changes which had taken place in the duties on copper, tin, and lead, since 1825, when a new scale of protecting duty was arranged respecting them, different from the ad valorem duty before in use. The protecting duty on copper and tin was raised greatly beyond that on Lead. Since then, copper and tin had fallen in price about 15 per cent, while Lead had fallen nearly 50 per cent, having been reduced from 24l. per ton in 1824, to 12l. 10s., its present price. This reduction had been the result of the competition of the Lead produced in the Spanish mines, of which about 28,000 tons were produced annually. This was sold at 9l. per ton, which, with the freight and duty, made it 12l. 10s., to which price the British manufacturers were obliged to reduce their Lead, in order to prevent the loss of the home consumption. The petitioners prayed that the protecting duties might be raised 2l. per ton. This sum would make an increase of about 90,000l. a-year on the consumers of Lead in the United Kingdom, as the annual consumption was about 45,000 tons. The hon. Baronet contended, that by acceding to the prayer of this Petition, a stimulus 1084 would be given to a trade by which 80,000 persons were supported, who, if driven from this trade by foreign competition, could not, from their previous habits, be brought to work at other businesses, and must therefore become a burthen upon the country. The hon. Baronet added, that the petitioners were entitled to a protection something equal to that given to agriculturists by the Corn-laws, which would amount to from 20 to 30 per cent against the foreign grower; and, in conclusion, that it would be a much more cheap way of providing for the 80,000 persons engaged in this trade to grant this additional protecting duty, than to have to send them as settlers to Swan River, or others of our new colonies.
Mr. Liddelsupported the prayer of the petition, and contended, that if these persons were put out of employment, they would be thrown back on the market for labour, and thus increase the difficulties of the working classes.
Mr. Herriessaid, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Baronet into all the topics he had introduced, and this was the less necessary, as the question to which the petition referred was now under the consideration of the Government. The greatest attention must be paid to it before any decision was come to. He hoped, however, in the course of a week to have a better opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, and therefore he would forbear saying anything further at present.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that nothing would be done to give advantages to Lead miners, beyond the regular course of trade; and protested against taxing the rest of the community to the amount of 90,000l. for the benefit of the owners of Lead-mines.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the Lead-mines of this country not only supplied the home consumption, but sent some thousands of tons abroad; of course the price abroad must be settled by foreign competition, but as long as the miner supplied the home consumption, it was all that he could claim or pretend to; and, indeed, unless they could shut up the Spanish mines altogether, the price in foreign countries must be regulated by competition.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, that the root of all the mischief was in the high protecting duty on corn, which in one way or another amounted to from forty to fifty per cent; 1085 and it was obvious, that whatever raised the cost price of labour must materially injure the manufactures of the country.
§ Lord W. Powlettcomplained that the Lead ore had never been sufficiently protected like other ores, and that, in consequence of this want of protection, the export trade had dwindled down to 5,000 tons annually.
§ Mr. A. Baringsaid, he did not see that the petitioners suffered any peculiar hardship, although he regretted their distress. They had a monopoly of the home market, and were able to send some thousand tons abroad; and if the price had fallen, the protection had risen with the fall. Lead, too, was not a mineral on which he was disposed to allow much protection, because it did not enter into many of the articles of exportation to other countries.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that in the last six years the country had exported 59,000 tons, being an average of 10,000 tons a year. His hon. friend said, the quantity produced was 45,000 tons a-year; and, therefore, he could sec that nearly one-fifth was sent out of the country. The price of that quantity was, of course, regulated by the price in the foreign market; and the price at which it could there be sold, as we had more than we required, regulated the price at home; no relief, therefore, could be obtained by a protecting duty, and the only way in which the Lead owners could hope for relief was, by persuading the Government to lower the price of labour, and so put the English in the same state as the Spanish labourer.
§ Mr. P. Thomsonentreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pause before he yielded to the representations of the petitioners on this subject; because, by increasing the duty from 10s. to 25s. per ton we had prevented foreign ore being imported into this country, and had lost all the profits arising from the smelting and working up. In 1828 the quantity imported for this purpose was 4,620 tons; since the duty had been altered it had fallen to 1,100 tons. He hoped, therefore, that the duty would be reduced rather than increased, so that the country might have the benefit of charging other countries for the profit of its own labour.
§ Petition to be printed.