HC Deb 15 August 1833 vol 20 cc694-703
Mr. Robinson

rose to submit a Motion to the House on the subject of his motion respecting the Prussian tariff. Had Prussia confined herself to her own limits, however onerous her regulations might be to British commerce, he should not have troubled the House on the subject; but the course which the King of Prussia was pursuing, if not unprecedented, was unusual, and he thought it was the duty of this Government to take some notice of it. The Prussian government had imposed onerous duties on British goods, though we had lowered our duties; but, besides this, that government was trying to embrace within its commercial code a large part of Germany, which, if it succeeded in doing, would prove very detrimental to British interests. The Prussian government was trying to extend its custom-house regulations and duties to the Grand Duchy of Hesse, the Electorate of Hesse Anhalt, to Saxony, Bavaria, and Wurtemberg, and in some degree to the Grand Duchy of Mecklen-burgh. The effect of this would be to exclude, or to limit, the sale of British manufactures throughout a large part of the German empire. If Prussia chose to adopt this system in her own territories, she was at liberty to do so, but she was endeavouring to ingraft it on states which were, or ought to be, independent of her; and we ought to say to her, "You have no right to enter into adverse treaties with other states, calculated materially to hurt the commerce of this country." He knew that British commerce was exposed to great rivalry from that of foreign states, and he hoped that that rivalry would be met on the part of the British Government by wise and politic measures. He was not the advocate of commercial restrictions or of commercial hostility towards Prussia, on the contrary, he wished to see all nations adopt a system of liberal commerce, as far as was consistent with their respective interests: and if they did not adopt such a system, it would not be because we had not set them the example. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to make some alteration in the duties imposed on timber imported from the Baltic. Now, he conjured the Government, if they contemplated any alteration in the duties on Baltic timber, or in the duties on grain the growth of Prussia, that they would do what other nations, not less sagacious than ourselves, were in the constant habit of doing—that is, that they would obtain for us an equivalent. He admitted, that it was not always unwise to make a concession without obtaining an equivalent, but in this case he should advise the Government to say to Prussia, "After the tariff you have issued against us, you cannot expect from us any further concession." The duties, in fact, imposed by that tariff on British goods imported into Prussia were so high, that in many cases they amounted to a prohibition. But not only had Prussia levied high prohibitory duties upon British produce and manufactures, she had even gone on increasing those duties, whilst we were actually diminishing the duties which we had been accustomed to levy on her produce. Not only bad she increased these prohibitory duties, she had also levied a duty on the export of wool; and that export duty on wool was one of the conditions which she wished to impose upon the other states of Germany. Now, he wished the House to consider what the condition of our commerce with the minor states of Germany would be, if Prussia were permitted not only to extend her tariff throughout Germany, but also to impose on every state of the confederation an export duty on wool—a duty which was now only a penny in the pound, but which Prussia had declared her intention of doubling before the next clip. What Government intended to do upon this subject he did not know, but he could not let the Session go by without bringing it formally under the consideration of the House. He believed, that one of the objects which Prussia had in view in this union with the petty principalities of Germany was to force England, by the formation of a commercial league against her, to alter the scale of duties which she had imposed on corn and timber imported from the Baltic. Prussia said, "England has formed a code of her own, prohibiting the introduction into her territories of our grain and our timber. We have no protection against her save by forcing her to an alteration of her system by a combined hostility against her manufactures, which will be most effectually carried on by prohibiting their introduction into Germany," Now, if any change were to be made in the commercial relations of the two countries, that change ought to be made on the principle of reciprocity. America some time ago made an alteration in the duties imposed on French wines imported into her states; she increased the duties, not with the view of raising her revenue thereby, but with the view of protecting her own subjects. The French government called upon America to reduce those duties, and the answer which the French government received was this—"You shall not have this reduction made upon the duties imposed upon your wines, unless you admit our cottons into France at a more favourable rate than that at which they are now admitted." The consequence of this was, that a commercial treaty was made between France and America on the principle of reciprocal benefit; and France admitted American cottons at a reduced duty, in order that America might admit French wines under a proportional reduction. This was so wise a course for a Commercial state to follow, that he would assert that any nation which pursued a contrary course, whilst other nations were adopting this wise mode of proceeding, must of necessity soon lose its commerce. We had now arrived at a crisis of great importance. All the states of the world were in motion, and all were pursuing commercial advantages. When he looked at our immense commercial resources,—then he reflected on the start of half a century which we had got over the other nations of Europe in the knowledge of machinery,—then he adverted to our superiority in capital, industry, and skill—he did not view with any alarm the rivalry of foreign nations. He felt it, however, to be a matter of such importance as justified him in calling upon our Government to be vigilant and to look around it, not with a view of imposing restrictions upon the commerce of others, but in order that they might see what advantageous terms they could obtain for the commerce of England. A new kingdom had been recently formed in Belgium: we had, of course, no commercial treaty with Belgium yet, but, if peace should continue, Belgium would become a great manufacturing country, and would be one of the rivals of England; and, therefore, when he knew that America and France were endeavouring, through their Ambassadors at Brussels, to make satisfactory commercial arrangements with Belgium, it would be some satisfaction to him to know that our own Government was also on the alert upon the same subject. He did not call upon our Government to ask from Belgium exclusive advantages for our commerce—such advantages we were not likely to obtain—but he did think, that our Government had a right, considering what it had done to secure the independence of Belgium, to demand that our commerce should be placed on the same footing with that of the most favoured nations. Then, again, there was the change that had taken place in the government of Portugal. He did hope that if the government of Donna Maria should be established in Portugal,—as there was now every prospect that it would be established,—our Government would take care that we obtained from the new government of that country the same advantages which we enjoyed under the old. For there, again, America, one of the most enterprising nations in the world, was endeavouring to obtain advantages for its commerce, which could only be obtained at our expense. This was what America was also doing, or attempting to do, at Naples. There, too, she was following-up her usual system of commercial policy. Having a claim against Naples for spoliations committed upon her subjects, under the government of Murat,—finding that Naples was either unwilling or unable to pay the indemnity which had been demanded from her,—America was endeavouring to gain from Naples commercial advantages, which, if conceded, could only be conceded at the expense of England. All these circumstances, combined, made him anxious to hear from the Government a declaration, that it was prepared to abandon the commercial policy which it had so long adopted—namely, to let commerce take its own free course, and to give up the old system of commercial treaties, which, if good for us, were perpetually broken, and, if bad, were of no use at all. He had heard the Vice President of the Board of Trade say, that there was every reason to believe that France was inclined to pursue, in future, a more liberal course in commerce, than she hitherto had done; and the right hon. Gentleman, in vindication of that remark, had instanced her conduct in allowing the export of silk from France, which was previously prohibited. It appeared to him, that this was but a small step towards liberality of commerce, considering the concessions which had been made on our side; and, in the recent conduct of the French government, he saw no hope of its acceding in future to any material relaxation of its commercial policy. There was no reason to hope that France would receive our manufactured goods in return for her wines and her silks. He found the same mode of proceeding adopted in America, and he observed, that the whole of the American tariff was formed to promote her own manufactures. A favourite argument in that House was, that you ought to admit freely all foreign articles, without putting upon them any protection for articles of your own produce or manufacture. He admitted, that the Government had not gone yet to the length of that principle. He hoped, however, that they were aware of the danger which might accrue from pushing that principle too far; at the same time he was willing that they should make every relaxation in favour of foreign commerce, which was not calculated to be injurious to our own. He wished to know first, whether the Government was apprised of the course which Prussia was pursuing, both in her own territories and beyond them, with respect to her tariff of duties; and secondly, whether the Government had taken any steps to counteract the machinations of Prussia. He also wished to know whether the Government was ready to obtain for this country from foreign states, those advantages to which we were entitled in common with our rivals. In moving, that the Prussian tariff be laid on the Table, his object was, that it might be ready for the consideration of Parliament, when they met again next Session. The hon. Member concluded, by moving, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid on the Table of the House, a copy of the Prussian tariff of duties, payable in that kingdom on articles of British manufacture and produce, specifying the alterations made in such duties in the last ten years."

Viscount Palmerston

did not rise to object to the production of the paper for which the hon. member for Worcester had moved, but to make some observations on the speech which he had just delivered. He could assure the hon. Member that, his Majesty's Government had not been inattentive to those transactions to which he had adverted in the early part of his speech—he meant, to those negotiations into which Prussia had entered with the minor states of Germany, for the purpose of including them all in one common union of custom-houses, and thus freeing the internal communication of Germany from the various impediments to which it was now liable. That determination, if carried into effect, might be prejudicial to the interests of British commerce, for the Prussian tariff was a high one; and if it were intended to extend to all the states of Germany the duties imposed by the Prussian tariff, it might be inconvenient to the commerce of England. He would not go the length of the hon. member for Worcester, and say, that Great Britain had a right to find fault with independent states for the treaties which they thought fit to make with each other; certainly not, on the ground so taken we had no right to interfere. Nor was he inclined to think that the consequences which the hon. Member anticipated as likely to accrue from the negotiations of Prussia would result from them; for though Prussia might fancy that she had an interest in this tariff of high duties, no other state could fancy that it had the same interest in them, and as the same tariff was to apply to all, the common object of the minor states must be to obtain a reduction of the duties of that tariff. The hon. member for Worcester had mentioned, as one instance of the objectionable policy of Prussia, that of which we could not justly complain. He had said, that Prussia had laid a duty of in the pound on the export of wool. Now, till within the last few years, the export of wool had been totally prohibited in England. We were not, therefore, entitled to find fault with the government of a country because it had not kept pace with us in the liberality of our commercial policy. At the same time he had no hesitation in stating, that although he did not think that there was' any advantage derived to a country from protecting duties, and though he thought that every restriction on commerce was at least as injurious to the country imposing it as it was to the country against, which it was imposed; yet, if any country chose to enter into a fiscal war with us, and to levy high duties either against the produce of our soil, or against the produce of our skill and industry, it might be necessary for us to consider whether it would not be prudent to try the effects of a retaliatory system, which, though it might be injurious to the other country, must be still more injurious to ourselves. He contended that the effect of these restrictive measures could not be attended with that full injury to the commerce of England which some persons supposed. Those restrictive measures might prevent other countries from taking our manufactures, but then, if those countries did not take our manufactures, our merchants could not take their produce. The restrictions on our commerce must therefore prove injurious to their own, if they were effectual; but if they were ineffectual, there was an end to the argument, and we escaped the injury intended to be inflicted on us. If, among foreign governments, there were those who imagined that they could injure our commerce by exposing it to high duties, so long as there were men in that House of high reputation arguing that protecting duties were of advantage to our own artisans, and our own productions, it ought not to be matter of surprise that those governments should adopt their arguments—that they should follow our precepts rather than our practice—and that they should linger on in the old regions of error, which we ourselves had but recently abandoned. He did not think that the governments of Europe were liable to the blame which the hon. member for Worcester had attempted to cast upon them. France had taken a large step recently in imitating our policy. It was only recently that she had removed the prohibition on the export of the article of raw silk—in arrangement which it might have been supposed that the silk manufacturers of France would have strenuously opposed; yet, such of late years, had been the progress of intelligence and knowledge in France, that he believed, that the silk manufacturers of France were most anxious that their Government should remove the prohibition on the export of that raw material on which they employed their skill and industry. He thought that the French government would proceed in the career which it had recently commenced, and that this relaxation of its commercial policy would be followed up by other relaxations of more material importance. The hon. Member had referred to the state of our commercial relations with Belgium, Under existing circumstances, that was a delicate subject for him to enter upon. It would, however, be sufficient for him to state, that in the present unsettled state of the negotiations respecting the independence of that country, we should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, and depart from our usual high and gallant bearing if, while we were negociating for its very existence as a distinct nation, we should seek to obtain from Belgium exclusive commercial advantages. Such conduct would, in his opinion, be most unbecoming. He did not think that we should have any difficulty, when once Belgium was fairly launched into the world as an independent kingdom, in forming commercial relations with her on terms of reciprocity. With respect to Portugal, he must inform the hon. Member, that our treaties with that country had never ceased to exist. Though we had never acknowledged Don Miguel, our treaties with the country of which he had usurped the sovereignty remained in full force. The hon. Member, therefore, need not be under any apprehension that, on the restoration of Donna Maria, we should be deprived of any commercial advantages which we previously possessed. As to the United States, he was not aware that there was anything in their conduct of which we had a right to complain. We had a right to expect that the advantages which we derived from our treaties with foreign countries should not be impaired, but we had no right to dictate to them what terms they ought to make with the United States of America. The hon. member for Worcester had said, that he would not, upon this occasion, discuss any abstract principles of commerce; in that declaration he also concurred; but he could not refrain from telling the hon. Gentleman, that his Majesty's Government had no intention to abandon its present commercial policy. They believed that protection did not give to the country the benefit which its name implied. He could wish that the word "protection" was erased from every commercial dictionary; for instead of protection, it was disturbance; for it interfered with the operations of capital—it was an impediment upon industry—it was a bar to competition,—and it disturbed every kind of commercial relations. He, therefore, told the hon. Member, that he need not flatter himself with the hope that there either had been, or would be, any change in the commercial creed of his Majesty's advisers. He could not sit down without making a short comment upon a very great, and yet a very common mistake into which the hon. member for Worcester had fallen in the course of his speech. Nothing was more common than to say, "Your theories about free trade and liberal principles of commerce are all very good in a new state, but are impracticable in an artificial state of society like that which exists in England. It may be all good in a country not overloaded with debt and taxation to let commerce be carried on at the least possible expense; but if you have a great amount of debt to provide for, and a large sum to raise annually for the payment of the interest of that debt, then the logical inference is, that you must shackle your commerce, you must paralyze your industry, you must cripple your relations with foreign states, and thus, by imposing protective duties on the commodities produced in foreign countries, which duties go as bounties to those who produce the same commodities in your own country, you make every thing dearer than its natural price." The argument, therefore, of the hon. Member resolved itself into this—because you have a great debt to provide for, you must levy upon your people a tax, and a heavy tax too, for every thing which they get from foreign countries; or, in other words, you must prevent them from buying as cheap as they can, and of course prevent them, in the next place, from selling as cheap as they can. This was a simple explanation of the common doctrine, that the principles of free trade might do very well in an infant country, but that they would not do for an old and artificial country like England. He had nothing more to say than that he did not intend to object to the Motion of the hon. Member, and that his Majesty's Government were alive, to use the hon. Member's own words, to all the circumstances of the case to which he had referred.

Motion agreed to.

Forward to