Mr. Alderman Thompsonwished to put two questions to the President of the Board of Trade. About six months ago, a memorial had been presented from the iron manufacturers of South Wales, pointing out the serious evils likely to arise to them from the increase of the tariff on iron in the kingdom of Han- 1088 over. They would have had no just ground of complaint if the Hanoverian Government had imposed the same duty on iron from all other countries, but such was not the fact; and as he presumed that a representation had been made from this country on the subject, he wished to know whether any answer had been returned, or what means of redress had been adopted? His other question had relation to the same branch of trade; for some years past, the French Government had imposed a discriminating duty, and iron imported by sea paid double the duty of iron imported by land; the clear object being to favour the iron trade of Belgium, and discourage that of England. He wished to know what was the present position of the matter, as it was important that the French Government should act impartially towards all foreign countries.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsonwould endeavour to give the hon. Member an answer. As to the first question, as soon as he had received information that the Hanoverian Government had actually carried into effect what it had threatened some years ago, a remonstrance was made by the Board to which he belonged. He had communicated with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the Hanoverian Minister had been informed, that if the discriminating duty were persevered in, Great Britain would feel it necessary to retaliate by means of an Order in Council, which would place the productions of Hanover on the same footing. The Hanoverian Minister left this country immediately afterwards, and the answer of his Government had not yet been received; but he could assure the House that he should feel no hesitation in recommending the course which the Act had placed in the discretion of the Crown. The attempt had been made in this way; the increased duty was laid upon rolled iron, not exactly specifying English iron, but the effect was the same, and the Hanoverian Government had followed the example of America with a slight difference, but clearly bringing the tariff within the terms of a discriminating duty. As to the second question, he regretted much to state that no progress with regard to improving our commercial relations with France had lately been made—certainly not that progress which he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had had reason to expect would have been made by the French Government. He had had the honour of stating, on a former occasion, that steps had been 1089 taken by the French Government to reduce various duties, and a considerable alteration was carried into effect during the Session of 1833–4; the duties on cotton-twist, on tin, and on a number of other small articles, were lowered, and the whole system was to have been consolidated in a Customs' Bill; but he was sorry to add that, in the session of the French Chamber of 1834, no further measures had been adopted. He regretted it extremely, because he was satisfied that hopes had been raised in the minds of the French people, that the commercial relations of the two nations would be extended; and those hopes, for the present, at least, had been disappointed. He trusted, however, that by the arrival of another Session, the question would be in a different and more satisfactory state, and to accomplish this, no effort that could be made by this Government should be wanting. In the meantime, he was bound to say, that he did not think that the trade of Great Britain had materially suffered by the delay; and official returns produced by the French Ministers themselves showed that the smuggler had introduced an immense quantity of goods, which would, with a liberal system, have found their way into the country through the Custom-house in the natural course of trade. The alteration in the duty upon some commodities proved distinctly that it was the interest of France to remove exorbitant imposts, in order to secure a greater revenue. The hon. Member had alluded to the question of discriminatory duties, and, for one, he was not disposed to admit that these duties did not fall within the class of discriminatory duties, giving a preference to one country over another. The French Government contended that they were not discriminatory, because they did not refer to the country where the goods were produced, but only to the place from which they were introduced. That argument he was not disposed to admit, because the effect might be to compel this country to send iron by land to France through some other country, instead of shipping it directly for a French port. He was aware that the question was a difficult one, and he admitted that time might be necessary for the establishment of a system of perfect equality. He contended, however, and would contend, that Great Britain had a right to the admission of the principle, and ultimately to see it carried into effect. Some time ago the French Government had been informed, that unless the principle was ad- 1090 mitted, it would be the duty of the Ministers of this country to recommend the Crown to impose a discriminatory duty on French commodities, and that course seemed most advisable, if the French Government persevered in the unjust distinction it had established. He was one of those who wished to see trade as free as possible.
§ The Attorney-Generalcomplained of the high duty imposed on the introduction of Scotch shawls into France, and requested the right hon. Gentleman to interfere on the subject.
§ Subject dropped.