HL Deb 08 April 1808 vol 10 cc1346-51

On the third reading of the bill prohibiting the exportation of Cotton,

Earl Bathurst

observed, that in consequence of the embargo in America, there had been some ground for apprehending that a sufficient supply of cotton would not be obtained for the, consumption of this country: there was, however, he was happy to state, no ground for alarm upon this subject; there was a considerable stock on hand, and there was now every reason to believe, that a sufficient supply would be obtained, even supposing the embargo to be continued. The continent of Europe had been cut off, by recent events, from its supply of cotton; and orders had actually been sent from Germany to procure cotton from Turkey, by land-carriage; a species of cotton of an inferior quality, which the manufacturers here would not use. Under these circumstances, he thought there could be no doubt as to the policy of securing to ourselves a sufficient supply of this article, by prohibiting the export. If, however, there should be a surplus, licences would be granted to export it. With respect to the objection to the principle of licences, made by his noble friend (lord Grenville) on a former night, he thought it inapplicable; inasmuch as the trading under licence was sanctioned by various precedents, and by several acts of parliament in the last war as well as in the present. Three successive administrations, since the commencement of the present war, had exercised this power; and he saw no reason why the same credit should not be given to the present administration as to the former ones, for its due exercise. The trading to the ports of the enemy was at all times illegal, except under licence from the king in council. The whole continent was at present our enemies, with the exception of Sweden and Sicily; and as in these countries there were no cotton-manufactories, the export of cotton to them must be intended ultimately for the enemy. Under these circumstances, the extension of the prohibition to neutrals appeared to him perfectly justifiable, in order to prevent a great export to the continent of an article of which they stood so much in need, and thereby leave us without a sufficient supply.

Lord St. John

contended that the real ground upon which this bill had been sent to that house was, that it was the intention to injure the manufactures of the enemy, upon the supposition that our own would thereby be benefited by ensuring to them a monopoly. It was, in this point of view, one of those visionary measures, some of which had been already before the house, and which could only tend to the injury instead of the benefit of our manufactures. If the cotton-manufactures of the enemy were destroyed, what would then be the consequence? All cotton goods in the territories of the enemy must then immediately be known to be British, and instead of finding a sale, would meet with a prohibition. The variableness of taste was well known; and if the cotton-manufactories of the enemy were destroyed, was there not reason to fear that taste might again vary, and some other articles be substituted for cotton? It was a most mistaken policy to suppose, that by destroying competition we should destroy our own manufactures. The contrary was the truth; manufactures thrived best by competition; this was proved in the case of our exports to the United States, which, in the article of cotton goods, had become nearly double since America became a manufacturing country, of what they were before. He objected decidedly to the power vested in the crown of granting licences, as it went to make every merchant in the kingdom dependant upon the executive government: added to this was the inconvenience experienced by merchants at the out-ports in procuring licences. The noble earl had spoken of this power being properly exercised by three successive administrations, and had called for the same confidence. He did not distrust the noble earl, but he objected to the principle; and if the argument of the noble earl went to any thing, it went to this, that every honest man ought to be entrusted with arbitrary power. So far from seeing this bill in the point of view in which it had been, placed by the noble earl, he thought it tended deeply to injure a most valuable and important branch of our manufacture.

Lord Auckland

thought the ground urged by the noble earl in support of this bill fallacious, inasmuch as the market here would by the operation of the bill become glutted, the price of cotton would consequently fall, and thus the growers of it, particularly in our own colonies, would be seriously injured; nor was it to be supposed that after that had taken place, any more cotton would be brought here, where the market was already over-stocked.

Lord Redesdale

supported the bill as a measure conducive to the interests of our manufactures, and as a check on the growing cotton-trade of the enemy.

The Earl of Lauderdale

remarked, that the noble earl, at the head of the board of trade, had given up the present bill as a measure of warfare, and had considered it solely in relation to its effects on our commerce. In this view of the case, he considered it as an extremely dangerous principle, to allow to the government for the time being, the privilege of saying, what individual should be indulged in carrying on a trade and manufacture, and who should not. To compel ships laden with cotton to come into our ports, while the export of that article was prohibited, and while our manufactures could not procure a market, was improperly to reduce the price of the raw material. Our manufacturers might wish to procure cotton at a cheaper rate; but they were at the same time aware of the impolicy of reducing the value of the raw commodity so much as to render it a matter of indifference to the grower of the article, whether he did or did not bring it to our market.

Lord Hawkesbury ,

in alluding to the power conferred on the government of granting licence to certain persons, stated, that this had been the practice for the last 14 or 15 years. He had never heard that it had been abused, and he trusted the present government might receive equal credit with their predecessors, for not entertaining any intention to act with favour or partiality, in granting this privilege where it might seem to be required. His lordship did not intend at present to enter into the merits of the Orders in Council, though he must protest against the interpretation put by the noble lord who spoke last, on what had fallen from his noble friends, as if they had given up the present bill as a measure of warfare. They had not done so. It was well known, that there was a deficiency of cotton in France, and, at the same time, that one of the most increasing trades in that country was the cotton manufacture. An opportunity, however, of canvassing this subject would occur, when the noble lord opposite (Grenville) brought forward his promised motion; at which time he should be at no difficulty to shew, that there were more mercantile men in this country who approved than there were who disapproved of the Orders of Council.

The Earl of Darnley

concurred in the arguments against the bill.

Lord Grenville

begged to be understood, as objecting in the most pointed manner to the noble lord's (Hawkesbury) bringing forward any secret information of which he might suppose himself to be possessed, as indicative of the opinion of the mercantile interests of this country, on the subject of the Orders in Council. If he wished to meet the evidence which had been adduced at the bar of the house, and to refute the gentlemen there examined, who regarded the Orders in Council as destructive of our commerce and manufactures, why did he not bring forward his witnesses to contradict them? Why did he not bring forward merchants of London and Liverpool, to say that their trade was equally or more flourishing than it was previous to the passing of these orders? or manufacturers of Manchester to say, that their orders were equally numerous and great as they had formerly been; and persons in the shipping interest to declare that their carrying trade was undiminished? So far from having done this, was it not a fact, that the evidence before the house went to shew a complete failure in all these branches of trade, in consequence of these Orders in Council? His lordship therefore hoped, that in arguing this subject, the noble lord on the other side would not allude to any private testimony in favour of these Orders in Council, which he himself might possess; but which, unlike gentlemen in the other house of parliament, he had declined laying before the house. As to the idea that the measure would have the effect of incommoding France by preventing the requisite supply of cotton, this his lordship considered as altogether absurd. There were various tracts of country in which cotton could be grown, and did actually grow at this, moment, of which it was impossible for this country, by any act it might pass, to deprive Buonaparte. In the Levant, considerable quantities of cotton were grown, particularly in Italy and Sicily, over which the ruler of France now had, or in all probability would soon have, the complete dominion. In fact, it was quite in the power of France, from the territory it now commanded, to procure cotton in whatever quantity it chose. If this country wished to preserve its Often manufacture, and to command a constant and sufficient supply of the raw material, the plan was, to give a free and unlimited power of import and export. The advantages our harbours held out to the American grower, would thus ensure us a constant supply, convinced as they would in that event be, that a ready market for their commodity would be found, if not with us, yet in some other quarter. The noble lord concluded with expressing his conviction that the government would act the wiser part by forbearing to interfere in matters of trade, and leaving it to be regulated by the, natural influence of its own operation.

The question on the third reading being called for, the house divided: Contents 44; Not-Contents 13; Majority 31.