Lords Sitting of 22 May 1821

TIMBER DUTIES BILL.
Earl Bathurst.rose to move that this bill be committed, and went into a detailed explanation of the grounds of the measure. He reminded their lordships that, in consequence of being excluded from the Baltic in the year 1809, the country had been thrown back on its own resources. It became necessary therefore to encourage the importation of timber from our colonies, and the duties were arranged with that view; but it was distinctly understood, that that arrangement was not to be permanent, and notice was given that the whole would be revised. The effect of this notice was, that the persons engaged in the trade took alarm, and made large importations, without any reference whatever to any increased demand. In 1817, the importations from America had been only 136,000 loads. In 1818 these 136,000 loads were, without any new demand, increased to 230,000 loads. This was entirely owing to speculation. In the same year there were also large importations from the Baltic. The quantity from the Baltic imported in 1817 was 79,900 loads, which increased in 1818 to 130,000 loads. The quantity both from the Baltic and America in 1817, was 216,000 loads; and in 1818, 334,000 loads. In 1819, from the effect of the notice, the importations from America rose to 249,000 loads; and, in the same year, the amount from the Baltic was 103,000loads, making the whole importation for that year, 352,000 loads. This was a great excess over the year 1817, in which, only 216,000 loads had
882
been imported. From these facts he inferred, that the great importation of American timber had not arisen from the duties, but from speculation, and that the trade in the years 1818 and 1819, was not in a natural state. He described the duties proposed by the bill, and reminded their lordships, that when the committee of their lordships' House made their report, it was conceived right to give some protection to our colonial trade; but he admitted that the bill had gone farther than the report in this respect. The difference was, however, rather in quantum than in principle; and the proposed system would be subject to revision in the course of three or four years, or at any future period. This arrangement he knew would not be satisfactory to those who went the length of thinking that no protection should be given to any trade, and that the true policy was, to buy every thing where it could be got best and cheapest. Few were, however, fond of applying this doctrine in cases which affected their own interests. We did not apply it in the case of linen, nor of iron, nor of corn. Indeed, to apply the doctrine to one particular article, while all others remained unchanged, would be unjust; and this was particularly true with respect to colonial articles, because the whole colonial system was at variance with the system. It had been calculated that the public had paid in increased duties about 400,000 l.; but this was not a fair mode of arguing; for the trade, as he had shown, was in an unnatural state when the great importations took place.
The Earl of Lauderdale,after expressing his surprise that there should be so thin a House when a commercial measure of the greatest importance was to be discussed proceeded to oppose the bill. It had been proved in the committee that vessels made of American timber would not last one-half the time of those made of Baltic timber. In the committee he had asked a witness this question—"Suppose a house built of Norway fir were valued at 600 l., what would you, as a surveyor, advise a purchaser to give for the same house if built of American fir?" He expected certainly to hear a low valuation; but the witness put no value whatever on such a house; but replied that he could not advise any body to buy it. He regarded the bill as altogether a colonial job. He went over the report of the committee, and ridiculed the exceptions made from the

883
general principle which was laid down in the commencement of that document. It had been shown that the money received for Canada timber only paid the expenses of cutting and sending it to be shipped. The bill, therefore, protected no interests except those of the proprietors of a number of old ships, and of 150,000 l. of capital which had been laid out in purchasing new ones. He condemned the preference given to Russia over Norway by the bill, at the very time that Russia was augmenting the duties on British merchandize. There had been numerous petitions from the merchants, all praying for the removal of the restrictions on foreign trade. The petitioners were doubtless happy to hear stated in parliament, and more particularly by his majesty's ministers, principles similar to their own; but their surprise must be great to learn, that the first measure derived from these principles, was one which placed the trade to which it applied in a worse situation than it stood in 1813. On these grounds he moved, as an amendment, "That the bill be committed this day six months."
Lord Ellenborough, though he concurred in the objections urged against the bill, would oppose the amendment, because he thought some little benefit might arise from this measure, and was afraid, were the bill thrown out, that the influence of the shipping interest might be sufficient to prevent any other alteration from being made. He certainly expected that ministers would have acted with more firmness in this business. The effect of the bill would be a premium to introduce the dry rot into every building in the kingdom. If he should ever be again appointed on any committee of trade, he would endeavour to do his duty, but he should enter into it without the least hope of being able to accomplish any benefit for the country.
Lord Kingstrongly deprecated the bill.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that their lordships were to consider, not whether this bill did all that could be wished, but whether it did not put these matters on a better footing than they were before? For his own part he thought it must improve the trade by reducing the duty on Baltic timber, from 3l. 5s. to.2l. 15 s.; or, considering the additional duty on Canada timber, reducing it in fact to 2l. 5s. Some further measures of protection for the colonial trade also were included in
884
it; and that trade was at all times, subject to certain inconveniencies, which undoubtedly did require some compensation. This was a protection which operated also to encourage our own manufactures; and here he would say, adverting to some of the objections which had been taken to the bill, that he could understand the principle of giving protection and encouragement to our own manufactures and industry, as against those of another country; but he could not understand that principle upon which the encouragement of the industry and manufactures of any one foreign country were to be recommended as against another. That part of the bill which related to the transports, he was certainly not satisfied with; but still it put even that matter on a better footing than heretofore.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that, after the part which he had taken in former discussions upon this subject, he could not help expressing his extreme regret and surprise at the speech of the noble earl. After all the consideration that this question had undergone; after the assurances so often given by the noble earl, that whenever any arrangements should be adopted for the purpose of effecting an alteration in this system, they should be on a complete and permanent scale; after four or five years of peace had been suffered to elapse, upon that very ground, without any thing being done, their lordships were now informed by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, that they were to pass a hill, founded, indeed, in; an erroneous policy, but one which established a system a little better than what had hitherto been acted on. The noble earl himself had not attempted to justify it, and had not offered one argument to support even his own qualified recommendation of it.
Earl Bathurstsaid, that no arrangement existed to prevent government from revising the provisions of this bill at any future time, if it should be deemed expedient.
The amendment was negatived, and the House went into the committee.

PROTEST AGAINST THE TIMBER DUTIES BILL.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals, by the earl of Lauderdale:
"Dissentient,"
"1st, Because, whilst the speeches in this House and the reports of our committees dis-

885
play to the public an enthusiastic admiration of the most sound and liberal principles of commercial legislation, it is with feelings of the deepest regret that I have seen this House agree to the commitment of a bill which, instead of showing any disposition to liberality in our future commercial intercourse with foreign nations, will, if recorded in our statute-books, exhibit a specimen of our predilection for that illiberal, artificial, and restrictive system of regulation, which has long disgraced our commercial codes; under all the circumstances of the case, more disgusting than the arrangement it is intended to correct.—It is true the duties on timber and deals, as arranged by the 49th Geo. 3, cap. 98; 51 Geo. 3, cap. 43; 51 Geo. 3, cap. 93, and the 53 Geo. 3, cap. 33, had become highly oppressive; but it is equally true that the hardship arising from an alteration in the circumstances of the country could not be apparent to the legislature at the time of passing these acts.—In this situation the timber trade, which is stated in the Commons' report 'to be open to any modification in respect of the rate of duty or mode of levying it that parliament might deem prudent,' naturally attracted the attention of the committees of both Houses of Parliament, appointed to consider of the means of improving foreign trade; and in proportion as the merchants and manufacturers of this country must have read with satisfaction the reports of these committees, stating it to be 'the duty of the legislature to mark their desire to foreign nations of adopting more liberal principles of commercial intercourse,' their disappointment must have been great, when they saw the provisions of this bill openly sanction the hardship to which time and inadvertency had given rise.—Under the arrangements of these acts, consolidated by the 59th of the late king, American timber was admitted duty free, whilst Baltic timber was subjected to a duty of 3l. 5s. per load. But in the year 1812, when this system was adopted, 3l. 5s. did not compensate the difference of freight betwixt an American and Baltic voyage, which then amounted to 3l 10 s.; and yet by this bill, introduced for the avowed purpose of marking our desire to adopt, more liberal principles, the relative state of the American and Baltic timber trade will be arranged as follows:—

Proposed duty on Baltic timber per load of 50 cubic feet £

2

15

0

Deduct dirty to be imposed upon

0

10

0

Remains

2

5

0

Freight from Quebec per load

2

10

0

Freight from Memel per load

1

5

0

Difference

1

5

0

886

Deduct difference of freight on American timber

1

5

0

Remains the bounty which, under the purposed regulations, our colonies will enjoy

1

0

0

"Thus, instead of imposing a duty, as in 1812, amounting to 5s. per load less than the difference of freight, the legislature is called upon to prove its liberality to foreign nations by giving a bounty to our colonies, over and above full compensation for the difference of freight, of no less than 1l. per load.
"Neither is this all; for the following calculations will show—1st, That the duties imposed on deals from our colonies, when compared with the duties on that article from Russia and Prussia, must be ruinous to the trade of the latter. 2dly, That on a comparison of the duties imposed on deals from our colonies with the duties that will fall to be paid on Norway deals, the difference must effect a complete prohibition of that article from Norway. 3dly, That our love of regulation and restriction has even extended to our imposing duties on Norway deals, which, when compared with the duties on deals from Russia and Prussia, must he ruinous to the Norwegian trade. 4thly, That, contrary to principle, and to all former practice, a bounty is given to the foreign manufacturer of deals, which must annihilate that branch of industry in this country.
1st.—Comparative amount of duties on deal from our colonies, and from Russia and Prussia, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 cubic feet, and showing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber under the present arrangement.

1st. 120 deals, 16 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 8 loads, 40 feet cubic measure; and as 120 deals, 16 feet in length, are taxed at 191., this will amount per load to a duty of £.

2

3

2

120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2l.; this will amount per load to a duty of

0

4

0½

Difference of duty per load

1

18

7½

Deduct difference of freight as above betwixt America and the

1

5

0

Remains the real bounty given per load to our colonies on deals of those dimensions

0

13

7½

2dly—120 deals, 21 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 11 loads and 27 feet, cubical measure; and as 120, 21 feet in length, are taxed at 22 l., this will amount to a duty per load of

1

18

1

120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2l. 10 s. this will amount per load to a duty

887

of

0

4

2¼

Difference of duty, per load which forms bounty in favour of our colonies.

1

13

10¾

Deduct difference of freight betwixt America and the Baltic

1

5

0

Remains the real bounty given per load to our colonies on deals

0

8

10¾

2dly,—Comparative amount of duties on deals from our colonies and from Norway, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 pubic feet, and showing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber,: under the present arrangement:—

1st.—120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 5 loads, 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 12 feet deals are taxed at 19 l., this will amount per load to a duty of

3

10

4

120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2l.: this will amount per load to a duty of

0

7

4¾

Difference per load

3

2

11¼

Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway

1

10

0

Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions

1

12

11½

2nd.—120 Norway deals, 8 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 3 loads and 3 feet cubical measure; and as 120 deals, 8 feet in length, are taxed at 19 l., this will amount per load to a duty of

5

5

6¼

120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2l.: this will amount per load to

0

11

1¼

Difference of duty per load

4

14

5¼

Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway voyage

1

10

0

Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions

3

4

5¼

3dly. Comparative amount of duties imposed by this bill on deals from Norway and from Russia, resulting from the circumstance that Norway deals cannot be had so as on an average to exceed 12 feet in length, and 9 inches in breadth; whilst Russia deals are always 11 inches broad, and may easily be had 16, or even 21 feet long.

1st.—120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 3 inches think, and 9 inches broad, contain 6 loads and 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19 l., this will amount per load to a duty of

3

10

4

120 Russian deals, 16 feet long, 3

888

inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 8 loads, and 40 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19 l., this will amount per load to a duty of

2

3

2

Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions.

1

7

2

2dly. —120 Norway deals as above per load:

3

10

4

120 Russian deals 21 feet long, 3 inches thick; and 11 inches broad, contain 11 loads and 27 feet cubical measure; and as 120:such deals' are taxed at 22 l., this will amount to a duty per load

1

18

1

Advantage pet load which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions

1

12

3

3dly.—120 Norway deals, 8 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad as above, pay per load

5

5

6

120 Russian, 16 foot deals, pay per load as above

2

3

2

Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill, over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions

3

2

4

120 Norway 8-footdeals,as above, pay per load

5

5

6

120 Russia 21-foot deals pay per load

1

18

1

Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals of these dimensions will, under this bill, enjoy over the Norwegian deals of 8-foot dimensions

3

7

5

4thly. —Statement showing that the bounty given to Russian deals by the present bill, must destroy the manufacture of that article in this country.

1st. —Russian timber pays per load

2

3

2

Russian deals, 16 feet long and 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, &c, pay per load

2

3

2

Direct bounty on deals

0

11

10

Further, as the duty on the waste, and on the extra measure, with the low duty on slabs, amounts to 25 per cent, on the duty on the deal, this gives an advantage of

0

10

9

Total bounty in favour of the foreign deal manufacturer per load

1

2

7

2dty. —Russian timber, as above, per load

2

15

7

Russian deals, 21 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, &c. pay per load

1

13

1

889

Direct bounty

0

16

11

Further duty on waste, above

0

9

6

Total bounty in favour of the foreign deal manufacture per load

1

6

5

"2nd. Because it appears to me that this House will treat with undeserved contempt the decision of their own committee—that it is expedient only to compensate to the Canadian importer of timber, the difference of freight and transport,' as well as the desire expressed by the committee of the Commons House of Parliament 'of adopting, in our intercourse with foreign nations, more liberal principles than those which have hitherto guided us,' if they sanction a bounty in favour of our colonies of nearly 100 per cent, on the value of the raw material, which will be the case if 1l. per load of timber is given in the shape of bounty, over and above compensation for the difference of freight.
Besides, I must be of opinion that it is a measure highly injurious to the interests of the people of this country; for,, whilst it is undoubtedly proved that American timber is far less durable than that of the Baltic, and that this trade is of little or no advantage, except to what is called the shipping interest, I cannot forget that timber used in building, if it perishes, inflicts upon the people of this country the loss of the materials with which it is worked up, amounting at least to four times its own value; and that the committee of the House of Commons have, in their Report, stated, with great' truth, 'that the policy most advantageous for this country, is to obtain timber of the best quality, and at the lowest price, without reference to the quarter from which it is derived.'
"3d. Because, whilst I applaud the wish expressed by the committee of the House of Commons "of marking to foreign nations our desire, in the arrangement of the timber duties, to adopt more liberal principles than 'those by which our commerce with them has been hitherto governed," I must reprobate that unprecedented and unprincipled love of regulation and restriction exhibited in this bill to such an extent, that duties are laid on deals from Norway—a country that always admitted our manufactures at comparatively low duties—which, when compared with the more moderate duties imposed on deals from Itussia—a country which has recently increased its extravagant duties on our manufactures—can leave no doubt that a bounty of nearly 100 per cent on the value of the commodity is given to the latter.
"4th. Because though I agree in the prevalent opinion that our commercial code displays too much jealousy of foreign industry, and too great a desire to secure by prohibitory duties, to our own industry a monopoly of the home-market; yet I was not aware that the policy of a contrary system, viz., that of securing to foreign industry a monopoly of the home-market, had ever been maintained,
890
even by the wildest theorist; far less could. I have imagined that such a system would ever have been acted upon by the legislature of any country; yet, by the unprincipled and extraordinary arrangements of this bill, it is impossible not to admit that a bounty is substantially given to the Russian and Prussian manufacturers of deals, in no instance legs than 1l. 2s. 1d. per load, a sum which must annihilate all attempts on the part of the home-manufacturer to compete in that article.
"5th. Because, injurious to the country as it must be, to force into use, at an advanced price, timber of an inferior quality subject to premature decay, it appears to me that this is far from being the most serious calamity with which the proposed arrangement threatens this mercantile country.—Since the restoration of peace the tables of this and the other House of Parliament have been crowded with petitions from our merchants and manufacturers; in which, convinced of the great truth, that commerce is an exchange of equal value for equal value, and that it is impossible for goods to be imported into this country, without an equal value of our commodities being exported, they have strenuously enforced the necessity of doing away that restrictive, protective, and prohibitory system which has disgraced our commercial arrangements; anxiously urging, that by gradually adopting this line of conduct, we should not only afford relief to a suffering people, but secure to them important benefits, from the example this alteration of system would hold out to foreign nations.
To me, therefore, it appears the greatest of all calamities to see this House adopt a bill which, in regulating that branch of commerce that has first come under the consideration of parliament, not only prejudices the interest of foreign nations without any material benefit to our colonies, by forcing into use an article of colonial produce they could furnish cheaper and of a superior quality; but, by a partial arrangement of duty, regulates the comparative degree of intercourse We shall enjoy with other countries—thus, at once, unjustly sacrificing to the proprietors of shipping, who can alone derive advantage from it, the interest of the British consumers, and annihilating the reasonable expectations of benefit which our merchants hoped to derive from unrestrained commerce, by setting the example of illiberal preferences that will render it impossible for us to negotiate with foreign countries, with any chance of approximating to that freedom of intercourse which, if it could be established, must redound equally to the advantage of all.
(Signed) "LAUDERDALE."