MOTION FOR A RETURN. (Hansard, 1 April 1879)

§ LORD COTTESLOE,

in moving for A Statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with the United States of America for the years 1873, 1874, 1875. 1876, 1877, and 1878, in. continuation of the annual statement of trade for the year 1877, as presented to Parliament in June 1878, said, that it was very desirable that their Lordships should have before them full and correct information on that subject, which was one of the greatest interest both to the agricultural and commercial classes of the country. In 129 treating on the subject, he would refer to the last Annual Return of Exports and Imports of the United Kingdom, which showed that the balance of trade between this country and America had been unfavourable to England, and that while the exports had been falling off year by year, the imports had increased in a greater proportion. In 1877, the imports were £77,825,973, while the exports (British) were £16,376,814, showing a difference of four-fifths—namely, £61,449,159; or, taking exports (British and Colonial)—namely, £19,885,893, showing a difference of three-fourths, or £57,940,080, against this country. But, turning to a comparison of exports and imports in the four years from 1873 to 1877, it appeared that America had increased her exports to this country from £71,471,493 to £77,825,973; while her imports had fallen in the same period nearly A, from £33,574,664 to £16,376,814. He would especially call attention to the imports into America of cotton goods, which had fallen by½ glass, ¾ hardware, ½ iron, ⅔ tin,½ salt,½ silk goods, nearly⅔ paper,5/6; and woollen,⅔. On the other hand, turning to her exports, the increases had been:—Animals, from 340 in 1873 to 11,523 in 1877; bacon and hams, by value, from £5,191,901 to £5,916,077; beef, fresh, 1873, nil to 443,042 cwts., showing an increase of value of £1,203,997; butter, by value, from £199,639 to £920,561; cheese, by value, from £2,353,181 to £3,129,829; wheat, by value, from £12,938,848 to £13,583,543; maize, by value, from £3,814,125 to £8,225,437; meal and meal flour, by value, from £1,382,301 to£l,543,793;'hops, by value, from £46,740 to £557,650; and meat, preserved otherwise than by salting, by value, from £16,398 to £794,856. Seven other articles of agricultural produce might be extracted; but the above were sufficient to point out the effect produced on the farming interests of the country by these largo importations. It was useful to show by later Returns what the result of the last year's trade had been. Such information was necessary to enable all persons embarking their capital in trade and agriculture to know how to conduct their business, and justified him in asking for the Return of which he had given Notice. In drawing attention to the subject, it was not his intention to complain of Free 130 Trade. On that subject his opinions remained unchanged. If we did not require the several articles imported, we should not take them, and the welfare of all the working classes of the community was promoted. The only complaint was that Free Trade had been too successful. It had added vastly to the wealth of the country, and had introduced habits of luxury and increased expenditure into all ranks of society. If we could not compete with other countries in some articles of manufacture, we must direct our capital and labour into other channels. Still less should we resort to a war of Tariffs, or, as it was now called, to a "System of forced Reciprocity." Such a policy would be suicidal, and would be most injurious to the people of those countries who might adopt it. But be the result of our present system of freedom of trade what it might, it was well to know thoroughly how matters stood, and where the shoe pinched; and for producers to understand how it was that prices of agricultural produce had fallen in the markets of the United Kingdom.