Sitting of 29 March 1821

NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.
Mr. Humerose to move for an account of the expenses of the detention of Buonapaté at St. Helena. If it were right to detain Napoleon at all, he would contend, that, in the present financial contend, that, in the present financial difficulties of the country, he might be safely detained at one-tenth of the present expense. He had an estimate of those expenses for 1819, and he was not aware of any reduction since. It amounted to considerably more than 400,000 l. He understood that government had lately engaged with the India Company, that the Company: should pay all expenses, and that they should be paid by government a sum equal to the amount of the average expense for the last three or four years. He thought that the other powers of Europe ought in fairness to bear a part of the expenses of detaining Napoleon. Seven years had expired since the termination of the war. It was too severe to see England, immersed in financial difficulties, obliged single-handed to pay the entire expenses attending the confinement of the date emperor. He concluded by moving, for Copies of all Correspondence between the government and the East India Company, respecting the expenses attending the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté also an Account of the Expenses of the Staff the Troops, the Ships of War, and Transports stationed at St. Helena.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not mean t object to the motion; and when the House had the papers before
1496
them, they would see if the detention of Buonaparté could be attained by any more economical plan.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that as this was the first opportunity Which presented itself since he had been in that House, for alluding to the subject of Buonaparté's confinement, he wished to avail himself of it for entering his most solemn protest against that act [A laugh]. Hon. gentlemen might laugh, but he was speaking the sentiments of every generous man in Europe. His detention was contrary to every feeling of generosity and humanity, if they considered how he was separated from his family, and even from his infant child. It was the more ungenerous, when we considered that he had put himself voluntarily under our protection. He (sir R. Wilson) had it from an individual who made him the offer of taking him to America, that he refused, because he preferred throwing himself upon the good faith of England. If he had not done this, he might have escaped, for the vessel in which he was offered to be conveyed afterwards, arrived safe in America. The conduct which had. been subsequently pursued towards him was a national dishonour: and if ever France should regain her freedom, although she would never receive him as her sovereign, yet he was convinced that she would not suffer him to be detained in his present situation.
Mr. Crokerdenied that this country had been guilty of the slightest breach of faith. It was a well-known fact, that the night before Napoleon surrendered himself, he held a council of war, or rather of safety, in which the question was discussed, whether Napoleon had any possible chance of escape? It was decided that he had not. Napoleon, who judged with caution, saw no means of safety but in surrendering himself to a British officer. He surrendered himself with reluctance. When he came on board the English vessel, he was told that no treaty could be made with him, and that he must wait the final determination of the English government. If the hon. member should bring the question before the House in.-a more formal shape, he would prove, to the satisfaction of the House, that Napoleon had been fairly hunted into the toils, and that the honour of the country throughout the whole of the transaction was free from reproach.
Mr. Humesaid, that he thought the

1497
conduct which had been shown towards that individual more blameable than the policy which dictated his original detention. He thought there had been a degree of severity exercised towards him which the House would never sanction.
Mr. Hutchinsonexpressed his decided disapprobation of the detention of Buonaparté. It was disgraceful to this country? that she should be made the gaoler of the allied powers; not for any object having the security of the state in view, but evidently in furtherance of those despotic principles which were avowed by the Holy Alliance.
The motion was agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of this bill,
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, he should postpone his opposition to the bill; until the third reading, when he hoped it would be seriously discussed. He was informed that the measure was disagreeable to the Catholics of Ireland, and he could not see how they could be contented with that part which had formed the second separate bill.
Mr. Abercrombyregretted that the hon. baronet had not been in his place upon a former night; for in that case he would have heard a succession of Irish members bearing testimony to the general satisfaction which the measure gave to the loyal and intelligent Irish Catholics. It no doubt would give dissatisfaction to others; for it would reduce some who possessed an unworthy desire of power to a state of deserved insignificance.
Mr. Martin,of Galway, said, he had several letters from leading Catholics, expressing themselves satisfied with whatever the House should agree to on this subject; and also their confidence that the clergy would be finally reconciled to it. He understood that Mr. O'Connell, who wished to get up an aggregate meeting in Dublin, could not get nine persons to sign the requisition. Mr. O'Connell might naturally regard the measure with no particular anxiety, as he might feel convinced that if it rained offices as thick as bail, one would never Tall on his head.
The report having been read,
Mr. Crokerrose to propose a clause to which he had already called the attention of the House, with regard to a provision for the Catholic clergy. From the manner in which this proposition was received,
1498
when he first mentioned it, he was led to conclude that its principle was generally approved by the House. That it was a measure of vital importance, could not be rationally denied. He had not, indeed, conversed with any one, either within or without that House, who objected to the principle of his proposition. His right hon. friend who had brought forward the bill, had, no doubt, objected to his proposition, not upon the ground of principle, but of time and expediency. Therefore, he was induced, to wave his purpose until the present moment. On the ground of expediency, it was urged by the learned proposer of this bill, that a measure of this nature should proceed from the government. But to such an opinion he could by no means subscribe; for by what constitutional rule could it be maintained that a grant of money should originate any where but in that House, or be voted by any other power than that of the parliament? But, to what government was it meant to refer for such a grant? Why, to a government divided against itself; scarcely two members of which were ad idem upon this point respecting the Catholics. That it would belong to government to consider the extent and apportion the distribution of the money to which his motion referred, he was ready to admit; but although it would be for government to execute, it was not for government to begin such a measure. Again, it was urged, upon the score of expediency, that before a measure of this nature was submitted to the House, it would be right to consult the Catholic clergy of Ireland, whether they were willing to accept such an allowance. But, if the clergy should express a wish for the proposed grant, what must be the consequence to the peace of Ireland, should their hopes be dashed by the dissent of parliament from the proposition? He was convinced that the most important good could be done at a paltry expense. The details which he had collected, he had embodied into a bill. Another objection to his proposition was, that the adoption of it might endanger the success of this bill. But, was danger to be apprehended from the clamour of Dr. Milner, or those who co-operated with him? How strange, that those who assumed the attitude of wise statesmen, should deprecate the measure he proposed, although convinced of its justice, merely from an apprehension that its

1499
adoption might excite the clamour of individuals. His right hon. friend had described the present measure as one which wits to put an end to the dissensions which had distracted Ireland. And how was the House going to make this final compact? Why, by leaving one of the most important subjects out of the treaty. By such a proceeding, distention would be kept alive; and when they considered themselves safe in port, they would be once more obliged to put to sea. If he were asked to state the quarter from which danger had always been most apprehended, the Statute Book would answer for him. The very first penal statute for suppressing disloyalty was levelled, not at the laity, but at the Catholic clergy of Ireland. He should have considered himself guilty of a neglect of duty, if he had not endeavoured to procure the assent of the House to the principle of making an adequate provision for the Catholic clergy. With regard to the extent of that provision, he thought it should enable them to maintain themselves with a suitable degree of respectability. At the same time, it ought not to be so large as to render them wholly independent of their flocks. He concluded by moving a clause, recognising the expediency of the principle of making a provision for the Catholic priesthood.
Lord Castlereaghrose to express a strong doubt as to the propriety of the course which his hon. friend was pursuing. No individual could feel more deeply than himself the expediency of following up the bills before the House, by some such measure as that which his hon. friend was desirous of effecting; but the question was, whether this was the proper moment for proposing it? He had no doubt that, if the subject were brought forward at the seasonable moment, it would meet with that general concurrence, which would afford the best pledge to the Catholic clergy of the desire of parliament to contribute to their comfort. The motion was inadequate to its object; for it could only be rendered effective through a recommendation from the Crown. If the clause proposed to be brought up were now agreed to, the measure could not be final; for they would still have to determine the scale of expenditure. So far from forwarding the object in view the proposition would have the effect of placing-the measure in a retrograde position. Besides, it would
1500
come more properly as a mark of grace and favour from the Crown. Under these circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would consent to leave the question in a state of amicable repose. If it Were agreed to at this time, it might be considered as a sort of bribe held out to the Catholic clergy; and he owed it to that respectable body, to declare, that When he was authorized, under lord Sidmonth's administration, in 1805, to communicate to them that it was in the contemplation of government to make a similar proposition in their behalf to parliament, they stated, in the most respectful and disinterested manner, that they could not, consistently with duty and honour, receive such a mark of grace and favour at that moment.
Mr. Hutchinsondeprecated the introduction of the measure at any time, without a perfect understanding: between the Catholic clergy and the government.
Mr. Crokersaid, that his object was, in a great measure, gained, by the admission of the principle which he proposed; and therefore, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw it.
The clause was then withdrawn, and the report agreed to.

TIMBER DUTIES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Timber Duties acts,
Mr. Wallacecalled its attention to the report of the committee on the Timber Duties, and said he had now to propose such resolutions as from that report the commercial interests of the country appeared to require. It was known to the House, that previously to 1809, a supply of timber was obtained almost exclusively from the north of Europe. Subsequently the supply was partly obtained from the north of Europe, and partly from our North American colonies. It was impossible to look at this subject without perceiving, that in the course of no very long time, if the present system was continued, one of the two must become predominant, and the other completely annihilated. The annual importation of timber, from 1803 to 1806 from the north of Europe, was as follows:—Fir timber 218,857 loads; deals 45,938. From 1816 to 1819, there had been a great diminution in the annual imports from the North. Their amount was—Fir timber 93,659 loads; deals 21,824. On, both, it would be seen that the reduction considerably

1501
exceeded one-half. The timber imported from our North American colonies averaged, in the years from 1803 to 1806, 10,519 loads. The average from 1816 to 1819 was 188,322. The imports from the North of Europe in the years 1818, 1819, and 1820, exhibited a greater decline, and were as follow:—1818, 130,000 loads; 1819, 102,000 loads; 1820,59,000 loads. In the mean time the imports from our American colonies were—In 1818, 214,000 loads; in 1819, 267,000 loads; in 1820,253,000 loads. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to say, that, whatever was due to our colonies, to sacrifice the great principles of commerce and the most valuable interests of the country, in a way which could Hot fail to influence prejudicially our commercial relations, was neither essential to the protection of our colonies, nor just with regard to our general interests, nor sound policy in reference to the northern countries of Europe. This state of things could not be otherwise, where the duties were exorbitant, and the protection enormous. This had given rise to very considerable dissatisfaction in the northern countries, and had materially affected in that quarter our commercial relations. The measure which he had to propose, he did not look upon as of much importance either to Russia or Prussia in the value of timber exported; as the invoice price of wood annually exported from either of those countries to Great Britain did not exceed 100,000 l. Nor did he regard it as having a very important result upon the state of our manufactures; but he considered it of the greatest moment, as being the first step in receding from a system detrimental to our commercial relations, and towards conciliating those foreign powers, without whose good will the relations of mercantile intercourse could never be securely established. He then went on to remark upon the heavy rate of duty upon the Baltic timber, which he stated to be double the prime cost, and equal to a tax of a million sterling. He repeated, that this enormous duty was injurious to our general interests, while the system was calculated for the exclusive benefit of those connected with the colonies, or the ship-owners who conveyed the timber from our American dependencies. He then touched upon the history and progress of the duties, and said they commenced in 1810, when, from the line of policy pursued by France,
1502
it appeared probable that we should be prevented from receiving supplies from the north of Europe. The protecting duty then put on was 2l. 1s. with an addition of 25 per cent in the Customs. It was said; that this duty ought to continue, because it pledged the faith of parliament, in order to induce the colonist to vest his capital in the trade; but he thought the faith of parliament had been redeemed by the protection hitherto given to the capitalist, who, under that inducement, engaged in the trade originally. But, all that amount of duty was not laid on for the purpose of protection; part of it was for revenue. Now he did not mean to interfere with the former; it was only so much of it as was laid On for the sake of revenue, that his measure meant to affect. A curious argument had been advanced on this subject, which went to say that parliament had no power, even over this, because the act of 1816 had made it perpetual; but, in parliamentary language, the making an act perpetual, only meant that it was not to expire at a given time. No man who was acquainted with that language could suppose that it implied any thing like the absence of that discretionary power which parliament had to alter or repeal its own acts. The question, then, was, whether the existing duties should be altered, and to what extent? The effect of the duty on Baltic timber was to introduce from the colonies an immense excess; he believed that excess exceeded the annual consumption by 100,000 loads. The merchant who would regulate his proceedings by the real demand was thereby driven oat of the market, and the trade was consequence carried on by colonists and ship-owners. It then became a question shipping; and the ship-owners were the only class of mercantile persons who gave determined opposition to any attempt repeal or modify the duties. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to answer the argument grounded upon the employment necessarily given by the trade with the colonies to our shipping and sailors. As to the shipping, it was the worst in the merchant services; in fact, ships that were good for nothing else were employed; and, with respect to the sailors, they were not the only persons which the change from peace to war had put out or employment. As to the danger to be apprehended to our navy, on the breaking out of a new war, in case of a diminution

1503
of the number of our seamen, there was no ground for it; we had now 50,000 more employed than were employed in 1793. He could never believe that the country was to be served by sacrificing one interest to another. The only means of recovering our commercial greatness was by the opening of new channels for trade; but these could not be created unless we laid aside all narrow and restrictive policy with regard to our intercourse with foreign nations, and acted on the liberal principle of mutual encouragement, and reciprocal advantage. He denied that there was any ground for the allegation, that if the trade with the northern nations was increased, we should not come in for our full share. He likewise showed the decrease which bad taken place in the exports of our manufactures to the Baltic, since the imposition of the heavy duties on timber, while the increase to the colonies had been very slight. He then moved, "That the several Duties of Customs payable on the Importation into Great Britain of Timber and certain articles of Wood, do cease and determine, and the several and respective Duties and Drawbacks following be paid in lieu thereof."
Lord Althorpcontended, that the Canada trade, was an immense tax upon this country, and seemed to be kept up for the purpose of working ships which were unfit for any other service. The policy pursued was quite at variance with true commercial principles. The fair course would be, to lay a duty of 50 s. upon Baltic timber, and 10 s. on Canada. He also suggested whether it would not be proper to fix a duty on deals by cubic measurement, instead of the present way.
Mr. Marryatsaid:—I cannot agree to the resolutions proposed, and still less to the improvements upon them suggested by the noble lord; because one of them, so far from being founded on the evidence given before the committee, is in direct opposition to that evidence. Another objection which weighs very strongly on my mind, as well against the resolutions as some passages of the report itself, is, that both of them betray too great a leaning to the principles laid down in the petition of certain merchants of this metropolis, presented last session, which called upon this House to take off "all duties merely protective against foreign competition." In conformity to this doctrine, it is now proposed to diminish the protection hitherto given to our colonies
1504
and our ship-owners, in a degree; that will prove highly injurious to both, and; give a monopoly of the timber trade to foreigners. If we comply, in this instance, with the request of the disciple of the new school of political economy, and establish what they term "a sound principle, a standard to be referred to in all subsequent arrangements," we must follow it up in every other case, and shall soon ruin every class of the community.—If we had a new order of things to establish, an unrestricted intercourse between all nations would be the most beneficial system; but we are in an artificial state of society. We have an immense national debt, and the taxation we bear to provide for the interest of it, enters into the price of labour, and every thing that is the produce of labour, and makes it impossible for us to maintain an equal competition with foreign nations. We have returned to a state of peace, loaded with a debt of 800 millions, instead of 200, which was the amount before the war, and therefore are less capable than ever of bearing that foreign competition with which we are again brought into contact. We are pursuing a wrong course, in attempting to increase the sale of our manufactures among the European powers. Most of them manufacture for themselves; and use every practical means to secure their own consumption to the industry of their own subjects. Those who do not, will only take from us what we can supply them with cheaper than their other neighbours. Our home consumption, and our colonies and dependencies, take off 6–7ths of all our manufactures; and our only reasonable expectation of extending their consumption, is among distant nations, who do not manufacture for themselves, and who will take our goods in exchange for their productions. The obvious tendency of a free trade is to make rich countries poor, and poor countries rich; because poor countries, where articles are cheap, will undersell rich countries where they are dear, until the inequality between them ceases. This, therefore, is a very proper system for those who are poor to recommend, but not for those who are rich to adopt.—My objections to taking this fresh step in the new career recommended to us, of abolishing ail restrictions on foreign competition, are not only the injury that would be done to our ship owners and colonists, by what the

1505
report terms, "a recurrence to those sound principles by which; all commerce ought to be regulated" but the consequences that must ensue, to all the other great interests, of the country. My impressions on this point are confirmed by the testimony, of almost, intelligent witness, examined before the committee, who declared, that our prohibitory duties on foreign linens are considered in a more invidious light than our high duties on their timber; that our prohibition of their corn, under the present corn laws, is very obnoxious to Russia and Prussia; and who being asked whether the reduction of our duty on their timber would remove the unfavourable disposition they entertain against us, unless followed by the removal of the restrictions on the other, articles, he answered, "It would contribute to such an effect, chiefly, as-an earnest of a more liberal system." Justice and reciprocity, not liberality, ought to be the basis of our intercourse with foreign powers; but, if we open to them those great sources of consumption which furnish employment for our own domestic industry, in the expectation of deriving correspondent advantages, from them in return, I fear we shall be grievously, disappointed. While I contend that protection against foreign competition is absolutely necessary, I beg leave to distinguish between protection and monopoly; and to observe that it should be bounded by such limits, as the interest of the community at large require. If any class attempt to carry it farther, the foreign competitor ought to be let in, and prevent an undue advantage being taken of the public. Under such limitations, protection is necessary to almost every class of the community. When I have brought up petitions from the British ship-owners, and the British colonists, praying for protection against foreign competition, they have sometimes been treated with asperity, and the petitioners represented as selfish and unreasonable; and this, too, by landholders and gentlemen of the sister kingdom, who might be expected to consider with indulgence the claims of others to the same protection as they receive themselves. As to the landholders, the protection against foreign competition given to them by the corn laws, amounts to not less than thirty millions per annum, which the British consumers pay them for the produce, of their land, more than they would
1506
pay for it, if it could be imported without restrictions on foreign competition. Wheat would then be sold here at 40 s. per quarter; land would not pay, the expense of cultivation, and be of as little value as the wilderness in the British provinces in North America, where the timber grows, the duties on which we are now regulating. Ireland enjoys the same protection for her agriculture as Great Britain; and her staple manufacture, linen, is protected from foreign competition, by duties oh foreign linens, amounting to from 50 to 90 per cent; and still farther, by a bounty on the exportation of Irish linen, of 1½d. per yard; which, on the coarser qualities, amounts to about 17½ per cent more. Nay, so great is the horror of foreign linens, entertained by the gentlemen of the sister kingdom, that they have extorted from government the continuance of a transit duty of 15 s. per cent on its being warehoused here for exportation; under an erroneous prejudice, which is injurious even to themselves, and highly so to the best interests of Great Britain. Let them read the memorial lately presented to the Russian government by the sugar refiners at St. Petersburgh, and they will find that the transit duty on foreign linens is made the ground severe nature. During the late war, the numerous expeditions fitted out from this country required a great number of transports. The ship owners met the demand, built an additional number of vessels, and supplied the exigencies of the public service. At the close of the war, government haying no longer occasion for them, these transports were discharged; and, at the same time, many of the colonies captured from the enemy having been restored, the ships engaged, in bringing their produce to Great Britain, were also thrown upon the hands; of their owners; the remaining branches.; of our commerce being insufficient to give them employment, the value of shipping depreciated more than 50 per cent, and freights were so reduced, that those ships which found employment, instead of giving any profit, were navigated at a loss to their owners. Under these circumstances, al the protection the ship-owners ask is, that you will not alter the existing duties on timber, and transfer that trade to foreigners, which is at present carried on by them, from the British colonies. If you do this, you deprive them of their only

1507
resource, and devote them to inevitable ruin. The British colonists, in support of their claim for protection against foreign competition, state that they were encouraged to engage in this timber trade by a specific pledge on the part of government, "that a decided preference would be given to timber, the growth of his majesty's colonies in North America," in consequence of our being excluded from any supply from the northern powers of Europe. Under this assurance and in this exigency, they formed expensive establishments, and supplied the wants of the mother country. The Report states, that, "so far from any expectation being held out that the encouragement so given had been considered by government as permanent, or was intended to be indefinitely continued, means seem to have been studiously taken to produce by explanation a conviction of a contrary tendency;" but the only document I have seen which justifies this assertion is Mr. Lack's letter of the 25th Feb. 1817; and this refers to the additional duty of 10 s. 3d. imposed on Baltic timber in 1813, and expresses the conviction of their lordships, "that a duty to the same amount might be laid on timber from the British North American colonies, without being prejudicial to the great interests concerned." The ship-owners remonstrated against this duty, and on the 20th Feb. 1818, Mr. Lack wrote again, "that upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, it is not at present the intention of government to submit to parliament any alteration of the law as it now stands. The chairman of the ship-owners has publicly denied having received any communication which he did not make public; and every witness from the British colonies, examined before the committee, declared that they considered the duties permanent, excepting that of 10 s. 3d. and that they acted in full confidence of the continued protection of government. They farther state, that this trade is now grown up to a magnitude, that renders it of the utmost importance to the British colonies; that persons engaged in agriculture find employment in cutting timber and conveying it to the shipping places during the winter; when all other occupations are suspended; that the increased population thus employed, has given great encouragement to agriculture; that a great number of emigrants have been enabled to settle in that country, by merchants advancing
1508
to them the supplies necessary for their, support, until their lands were brought into a state of cultivation, and taking, their payment in timber; that the export of their timber now forms a large proportion of their means of importing the manufactures of the mother country, and that if this trade is discouraged, their imports must be discontinued, their agriculture decline, and their population emigrate for want of employment. They urge, that if you interrupt the trade of an independent power, to whom the commerce of all the world is open, it may be directed into other channels; but that as you bind them to trade with the mother country alone, if you refuse to protect their produce, they are left without resource. They contend that the restrictions you impose upon them, of taking all their supplies from you, and shipping all their produce to you, and that in British ships, thus making their industry contribute in every possible way to your great objects, of finding marts for the consumption of your manufactures, and maintaining your naval power, gives them an unanswerable claim to protection against foreign competition; and that you must either continue that protection, or they will be unable to bear your restrictions. Political considerations of the highest importance support the claims both of the ship-owners and the colonists. We should seriously consider the consequences that may ensue from destroying a branch of trade that, in 1819, employed 17,500 British seamen, being 3,500 more than are voted for the whole service of the navy, and the danger of driving these men into the employ of foreign, who may perhaps soon again become hostile, states. We should also reflect upon the impolicy of making ourselves once more dependent upon foreign powers for the supply of timber for the use of our navy; who may avail themselves of that circumstance to exclude us from their ports, and reduce us to the necessity of making peace on their own terms. The importance of the British colonies in North America is very great, and if they continue to flourish as they have done, they will soon become an effectual barrier to the ambition of the United States; but if otherwise, a discontented and diminished population will submit to them on the first attack. If you lose those colonies, you will not long retain those in the West Indies; for they will become dependant upon the United

1509
States for their means of subsistence, as well as for their supplies of timber: and the wants and interests of mankind will bring them together, in spite of all obstacles. The government of the United States is well aware, that, if she increased her duties on British manufactures, they would find their way into her territories through the British provinces, without paying any duty whatever; but let her once become mistress of them, let her command the continent from the Mississippi to the St. Lawrence, and she would possess the means of making her Non-intercourse and Non-importation acts effectual; these provinces are the only check you have upon her policy.—If we look at the present state of the timber trade, as divided between our own colonies and the Northern powers of Europe, we shall find that the imports from the latter have exceeded those from the former, on an average of the last three years; and, therefore, the northern powers have no reason to complain that they do not enjoy a fair participation in the trade. They complain indeed of great losses, and so with equal truth do the traders from the British colonies; but this competition, though injurious to the importers, has been beneficial to the British consumers of timber, by lowering the price of the article. As no charge of want of liberality can justly be brought against us by foreign powers, in our present regulations of the timber trade, we have a right to consider our own interests alone, in any alterations we may think it advisable to adopt, and probably our manufacturers should be the first object of our attention. The report states, that in so far as any alteration introduced is favourable to foreign trade, it must have a tendency to produce an increased importation from the north of Europe, and thereby possibly to induce an increased demand from that quarter, for the manufactures of Great Britain; and it goes on to state that, "your Committee are inclined to believe that an increased demand would be the result." That the export of British manufactures to the northern powers of Europe, does not depend upon our import of their timber, is manifest. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, when the import of their timber was so much diminished by the competition of the British colonies, the export of British manufactures to these powers was nearly three times as much as in the years 1799, 1800, and 1801,
1510
when they had the whole of the timber trade in their own hands. The power particularly spoken of by one of the witnesses, as feeling this strong desire for British manufactures, is Norway; and if really felt, it appears singular that it ha9 not been gratified, for a statement is given by another witness, showing that her shipments of timber to this country; in the three years 1817, 1818, and 1819, amounted to 820,000 l., and that her returns taken in British manufactures, during the same period, amounted only to 323,000 l. so that she has the means, but wants the will to increase her use of British manufactures. In short, if we consult the interests of our manufacturers, we shall encourage the trade with our colonies in preference to that with foreign powers, because foreigners only may deal with us, but our colonies must. The consumers have an interest both in the quality and in the price of timber, and the evidence given before the committee is highly valuable, as it serves to correct the violent prejudice that had been excited against the colonial timber, by the report of the Lords committee. The colonial timber is certainly inferior to the Baltic; but answers as well for many purposes; and by coming into competition with it, keeps down the price for the benefit of the consumer. It has been asserted that to encourage the import of colonial timber, is to oblige the public to pay a higher price for a worse commodity. If the colonies applied for an act of parliament to give them a monopoly of the timber trade, the objection would be just; but as every one is perfectly at liberty to give the preference to which timber he pleases, at the difference of price, it surely is not very reasonable to complain of having the option.—One of the resolutions before the House proposes a reduction of the present duty on foreign timber; in direct opposition to the evidence given before the committee. All the witnesses practically concerned in the trade, state, that the effect of this measure would be to raise the price of the article abroad; and not to lower it to the British consumer. It also appeared in evidence, that both the Russian and Prussian governments have either reduced, or wholly taken off, the duty they formerly imposed on the export of timber, in order to enable their subjects the better to maintain the competition to which they were exposed with our colonies. We may, therefore, rea-

1511
sonably conclude, that when that competition is diminished, these duties will be revived, and thus we shall sacrifice our own revenue, either to increase the revenue of foreign powers, or for the advantage of foreign individuals.—Another objection to; reducing the duty on Baltic timber is, that by so doing, we shall diminish the protection and lower the value of British timber. British oak, of small sizes, how sells at only 4l. per load; and of sizes fit for ship-building, from 40 to 60 feet metings, at 6l. per load. These prices will not remunerate the grower; and if you reduce them still lower, you may bid adieu to all expectation of an adequate supply of native timber. These considerations all rend to show the impolicy of reducing the duty on Baltic timber. That part of the resolution which recommends the imposition of a duty on timber from the British colonies, is supported by the evidence, and not objected to by the colonists themselves, who allow that it would have the effect of making them more careful, both in the selection and conversion of their timber, and tend to improve its character and value in the British market. This, then, is merely a question of degree, and the only point at issue is, what duty it can safely bear?—The nett proceeds of a load of colonial timber, which costs 18 s., are only 5s. 4d., leaving a loss of more than 70 per cent to the importer. To impose a duty of 10 s. per load on colonial timber, and take off 10 s. from the Baltic timber, must altogether crush a trade already labouring under such disadvantages. The number of ships employed in the timber trade to the colonies last year, was 260 less than in the year before. Overtrading naturally leads to undertrading; and any violent corrective in the shape of duty, applied to a trade thus circumstanced, would destroy it altogether. Another consideration is, the doubt whether government do not stand pledged to the continuance of the existing protection, with the exception of the additional duty of 10 s. 3d. imposed in the year 1813. From these considerations I shall oppose any greater duty; and when the House considers, that the whole amount paid for colonial timber goes into the hands either of the British manufacturer or the British ship-owner, sod thus contributes to the support of national industry and national revenue, while the amount paid for foreign timber, except the freight of that propor-
1512
tion of it which is brought in British ships, goes into the hands of foreigners, without producing the same beneficial results, I trust that they will think the remaining protection left to the timber of our colonies is not more than sound policy requires. I shall move, in a proper stage of these proceedings, that the duty on Baltic timber, instead of 55 s. per load, continue at 65 s per load.
The resolutions were then agreed to.