The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-29 00:00:00

rural districts themselves, to fight their own battles, or they
would very likely be called upon to bear the whole burden
of taxation. (A laugh.) Hon. gentlemen might laugh who
Were not apple growers any more than himself, but he would
ask, was it worth while, as he had not heard of any agita-
tion for the repeal of the apple laws—(laughter)—and there-
fore the proposal was wholly gratuitous—to interfere with
a description of article the losses upon which would chiefly
affect small proprietors ?
Mr. RIDLEY said he supposed the hon. member was an
advocate for the Norfolk biffins. He thought, instead of the
treaty, as the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, being
solved by the sword, if war was to be avoided at all, it would
be in consequence of the treaty.
Mr. EWART said he was the member of a commission
which had discussed the questsOn of removing the duty on
apples, and it was then shown that it would be largely for
the benefit of the poor. (Hear, hear.)
The articles of arms, brass manufactures, brocade, bronze,
canes, caoutchouc manufactures, and raw cherries, were
agreed to.
The portion of the resolution referring to porcelain was
also agreed to.
Mr. T, DUNCOMBE moved to omit "corks made and
squared for rounding." He complained that this clause
would destroy an important branch of English trade unless
care were taken to secure a constant supply of the raw mate-
rial from Spain. He also objected to the rate to be levied
on the bales of raw cork as packages.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was wil-
ling that there should be an immediate remission of the
duty, and considered that we were entitled to ask favourable
conditions of exportation from Spain. In 1842 the hon.
gentleman was one of the strongest advocates of what might
be called the monopoly of the English cork-cutters, for the
duty levied on foreign corks was equivalent to a prohibi-
tion. No doubt theirs was a strong case; but the question
was whether the house would attempt by legislation to re-
tain in this country a trade which would not naturally be
found here. If so, hon. members must be prepared to un-
learn all the lessons which had been taught them by the
experience of past years. But he found that there had been
no substantial difference between the case of the cork-cut-
ters and that of other trades under free trade, and that
whereas under monopoly they had only a limited, they now
had a more extended trade. In the yearslB4l-3 the average
import of cork was 2,606 tons, but in the years 1856-8, it
was 5,114 tons, or nearly double, and in 1859 it was 6,579
tons, or nearly treble what it was before the alteration.
Even the export trade had been enlarged, for while in
1841 it amounted to 92,0001ba., in 1857-8. it amounted
to 163,0001b5. He (the right honourable gentle-
man) certainly could not see the , justice of plac-
ing an import duty upon cork from France or Morocco, be-
couse Spain chose to place an export duty on the cork pro-
duced by one of her provinces, Catalonia. France, be it
remembered, supplied us with three-fourths of the total
quantity of our raw material. All that he (the right hon.
gentleman) could do for the meritorious persons whose
cause his hon. friend had advocated was to follow the pro-
cedent which had been set in cases where the immediate re-
peal of a duty would too sharply affect a - a-denier interest,
that was, postpone the operation of tL., law for a certain
time; which in this case he could not fix at a later date than
the lst of April, 18q2;
Lord J. MANNERS said that the cork-cutters were
likely to find that though they had free import they had by
no means free trade. He should certainly have no scruples
in following the venerable lead of the hon. member for
Finsbury (Mr. Duncorhbe), who had been a consistent
free-trader long before the right hon. gentleman, and
should vote for the retention of an innocuous duty, that
yielded £7,000 or £B,ooo—a sum which he (the noble lord)
did not pretend to despise.
Sir F. BARING said the cork-cutters, who were a very
fair and intelligent body, did not, object to free trade ; on the
contrary, free trade was exactly what they wanted. (Hear,
hear.) What they said was, "We are quite ready to meet
the foreign manufacturer if you will put us on the same
footing ; only don't take off the duty on the foreign manu-
factured article while the foreigner prohibits the export of
his raw material. That is not free trade—it is protection to
the foreigner." (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to inter-
fere with countries from which the raw material was
fairly exported, but would the Government allow the
duty to be taken off from manufactured cork the
produce of countries where there was a prohibition for the
exportation of cork ?
Mr. H. BENTINCK said it appeared to him the right
hon. gentleman who had just sat down had put the case in
so clear a manner that it did away with the necessity of
arguing the subject in any other light. What the Govern-
ment proposed to do would be neither more nor less than
this—they would, without any apparent object, except that
object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to
follow at all hazards and all risks, for the sake of carrying
out what was falsely called free trade, reduce to a state of
positive starvation so many thousands of their fellow-sub-
jects.
Sir E. GROGAN said that if the cork-cutters were not
protected in any way whatever in carrying on their trade,
it was obvious their trade must sink.
Mr. M. GIBSON said the proposal they were [going to
vote upon was whether they should put a high duty on ma-
nufactured cork coming, not from Catalonia, but from
where it might.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE bogged to say thrt it was his in-
tention to withdraw his amendment, and propose the in-
troduction of the words " the produce of any country from
which the export of cork was free."
The CHAIRMAN having put this question,
Mr. M. GIBSON said this proposition rather altered the
question. One object he had m rising was to remind hon.
gentlemen that the Government were about to give a very
great encouragement to, the manufacturers of cork by in-
creasing the consumption of wino. (Laughter.) The
amendment of the hon. member was something so new that
it required consideration. He should like to know how
such a proposition would be reconcilable under the obliga-
tions of the favoured nations' clause.
Sir H. CAIRNS said the argument of the hon. gentle-
man was that the cork trade would be extended in conse-
quence of the increased consumption of wine. He thought
that was exactly the reason why we should endeavour to
procure the raw material. (Hear, hear.) He certainly
should support the amendment of the hon. member for
Finsbury, and simply for that reason.
Mr. BOUVERIE asked whether the export of cork wood
from:Spain was free or not ? It was free from Catalonia.
Was it free from Andalusia ? But another objection to the
amendment was that it would perpetuate what were called-
certificates of origin.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not understand it to be the desire of the lion. member fur
Finsbury to prevent her Majesty fulfilling her engagements
with the government of France with regard to the article of
corks. He wished to point out that so far as France was
concerned the amendment as it stood was not satisfactory.
He believed the export of cork wood from France was prac-
tically free. They had entered into an engagement with
France to admit corks, being the product of France. In the
motion before the committee they had gone a great deal fur-
ther because, acting on the general principle which they
believed to be sound, they had not stopped at their engage-
ment as it stood in the treaty, but they had proposed that
universally the import duty should be free irrespective of
their engagement with France. Our manufacturers com-
plained that in certain cases there was a prohibition on the
expert of cork wood to this country. The question whether
we ought to take notice of the law of other countries in fix-
ing the regulations of our own tariff was a question of the
deepest and most vital importance, and he hoped the com-
mittee would come to no hasty conclusion upon it, and that
they would not come to a conclusion with reference to the
article of cork without having considered where the prin-
ciple was to lead them, because, as he understood it, the pre-
position was that they must inquire into the legislation of
every foreioncountry, and unless they were satisfied with the
terms of that legislation, they were not to give that nation the
benefit of introducing the article. That was the doctrine at
issue, but that was a doctrine of a roach the range of which
went so far not only into the proposition of the Government,
but into the whole of the proceedings of the British Parlia-
ment for the last 18 years, that it was essentially necessary
that they should have full opportunity of considering its
effects, both as a principle of commercial legislation, and
otherwise with reference to the present state of our national
engagements. He was under the impression that great en-
tanglement and embarrassment, such as could not be de-
scribed, would arise from their attempts to apply that prin.
ciple, not to this treaty only, but to the treaties they had
formed with almost every foreign country. Government
were ready to give the opportunity of raising that question,
but it could not be raised on the present occasion. Nothing
could be more inconvenient than that the fulfilling of her
Majesty's engagements with the Government of France
should be mixed up with another question—whether they
should object to the introduction of corks from Spain became
in one of the provinces of Spainthe exportation of cork wood
was prohibited. What he proposed was that he should alter
the terms of the resolution so as to enable them to satisfy
their engagements with France. It would read thus :
" Corks' ready made and squared for rounding, after the 31st
March, 1862, the Produce or manufacture of or imported
Government
from France or Algiers." What he proposed was that
that should be put as the original motion. He had not,
however, the smallest intention of shrinking
his hon.
the other
question, but he would raise it fairly, and friend
house to he f
follow hirwith ,
if he pleased, and could inducould then move his amendmc
e
enthteanhdonh
out involving the consequence—which his hon. friend did
not wish—of preventing their fulfilling th • en. engagements
with France.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said ho could not withdraw his
motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
hon. friend did not understand thmetheceamseo.tioHis hon. friend
altered his amendment, and it was in his (the Chancellor of
motion
permission
as
not whichto in-
terfere h
the Exchequer's)powerssttonodtpotrheaveltesneart him, bat he made no ob-
je
geaevtieonto. withhisneht°nhneo 'iwrf r ier en end gem ents with France,
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the course taken by the right
whohne.ngheentulermgeadntrhaaitsetihaisn
arnimpenordtiannetntcosnhsotnitludt
because it would prevent the Government fulfilling the
conditions of the treaty. If thatnoticonstitutional
lb
equpersetsi send'
objection were to be taken
s
then all these discussions Were useless.
(Cheers
nt t
Opposition.) Was it to come to this, that the resolutions
of Parliament were to be made subservient
right hon
treaty ? He maintained the g e
no ttl he
me from
Fa nr e
.i%n theca hs
e contrary and with that view
he pressed his amendment. The
about to do an injustice to a valuale class' of artisans, by
taking off the protective duty without giving them the
raw
material to carry on their trade ; for Spain would be enabled
to send in her ready made corks, and keep back the raw ma-
terial; and if this resolution were agreed to, they would not
be able to bring the Government of Spain' to book. He
therefore urged that the words suggested by the right hon.
member for Portsmouth should be put in, and then France
.
might put a pressure on Spain, to induce her to let Eng-
land have the raw material without any more bother.
Sir H. CAIRNS remarked that the course which the right
hon. gentleman was ready to take now, namely, to take a
vote to reduce the duties on French produce only, excluding
the
same articles of produce from othr• countries, was the
very course which he had before said he could not take, for
he said the other day that no difference could be made be-
tween France and the rest of the world.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
the hon. and learned gentleman's accusation, which showed
the reasonableness of the original proposition of the Govern-
ment. They had made certain engagements with France;
and they had to consider how they should ask the House of
Commons to ratify those engagements. They had thought
it would be paying the greatest respect to the house to as-
sume that those engagements might be ratified in the shape
which the house had for a long period thought fit to adopt,
recognising no distinction between produce of the same kind
with reference to the country from which it came. In tak-
ing that course the Government came to a right determina-
tion ; but they were met now with a peculiar doctrine, one
which had not been known to the House of Commons of late
years--namely, that it was their duty to take cognisance
orthe'stb.te of the commercial law of other countries, in
fixing the customs duty for our own. But as there was in
this case no application of that doctrine to France, he had
now proposed for the convenience of the committee to sepa-
rate the two questions, and he was willing first to submit the
resolution answering the engagement with France, and
after that he would make another motion, upon which the
hon, member for Finsbury could raise the question he
wished tg Wore(' with reference to Spain. He intended to