The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-14 00:00:00

the produce of British industry and British manufactures...e.
( Hear, hear.) Our returns froth the same colonies amounted,
in 1837, to 11,052,0001., and in 1838 to 12,054,0001., while
this trade was carried on, net circuitously, but directly, and
with mutual advantage to both parties. Let them compare
their trade with their North American colonies, with their
trade with their best foreign customers, the United
Statei. He found, that in one year, the amount
of our exports to Canada. which contained a population of
only 1,340,000 souls, was 2,629,000/., which gave an amount
of 395. 2d. per head ; while our exports to the United States,
which contained a population of 17,000,000 souls, amounted
to 7,235,0001., which gave an amount of only Bs. sd. per head.
Under these circumstances, he called upon them not to deprive
either Great Britain or the colonies of the advantage of the re-
lations now subsisting between them. He believed that by
pursuing the policy of the Noble Lord they would diminish
the national strength, and sink this country into a second-rate
power. -
Mr. BARING said, notwithstanding the able declamation of
the Noble Lord, the House could not have4he slightest notion
of the question before them.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend
proposed to take the sense of the House, as to whether it was
advisable to create new differential duties; his resolution did not
touch any of those at present existing; he asked no opinion upon
them, all he asked was, whether they would abandon
the old course they had hitherto pursued, and introduce new
differential duties thatdid not now exist. The answer of the
Noble Lord was a panegyric on the existing system, and yet
he invoked them, in the name of all that was valuable, not to
adhere to that old system, but to adopt a system of differential
duties, now introduced fur the first time. The speech of the
Noble Lord was an admirable one against the whole tariff of the
tha Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers:) If the Noble Lord
were not now a free trader, hut remained what he was last
year, hh speech would hs:ve been one of the most powerful
against any change in the existing system. Eery argument
he had wed would tell with effect against the proposals of the
Right Hon. Gentleman. What were the differential duties
that bound them to the colonies? They were 131 in number,
and the Nehle Lord invoked them, on eve y commercial and
political ground, not to touch them ; yet, of those 131 duties,
under the new tariff, 93 were reducid, 4 were abolished, and
8 were increased, 4 from trifling, and 5 from temporary causes;
twenty- one only were left untouched. The cases of rum,
sugar, and coffee, had been taken and stated against the late
Government ; but it was an extraordinary assertion to say
that because they equalised the duties on diem they were of
a different opinion then than they held now. With respect to
the two articles of rough rice and bees-wax, imported from the
-Coast of Africa, the differential duty was allowed by the late
Government, on the belief that if they could raise a trade with
that continent they would do more to abolish slavery than by any
other means. With regard to timber, be would ask any one who
knew anything at all of the trade in that article, what it was which
regulated the price? The admission made by all must be, that
the price of colonial timber was regulated by the quantity that
came over for consumption. The colonists themselves recog-
nised that principle. So also in the case of spices ; the price
was regulated by the price which the, surplus bore .in foreign
markets. He found upon apples, pears, and medlars a diffe-
rential- duty. It was necessary to bind the colonies in an indis-
solpble bond, by giving protection to those fruits • and what
was remarkable, if they die the apple, if they dried the pear,
if they dried the medlar, the principle ceased to be applied.
There was a protecting duty upon meat—there was none upon
liquids. He was at a loss to understand upon what principle
these differential duties were imposed; dried apples were not
protected, cider was not protected, but apples were. He
really was at a loss to know upon what practical principle the
imposition of these differential duties were basel.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL had hoped, until he had heard the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the object of the Noble Lord
had been to save discussion in detail on the various articles of
the tariff, and to take the discussion on the general principles
of the tariff, so far as the case of differential duties was con-
cerned; but he was afraid, from the speech of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that they would have to go into details when the
'various articles came under the consideration of the Committee,
and under those circumstances he could not but wonder that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not restrained his indignation
at the article of medlars on the present occaasion.—(Cheers
and laughter.) The Noble Lord must have given notice of
his motion cut of regard to the Right Hon. Gentleman, be-
cause if the Noble Lord had not brought forward this motion,
the discussion must have been taken in Committee on the first
article of the tariff; the discussion must have been taken on
the colonial asses which had so excited the indignation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the other evening —.( Cheers and
laughter)—and had it not been for the motion of the Noble
Lord, that would have been the pens asinoru:n of the Right
Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers and ,latighter. ) The Right Hon.
Gentleman had given to the House au exposition of the pope-
sition of the Noble Lord. He ( Sir R., I-eel) besought the
House to hear his (Sir R. Peel's) version of the principle con-
tained in the Noble Lord's motion, That principle was nei-
;ther more nor less than this, that you should not in any
case impose a different rate of duty upon the same articles when
imported from foreign countries or from British possessions.
The Noble Lord had laid down the abstract proposition that
you should not in any case raise the duty on articles imported
from foreign countries higher than the duty imposed on similar
articles imported from British Colonies; the Noble Lord con-
tended that in every case, and under all circumstances, the
colonies should be treated as foreign countries in all our com-
mercial relations. It had,c. however, been said by his
Right Hon. Friend that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not
acted upon that principle when in office, and the Right Hon.
Gentleman had admitted that there had been the slightest pos-
sible exception to the adoption of that course of policy with
regard to bees-wax and rough rice, the produce of Africa,
and the reason why differential duties -had been established
upon those articles was, according to the Right Honourable
Gentleman, because it was thought it-- would confer
a benefit upon the natives of Africa, by encouraging
the trade, and inducing them to devote their attention
to the pursuits of peaceful industry. But what became of the
argument of the Noble Lord, that by establishing differential
duties they were doing an injury to the colonies themselves ?
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said, that by establishing dif-
ferential duties they were only disturbing the application of
capital, and encouraging th.t which must prove a source of
great future injury. It' that argument were correct, where was
the humanity of encouraging the growth of rough rice in
Africa ?—(Cheers.) That was the great principle which the
Noble Lord had lain down, and spin that principle they were
called on to- night to decide. If die principle of the Noble
Lord were correct, there was an end at once of colonial con-
nections.—( Hear, hear. )- The principle struck at the root of
that uoink:tion.. Was it right—was it just—to say to the co-
lonies, ':ou shall import articles of British manufac-
ture on a more favoured footing than you did to
the foreigner ? They were at this moment passing an
Act to force the colonies to give the British manu-
facturers a preference, and would it, he would ask, be just to
say to the colonies, we will force you to give more favourable
terms to the manufacturers 9f Great Britain than the manu-
facturers of foreign countries, but Greet Britain will give your
produce no preterenee whatever?—(Hear, hear.) That was
the principle for which the Noble Lord contended.—( Signs of
dissent from Lord Howick.) WoUld the Noble Lord then do
away with the preference given to British manufactures in the
colonies.—( Hear, hear, from Lord Howick.) If he would, he
( Sir R. P.) .would ask why maintain the colonies at all ?
( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The colonies were, ac-
cording to the Noble Lord, to have an unlimited right of
buying in the cheapest market. They were to
have a right of taking goods from the' foreigner on
more fevoured terms if they thought fit than goods
from this country, and this country was to show no favour to
colonial produce. If, for the purposes of revenue, they imposed
a duty of 30 per cent. on articles the produce of Russia or
France, according to the Noble Lord's principle they were to
impose the same rate of duty upon articles the pro.
duce of our own colonies.—(Hear, hear, from Lord Howick.)
Be it so ; but then he would ask why go to the expense of
keeping the colonies ?—( Hear.) The Noble Lord had said,
look at our trade with the United States. See how it had in-
creased since they had become independent; but then he ( Sir
Robert Peel) would - ask why retain the colonies ?
( Hear, hear.) If we were to derive no advantage in
respect to commercial intercourse, if we were to derive
no advantage for our shipping and navigation, if we were to
have no exclusive privileges irathe colonies, what possible rea-
son could there be for maintaining and supporting them, aril
why should We be at the at the expense of garrisons in Canada
of 15,000 men? According to the Noble Lord's principle, co-
lonies should govern themselvei; arid ought at once to declare
their independence. The Noble Lord said that Mr. Huskissun
had advocated a similar principle ; but Mr. Huskisson had pro-
posed in tire case of Canada to admit Canadian corn into this
country at a fixed duty of .ss. If the Noble Lord's resolution
had passed, it would have been impossible for Mi.: Huskisson
to have made that proposition. Again, with regard to Mauri-
tius sugar; who bad lowered the duty on Mauritius sugar 10
percent. ?—Mr. Huskisson. He had done so in 1826 or 1827.
lithe Noble Lord's principle had been affirmed by the House,
it would have been impossible for Mr. Huskisson to have
equalised the duty on Mauritius 'and West India sugar. But
what said Mr. Huskisson with respect to the East 'lndies, when
a complaint had been made that the United States hail refuted
to our manufactures the some privileges which they had granted
to the manufactures of other countries? Why, Mr. Huskisson
had raid, when speaking of the measures to which this country
might resort, if the United States persisted in the adoption of
that cent* of policy, that we could soon be abundantly sup-
plied with tobacco from the East Indies, if- we afforded encou-
ragement for the cultivation of it. How was that to be done,
except by lowering the duty ? With regard to the rice of India,
Mr. Huskisson had said that that would soon usurp the place
which the rice imported from Carolina then held. With re-
ference to cotton, it was only necessary to give the cultivation
the same encouragement and protection as the indigo trade
obtained, to ensure the cultivation with equal success, rad as
good and valuable an article. The result would soon be that
the cotton would rival that of the western world, as the indigo
of. India had excelled that of all other places, owing to
the judicious encouragement of trade—the proection of
the East India indigo trade by means of reduced duty.
This was to have the: effect of encouraging the culti-
vation of that article, and diminish its price to the consnmer
by transferring the trade to the colonies. This was what was
stated by Mr. Huskisson, ,and yet the Noble Lord contended
that Mr. Huskisson was the patron of this principle, that cole.
nial articles should in all cases be subject to the same duty as
foreign article,. He ( Sir R. Peel) thought this was entirely
inconsistent with the fact. Let them take the case of India.
They sent their cotton manufactures to India. They insisted
on India receiving their goods. If India were to attempt to
get revenue by subjecting. our articles of manufacture to a duty,
they should take care effectually to prevent it. The Noble
Lord ought to be prepared to subvert altogether the colonial
interest. It was quite clear that if they insisted on the colonists
being subject to a special duty for the purpose of increasing the
maritime strength of this country—for the purple of increasing
the consumption of our:manufaetures in the colonies, they insisted
upon their manufactures being introduced at lower rates than
the manufactures of other countries, he (Sir R. Peel) put it to
any rational man in that House, actuated by eqhitable princi-
ples; whether it would be just, concurrently with the main-
tenance of the dignity of the country, to contend that the colo-
nies should have no advantage. It appeared to him to be alto-
gether inconsistent and unjust. They told the colonies that
they would maintain their connection with them. They had
pledged themselves to the Canadae to maintain that connection.
He should deeply regret if the House of Commons was pre-
pared for one or other of these things. Either to tell the
Canadas that there would bell° distinction for British manu-
factures, that they were at liberty to introduce foreign goods.
the manufactures of other countries, upon terms
equally advantageous with British goods ; or take that,
other still more impolitic course, to say to them
we insist upon introducing British goods, we itasist on de-
priving you of the discretion of carrying on an intercourse with
foreign countries which exported manufactures. They would turn
round and tell them, if your goods are to be introduced in this
country, they must be introduced on the same footing as the fo-
reigner.would not enable them to maintain the connection between this
It appeared' to him (Sir R. Peel) that such a course
country and the colonies. He could not answer to the justice
of 600 or 700 articles. It was impossible to snake every discri-
minating duty just. If tbey,took onearticle upon which a duty
of fid. was imposed, and took anoth r upon wh 9tl. was im-
posed, and required an explanation of the difference, he said at
once that it was impossible to .give that explanation. They must
judge of it as a whole. They must consider the complicated re-
lations of the country, the immense ex tent of capital employed
in trade, the immense extent of colonial empire, and the
danger of rashly shaking the, foundation of the connexion of
that empire; and they must decide, as helhought they had un-
dertakerie to deeidea upon the whole, whether, in proposing
theta financial and commercial measures, looking to the pecu-
liar results which were admitted, they had done all that a wise
andprudent_Goverunient:could.do for the purpose of relieving