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

fiEIV*ISUN, LONDON, SATURDA. Y MORNING, MAY 14; 1842.

ted State's; we must :pct them a good example. • But was this
now the ease ? On the contrary, protection was given now
to articles to which it had not been given before. He al-
luded to the case of salted provisions. Hereafter, a trade be-
twen this country and the United States might, in all proba-
bility, grow up in salted provisions, and he asked was it
then right, was it politic, to give to their colonies the
power of introducing into this country salt proei-
sions at a duty one-fourth less than that imposed on
the same article when imported from foreign countries ? It
was with these views, and on those grounds, that be begged
leave to move as an amendment, the resolution of which he had
given notice. At the same time he begged leave to thank the
Right Hon. Baronet for doing as much as he had done in Miti-
gation of those restrictions which pressed on many, branches of
our trade. He only regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet
had not proceeded further in the same course. 'However, the
very announcement of such principles by the Right Hon. Gen
tleman gave hove--rather, gave certain indications—that many
years could not elapse before those principles would be carried
fully and completely into effect.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the character of the Noble
Lord and the tone of his speech demonstrated that he had no
motive in the proposition he made except that of the public
advantage.—( Hear, hear.) And he concurred with him that
the mode in which he brought forward his proposition was the
most convenient he could adopt. On the other hand, he
should claim from him an acknoWlec:gment that the Govern-
ment would not be slow to adopt those measures he now re-
commended, if they thought it would promote the public ad-
vantage. In the first place, Ath a view to lay before the House
the spirit in which the Government proceeded in this matter,
lie would make some remarks on those differential duties in
favour of colonial produce, which were already to be found
in the statute book, from which they would be better
able to understand the reasons for the imposit;on of the new
duties to be impessed. There were 131 different articles of
colonial produce in the existing tariff, which were protected.
Of these 131 articles, the existing differential duty had been re-
duced in no less than 98 cases ; but in no instance, however,
had it been reduced by raising the duty on the article when it
proceeded from the colonies, but, in every instance, by lower-
ing the duty, when it proceeded from foreign countries. In
21 the remaining articles, the differential duties remained
unchanged. He now came to the remaining eight cases, four
of these consisted of Brazil wood, ebony, coffee, and pitch- the
other four were isinglass, cotton, silk goods, and tallow,
and the principle on which they proceed: d with regard
to these latter articles, was founded on the relations
which subsisted between them and foreign countries,
In consequence of these relations it was deemed advisable not
to interfere with the duty on foreign articles, while at the
same time it was considerod reasonable to reduce them to
their just standard. With regard to the article of coffee,
there was a reduction of the duty in this country, and also a
reduction of the differential duty on this artisle ; but he did
not dwell on that, because the high duty on foreign coffee
fell on the class of what he might term naturalised coffee, that
was, foreign coffee coming within the limits of the East India
Company's Charter. But the British produce of this article
had to compete in the market not only with the coffee which
paid 3d. more of duty, but also with the coffee which made a
second voyage. It was now proposed les take away the second
voyage altogether, and to transfer the duty to the revenue.—
( Hear, hear.) With regard to tobacco, he admitted the force
of the Noble Lord's argument. and with regard to himselt he
took blame for the indiscriminate application of a different
rule to colonial productions in this article. But he must
say in all good humour that the perceptions of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite with regard to the subject of these differential
duties were quickened' in opposition. They all knew that the
principal act which marked the colonial administration of the
late Government was to raise up a protective interest in favour
of East India sugar.—( Hear.) But he admitted that their pre-
sent policy had raised up against them a new body of opponents.
That Government established a differential rate of duty in favour
of rice and bees-wax corning from the western coast of Afriea,
in 1836. In 183 S a new differential rate of duty was imposed
in favour of hides coming from the Colonies, and in the same
year an extensive protective duty was established in favour of
wood from Honduras. In 1840 a petition was presented to the
House, praying that the produce of the East Indies may be
placed on the same footing with the produce of the West In-
dies. The article of tobacco was a part of the produce, and he
was not sure that the Hon. Member for Montrose was not most
vehement in urging the Government to establish a different rate
of duty. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of
the hoard of Trade, admitted there was an objection to adopting
the course prayed for by the petition, in consequence of the effect
it would have upon the revenue. The same remark was ap-
plicable to the article of East India tea, about which a ques-
tion was raised at the same time. The new rates proposed
were upwards of two hundred, and were subject to two limita-
tions. In the first place,the articles should he produced within the
United Kingdom--that was the first limitation. The other
was, that the article should be produced in the colonies, or im-
ported into some of the colonies. The Right Hon. Gentleman
then proceeded to discuss the justice of imposing differential
duties, and said that true principles of trade wou'd
make their way in the world in the course of
time, and that England, without regarding what other
countries might do, would adopt such principles as
she believed to be true and wise in her system of commercial
policy. But, at the same time, he thought that if the House
were indifferent to the importance of the colonial trade, great
uneasiness would be evinced throughout the country. He con-
sidered the effect of giving protection to infant colonies, had
been t o place the supply of those colonies in the hands of this
country, and t i cheapen the price of their produce throughout the
whole world. Indigo, he considered, was an example of that
fact: He (lid not think, therefore, that a system of differential
duties was in every case comrnerciallydisadvantageous. it created
an intermediate class of prices between foreign and
home produce. It did not increase the price of the article
to the consumer, but it augmented the supply,
and brought a new party into the field of competition --
( Hear, hoar.) He thought that the Noble Lord was urfor-
tunate in his selection of salted provisions, which, he sa:(1,
would have a bad effect in America. Now he thought that as
the principal market for salted provisions was the navy, which
frequented foreign ports, it was better to take salted provisions
out of bond without payment of any duty.—( Hear, hear. )
The differential duty would or would not increase the cone
sumption. If it increased the consumption, the additional
duty which was paid was added to the revenue ; if it did
notincrease consumption, but displaced a portion of what was
formerly consumed of articles produced at home, it still in-
creased the revenue; but if it injured the revenue by displacing a
foreign commodity, it did so by making th.t commodity cheaper.
It was an abuse of words to call the new colonial rates of
duty the creation of differential duties. It was, in point of
fact, admitting the colonies to commercial equality with the
commercial producers. The Noble Lord had said that the
creation of duties on this side had a tendency to produce re-
strictions in the trade of the colonies. Now, what was the
particular answer to that? Why, that great reductions were
taking place in the whole Western World. The Noble Lord
had said that it was most important that the House should be
careful, especially at the present moment, what example it
afforded to foreign countries with respect to colonial legislation.
He was sure that the proposition of the Government was one
which foreigners never could construe unfavourably. It was
approximating to the case of commercial freedom • They were
doing now in the colonies what they did half a century ago in
Ireland. That country was separated from this by a commercial
tariff, but when it was desirable to unite her with England, the
country admitted her produce free. The case of Ireland,
therefore, was analogous to the colonies. He contended that
the effect of these new rates of duties would be to cheapen the
articles to which they related, and not to enhance their price,
and that they would be the means of fostering the commercial
marine, and increase the facility to commerce in the colonies.
Under the existing system the colonies had certain claims
in respect of justice upon the country. There were certain
disadvantages under which the colonies were placed: differen•
tial duties were imposed on the colonial markets. It had always
been the principle of the law—it was the principle introduced
by the late Government and the present one, to impose differen-
tial duties on all articles imported into the colonies, where they
came in competition with other articles. It was true that the
range of the differential duties was about to be reduced, but the
,principle of them was retained. It was also the rule of this
country to prohibit the colonies from laying taxes on British
manufactures ; they laid duties on the colonies, but this country
would not allow them to lay duties upon it. Canada, he believed,
was almost the only colony that was allowed to raise its income
to the extent of 5 per cent. on the manufactures of this coun-
try. On the whole, he believed that the course adopted by the
Government would have the most beneficial effects on the trade
and commerce of the country.
Mr. C. WOOD considered that it would be unjust to the
Right Hon. Gentleman if he did not at once admit that great
improvement had been made in the tariff since it
had been first laid on the table of the House ; but
he was in hopes of seeing greater improvement in it still. It
was a matter of question whether those differential duties were
of any benefit to to the coloinal trade. It was the general
opinion of enlightened persons who were acquainted with the
trade of the colonies, that they were of no benefit whatever.
The case of India had been referred to ; but as the colonies did
not contribute, as Ireland did, to the debt andthe other burdens
of the country, they had not the same claim to have their trade,
like that of Ireland, on the footing of a coasting trade. When
the restrictions under which the colonial trade had before •
laboured were about to be relaxed, he knew of no new claim
which the colonies had to the additional advantage of differen-
tial duties. The proposedmeasure would raise up a new system
of vested interests, which would greatly impede the efforts
of this country to extend the principle of free trade
amongst our colonies and dependencies. It might be
very true that it would be desirable to place the colonies on the
same footing as Ireland. But if that were none at once what
would become of the revenue? Would it not be necessary to
make up for the deficiency by increased imposts upon the pee.
ple of this country? He thought it would be for the best to
leave these duties as they were.
Sir C. LEMON so much approved of the tariff, that it was
with reluctance he offered opposition to any part of it. But he
considered that the differential duties on tin would open the
door to frauds which no sagacity could guard against, and they
would have a most injurious effect upon the mining interests in
this country.--( Divide, divide. )
Lord STANLEY would occupy the House a very short
time. His Noble Friend opposite objected to the differential
duties, on the ground that they would raise the price to the home
consumer, and at the same time lower the revetiue. The Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir C. Lemon) objected to them on the con-
trary ground, that they would make tin cheap, and thereby in-
jure his constituents in Cornwall.—( Hear.) Now he differed
from his Noble Friend, and was convinced that whilst the effect
would be to lower the price to the home consumer, the revenue
would he benefited. He should say, with reference to the
speech of the Noble Lord, that it went altogether to the an-
nihilation of that system upon which we had hitherto car-
ried on our commercial intercourse with the widely-spread
colonies of the British empire. He entered his protest against
the doctrine 'of, the Noble Lord, by which he would put our
trade with the colonies of Great Britain in no more advantageous
position than with colonies which were bound to us by no ties
of nationality.—( Hear, bear.) Against the justice, against
the policy of such a system, he altogether protested. Restric-
tions were imposed by this country upon the colonies-;' they
were prevented purchasing in the cheapest market ; and while
those restrictions were imposed upon their trade, we could not
in justice place them in the same position with regard
to us as foreign countries. He did not say that the colonies should
be treated in all respects as an integral part of the empire,
although he slid not see any objections which foreign farmers
could snake to our taking such a course; but they might at
least claim a preference over nations with whom our trade
might at any time be interrupted by the cessation of peaceful
relations, or by other causes. On the grounds of policy it
was important to encourage that colonial trade which was
subject to no caprice, subject to no hostility, subject to
none of the embarrassments arising out of the inevitable
instability of our relations with countries over which we had
no control, and with whose condition we could never be per-
fectly acquainted. Let them look to the mere amount of our
exports to the British North American colonies, and they
could not fail to become sensible of the importance of that
branch of our trade. The total amount of our exports to the
British North American colonies was, in 1837, 3,844,000/. ; ip
1838, it vi as 3,646,000/o making an average amount for these two
years of 3,700,000/. The average amount of the imports into
these colonies from foreign countries was, during three years, not
more than 700,0001. That was the total amount of the imports
hich did not come directly from the mother eountry.—( Hear,
hear.) The total amount of the imports of British North Arne-
rims, of the West Indies, and of Australia, taken together, was iri
the year 1837, no less than 10,261,000/. ; in 18:3S_ it was
; and of this amount, in neither year. were • there
2,000,000/. of these imports which did not come directly from
Great Britain, or from British colonies, and which were on

........ ~ _ ~ _ . ~.. .....~ J - ..