The issue of Catalan cork was debated in the House of Commons on 28 February 1860.
Click here 
if need be to read the whole post
if need be to read the whole post
Motion made, and
Question proposed, "That 'Corks, ready made, and squared for
rounding, after the 31st March, 1862,' stand part of the proposed
Resolution."
...
MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he rose to
propose that the article of cork should be omitted from the
Resolutions. He did so in the interest of the cork-cutters of
England, who were a small but an important branch of the skilled
industry of the country. Those hon. Gentlemen who deprecated
interference with the Treaty on the ground that it might give offence
to France need be under no alarm in the present instance, as there
was nothing in his Amendment which could interfere with the interests
of that country. France could not produce sufficient cork-wood for
her own consumption, and therefore why it should have been introduced
into the Treaty he did not know. In 1842 he had advocated the cause
of the cork-cutters in this country, whoso interests were nearly
destroyed by the reduction of duty at that time. There was this
peculiarity in their case, that they relied entirely on the material
which came from Spain and part of Portugal. The people of
Catalonia, where the best corks were produced, from the moment the
duty was abolished, had petitioned their Government not to allow the
exportation of the raw material, and the Government consented to
their request. The supply, which was not of equally good quality,
was then derived from Andalusia and Portugal; but it was well known
that since the present Treaty had been published the people of
Andalusia in like manner were about to petition against the
exportation of the raw material. If the Spanish Government consented
to that petition, no raw material could come in here, and these men
would be ruined. But if the English Government would secure them a
supply of the raw material from Spain, they were ready to compete
with any part of the world. Under the new tariff Spanish wines could
be imported at the lowest duty. The least they could expect, then,
from Spain was that its Government would allow this raw material to
be exported. In addition to the duty, a penny was to be levied on
every package; this would fall very unequally on the raw and
manufactured article. By the duty and the tax together the raw
material would be taxed 8s. 4d. per cent, and the manufactured
article only 6½d. per cent. The trade could not stand against that.
As he had said, they did not object to free trade, provided they
could obtain a supply of the raw material; but unless that could be
done they would be ruined as well as many other industries, such
as floor-cloth, shoe-sole makers, life boats, and other interests,
into whose operations the cork manufacture entered. He should move
that the words "Corks ready made and squared for rounding"
be struck out of the Resolution.
...
SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he hoped the
Committee would consider the question in a spirit of fairness, and
without any desire on the part of hon. Members to twit one another
with their departure from the principle of free trade. Some time ago
he had felt it his duty to deal with the question before the
Committee; and the consequence was that a deputation of cork-cutters
had waited upon him for the purpose of stating to him their views of
the proposed abolition of the duty. He could add that they had
discussed the subject with great fairness and intelligence. The fact
was that they did not object to free trade; they only asked for free
trade. They were ready to compete upon equal terms with the foreign
manufacturer; but those terms, they contended, would be denied to
them if corks were allowed to be freely imported into this country
while the raw material of which they were made was not allowed to be
exported from the district in which it was grown in the greatest
perfection. That was not free trade, it was protection to the
foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been an
increase in the trade since the reduction of the duty in 1842; but he
(Sir F. Baring) would explain to the Committee what it was that had
really taken place. In 1842 there was a considerable reduction of the
duty upon manufactured corks. Immediately afterwards the Spanish
Government prohibited the exportation of the cork wood from
Catalonia, where the best material was grown. The result was that
the manufacture of best corks in England had ceased. It was true that
the manufacture had since that time largely increased in this
country, but it was confined to the production of the coarser
descriptions of the article. Spain still allowed the coarser material
to be exported, and the cork-cutters here, by their industry, had
been able to keep up and increase their trade. But he would ask was
the present proposal fair—was it common justice to our own people?
Was it fair that the manufacturer abroad should have a monopoly of
the best kinds of the raw material, and that he should then be
allowed to import the manufactured article into the English market
free of every duty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they
might feel assured the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
would use his best exertions to get rid of the prohibition of the
export of cork wood from Catalonia. He (Sir F. Baring) supposed
that some exertions were used when the prohibitory duty was imposed,
but, so far from their having any effect, he believed the Spanish
manufacturers were pressing upon the Spanish Government to extend the
prohibition to the coarser material.
...
MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, the proposal
they were going to vote upon was whether they should put a high duty
on manufactured cork coming, not from Catalonia, but from where it
might. Again, he could not see that if the duty were
kept on manufactured corks from Catalonia, it would not afford that
benefit to the cork manufacturers which the hon. Member for Finsbury
was anxious to afford.
...
MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, that the
right hon. Gentleman had raised an important constitutional question.
Were the Committee at liberty to make alterations and amendments in
the tariff; and, if, so, were those alterations fatal to the Treaty?
He had asked the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago whether the
House of Commons was to have the power of altering the Treaty, but
could get no answer to his question. He repeated the question a day
or two afterwards in another shape, and then the Chancellor of the
Exchequer refused to answer it, because, he said, if he did he could
not reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), although that
was incorrect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now asked whether the
Committee were about to prevent the Government from fulfilling the
conditions of the Treaty? It therefore came to this, that all these
discussions were perfectly useless. The people of England had now
been told by the Chanceller of the Exchequer that the Resolutions and
decisions of the British Parliament must be subservient to the French
Treaty. Now, he maintained that the French Treaty should and ought to
be subservient to the British Parliament, and with that view he had
moved his Amendment. He said they were about to do an injury to
industrious traders by taking off the protective duty, without giving
them the raw material by which they carried on their trade. The
right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the
Committee the prohibition of the exportation of cork wood was the
work of Catalonia; but who was responsible for that prohibition? The
Government of Spain, and it was that Government he wanted to bring to
book. Persuasion, they had been told, would be tried by the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but he had more confidence in
a vote of that House than in the persuasion of the noble Lord. If the
House agreed to his Amendment, France, which had no corks to send us,
would induce Spain to let England have the raw material.
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada