17 APRIL 1841, Page 13

TOPICS OF THE DIY.

EXPORT OF MACHINERY.

THIS IS the subject of an inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, of which Mr. MARK Pumps is Chairman, and Mr. LABOI1CHERE, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lords SANDON and FRANCIS EGER- TON, Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. Hums; and others, are Members.

In 1824, a Committee was appointed to inquire as well into this matter as into the restriction on the emigration of artisans and on combinations. The result was a repeal of the law as to arti- sans, (indeed of the entire Combination-laws,) and a recommenda- tion that the inquiry as to machinery should be carried further. This was done in 1825: and the second Committee seem to have been satisfied of the folly of the laws prohibiting the export of machinery ; but as factories were then rapidly on the increase, whilst machine-making was a very limited trade, the manu- facturers made a great outcry that the supply of machinery at home would become deficient and prices rise if the law were repealed, and clamoured moreover against the supposed immense advantage to foreigners in having our machinery. The Committee therefore shrank from advising a repeal of the law ; but, "im- pressed with the opinion that tools and machinery should be regu- lated on the same principles as other articles of manufacture," yet, inasmuch, &c. &c., they recommended, " that, until an alteration can be made in the laws on this subject, his Majesty's Privy Council should continue to exercise their discretion in permitting the exportation of all such tools and machines, now prohibited, as may appear to them not likely to be prejudicial to the trade or manufactures of the United Kingdom."

This curious power, which forms a new and anomalous feature in our glorious constitution, was thenceforward exercised more freely by the Board of Trade ; so that, for many years, steam- engines, mill-gearing, and " tools," have gone by law ; whilst by licence, which is applied for to the Board of Trade and on its re- port granted by the Treasury, (subject to a fee of two guineas,) all the machinery used in manufactures in what are called the "preparatory processes" has also been exportable. The further machinery for spinning and weaving is prohibited. The inquiry, therefore, has gone to ascertain

1st. The nature and extent of this law-and-licence trade ; and its advantages, or otherwise, to England and to the foreigner : 2d. The efficacy, or otherwise, of the prohibition, and its conse- quences: 3d. The probable effects of a free trade in machinery.

And first of the first point. The total legitimate exports last year of machinery were (official value) 683,2851.: of these, 387,096/. worth were "tools"; being in fact mainly, not as people suppose, mere saws and files, but those potent implements for machine- making which modern genius has devised, ranging in value from 50/. to 1,000/., by means of which boys and common labourers can now make more delicate machinery than formerly our most skilled artisans with great outlay constructed. The consequence has been, that whereas formerly foreigners had to take over vast numbers of English artisans, they take now only the more skilled as fominen, and employ native labour, which, aided by these tools, produces machinery as good as, and indeed rivalling, our own.

Next, as to the " preparatory machinery," which Mr. Husicissolv allowed to go, either under the innocent persuasion that conces- sion so far could do no harm, or believing (as is understood) that this was a great step gained, and must eventually compel further concession. At all events, it appears from the evidence of Mr. THOMAS ASHTON the cotton-manufacturer and Mr. MARSHALL the flax-manufacturer, and of Mr. PETER FAIRBAIRN and other engi- neers, that, as to cotton, inasmuch as the excellence of the yarn or cloth produced depends very much on the completeness of the " preparation," foreigners, in getting this machinery, gain " half the battle" ; whilst—yet more worthy of note—as to flax, Mr. FAIRBAIRN stated, that all the improvement in tnachinery, which has made that trade what it now is, has occurred within ten or eleven years (since Mr. HUSKISSON'S regulation); that it has been almost altogether in the "preparatory" machinery that its effect has been greatly to diminish labour, and to enable the manufacturer to produce a much finer yarn from a coarser material.

So much for the first point. Resting here, it is evident that the freedom to export goes either too far or not far enough.

But secondly, as to the prohibited machinery ; or the apparatus for spinning, weaving, tlre. It seems that in bygone years this pro. hibition operated, not to keep machinery at home—for that it was systematically sent out even prior to 1824; was proved to the Com- mittee which then sat—but to throw the trade into the hands of smugglers, whose charges ranged from 60 to 100 per cent, upon the price of the machine. This, serving as a bonus to foreign machine- making, of course tempted capitalists to embark in the trade : and accordingly, SLATER went to America, COTTERILL to Belgium, other men to France and Switzerland, until these countries have become covered with machine-shops, which are full of English tools, superintended by English workmen, supplied systematically (and as early as the English manufacturer is in possession of them) with drawings, models, or model. machines, as may be deemed best, of all new and improved machinery ; and now, as we have stated, the machinists of those countries—Belgium especially—supply as good, and including freight, insurance, duty, &c. as cheap machinery, as can be had from England. Having satisfied all their home de- mands, they are beginning to export to Russia and South America. Specific instances of orders for Russia, Sweden, Mexico, having been refused here and sent to Belgium, were proved before the Committee ; and it was shown that the effect of the partial prohi- bition is to deprive our machinists of such orders as they can le- gally execute, inasmuch as a man wanting to fill a mill with ma- chinery goes to that market which can furnish all that he needs. One witness stated, that he had just returned from making in France 75,000/. worth of flax-machinery, which, as he could not export all of it from this country, he had to construct on the spot, taking with him English foremen and tools; and he added, that he had since refused another 25,000/. order, which, however, is now in course of execution in France. The utter insignificance of the law' indeed, as a means of preventing the export of machinery, cannot be more clearly exhibited than in the following passage of Mr. HUME'S evi- dence— " I will relate a circumstance that occurred to me a year ago. A person whose name I now forget came to the Board of Trade : he was particularly anxious to export a certain description of machinery. He came over and over again; he petitioned and pressed the thing a great many times. At last, when I told him for the fourth or fifth time that the licence would not be recom- mended, he said—. I cease then to ask for it any more : but do let me under- stand whether you will continue to refuse it, because I do assure you that it is almost a neutral matter in my mind whether you grant it or not, provided you are uniform in your practice. If you had granted it, I should have supplied myself from this country ; but if you do not, I go abroad, and make the machinery there : but if, after I have gone abroad, and set up an establishment, you then relax, and let the cheaper and better commodities come upon me from England, you may ruin me ; and therefore I ant perfectly contented with your refu,al, provided you make up your mind for ever after to refuse all other people.'

The absurdities of the law have also been thoroughly exposed. Thus, a foreigner invents a machine, brings it into use abroad, and then imports it to this country ; but once here, it must stay here—our own machinists cannot make and again export it, and foreign machinists have the market to themselves! The extent of loss inflicted on the field of labour in England by these means appears enormous ; especially remembering that all the raw mate- rials of machinery are native—our mines worked by Englishmen, their produce wrought by Englishmen : in fact, 80 per cent. of the cost of machinery consists in labour, all of it British. Upon inven- tors, again, the law operates most perniciously, compelling them either to erect works abroad, or to enter into engagements with ex- isting establishments for the supply to the Continent of their pro- hibited inventions. All the great machinists in England do this; others have gone abroad—witness Mr. DYER of Manchester; whilst the chairman of the machinists, Mr. JENKINSON, states that those who remain have it in contemplation to form a joint stock establishment on the Continent, and so to break the fetters by which they are now unwisely bound.

Here then is a case evidently calling for curative legislation. We postpone, till next week, the consideration of the third head of inquiry—the effects of a free trade ; merely for the present re- marking, that both in principle and upon the particular facts elicited by this inquiry, such a remedy appears to be just and necessary. That, as has been suggested in some quarters, other portions of our commercial tariff might advantageously be revised unitedly with this, is doubtless true; but we hope it is not possible, even in these eccentric days, to find any man so selfish or so unjust as to wish to postpone the redress of one palpable grievance, until a general cure of all the ills affecting the com- mercial system can be achieved. More of this, however.