First of all, we have to consider the point of view from whichit was written.Mr Labouchere, President of the board of Tradeunder the Melbourne Ministry, had sent Dr Bowring to Germany forthe same purpose as that for which Mr Poulett Thompson had sent himto France in the year 1834.Just as it was intended to mislead theFrench by concessions in respect of wines and brandies to opentheir home market to English manufactured goods, so it was intendedto mislead the Germans to do the same by concessions in respect ofgrain and timber; only there was a great difference between the twomissions in this respect, that the concession which was to beoffered to the French had to fear no opposition in England, whilethat which had to be offered to the Germans had first to be foughtfor in England herself.
Hence the tendency of these two reports was of necessity ofquite a different character.The report on the commercial relationsbetween France and England was written exclusively for the French;to them it was necessary to represent that Colbert had accomplishednothing satisfactory through his protective regulations; it wasnecessary to make people believe that the Eden Treaty wasbeneficial to France, and that Napoleon's Continental system, aswell as the then existing French prohibitive system, had beenextremely injurious to her.In short, in this case it was necessaryto stick closely to the theory of Adam Smith; and the good resultsof the protective system must be completely and unequivocallydenied.The task was not quite so simple with the other report, forin this, one had to address the English land-owners and the GermanGovernments at one and the same time.To the former it wasnecessary to say: See, there is a nation which has already inconsequence of protective regulations made enormous advances in herindustry, and which, in possession of all necessary means for doingso, is making rapid steps to monopolise her own home market and tocompete with England in foreign markets.This, you Tories in theHouse of Lords -- this, you country squires in the House ofCommons, is your wicked doing.This has been brought about by yourunwise corn laws; for by them the prices of provisions and rawmaterials and the wages of labour have been kept low in Germany.Bythem the German manufactories have been placed in an advantageousposition compared to the English ones.Make haste, therefore, youfools, to abolish these corn laws.By that means you will doublyand trebly damage the German manufactories : firstly, because theprices of provisions and raw materials and the wages of labour willbe raised in Germany and lowered in England; secondly, because bythe export of German grain to England the export of Englishmanufactured goods to Germany will be promoted; thirdly, becausethe German Commercial Union has declared that it is disposed toreduce their duties on common cotton and woollen goods in the sameproportion in which England facilitates the import of German grainand timber.Thus we Britons cannot fail once more to crush theGerman manufactories.But the question cannot wait.Every year themanufacturing interests are gaining greater influence in the GermanUnion; and if you delay, then your corn-law abolition will come toolate.It will not be long before the balance will turn.Very soonthe German manufactories will create such a great demand foragricultural produce that Germany will have no more surplus corn tosell to foreign countries.What concessions, then, are you willingto offer to the German Governments to induce them to lay hands ontheir own manufactories in order to hinder them from spinningcotton for themselves, and from encroaching upon your foreignmarkets in addition?
All this the writer of the report was compelled to make clearto the landowners in Parliament.The forms of the British Stateadministration permit no secret Government reports.Dr Bowring'sreport must be published, must therefore be seen by the Germans intranslations and extracts.Hence one must use no expressions whichmight lead the Germans to a perception of their true interests.
Therefore to every method which was adapted to influenceParliament, an antidote must be added for the use of the GermanGovernments.It must be alleged, that in consequence of theprotective system much German capital had been diverted intoimproper channels.The agricultural interests of Germany would bedamaged by the protective system.That interest for its part oughtonly to turn its attention to foreign markets; agriculture was inGermany by far the most important productive industry, forthree-fourths of the inhabitants of Germany were engaged in it.Itwas mere nonsense to talk about protection for the producers; themanufacturing interest itself could only thrive under foreigncompetition : public opinion in Germany desired freedom of trade.
Intelligence in Germany was too universal for a desire for highduties to be entertained.The most enlightened men in the countrywere in favour of a reduction of duties on common woollen andcotton fabrics, in case the English duties on corn and timber werereduced.
In short, in this report two entirely different voices speak,which contradict one another like two opponents.Which of the twomust be deemed the true one-that which speaks to the Parliament, orthat which speaks to the German Governments? There is no difficultyin deciding this point, for everything which Dr Bowring adduces inorder to induce Parliament to lower the import duties on grain andtimber is supported by statistical facts, calculations, andevidence; while everything that he adduces to dissuade the GermanGovernments from the protective system is confined to meresuperficial assertions.