The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-15 00:00:00

Ilentiments, the Honourable Member for Newark treed with him in opinion, that every thing Mi r Ported into this or any other country displaced ars iequal qu ant i ty of the industry of that country, and, Pro Canto, created want of employment and idl e-1,le". Now did not . the Hon. Member know, that for every pound valise that came into England, an equivalen t o f English manufacture must be exported t o pay for it ? - --(llear.)—The utmost that could be ' l aid on this o' . - that which he was surprised , e p int was, as, to n ar from the Hon. Member for Call i ngton,-- namely, that money must be sent out of the country, a Z u se France, &c. would not accept of our goods, Go‘ ',° reciprocity of advantage could follow. Good . ' • were they now to be told that the exportas '. 1 . 1 " °r gold was a disadvantage? He contended tnat it was the best thing for the country, provided they retained enough to carry on the business of the . o da o y . __ lie . would ask where' this gold came from ? we raise it from the mine ?—No; but we scud iwooll es 1 --s, or cottons, or hardware to those countries wher e it is gold ; of thpartogdeulederll,,. des from eiumlaikneeaxcthraainigsfeers,yeenb(riiigsgettintic. France. This system must go on in spite of the want of reciprocity on the part of France. But he contended that in spite of France reciprocity (lid and must exist, because no one would give us their articles for nothing, and we have nothing to lay for them but our manufactures, whether that rent be made directly -os• circuitously. Those M embers, the re f ore , to w h om h e h a d a ll u d e d , jbu°lght to explain what their precise views on sub ects of this nature were. He admitted that he 1 !vas a politi ca l economist and a theorist; and he felt !t desirable,- wh en h e discussed those sub j ects, that iadividuals should know what he meant. Witt that vie w he had extrawed the shortest definition he could find of the science of political economy—and ( be found that that horrid science, with respect to ;tchich some gentlemen got up and exultingly said, ` ti,dt God I we are rho political economists !" `,? t o und that political economy " is the science of h " u m ti se la" P which regulate the production, (Hillis e n, - and consumption of those articles of ex 'ch"ogeable value that are agreeable, necessary, or ' lre ful to man." Now, what constituted wealth ? ~. Wi ly the possession of all those arti c l es th a t h ave an ' elefi ntlgeable value. What an env i a bl e s t ate i t was to know nothing of those laws th a t were o f so muc h di VTance to the welfare of the country ? And Y ' t ' tu eY every day h ear d p ersons , stan di ng i n t h e "mitioa of legisl a to rs , t h an ki ng H eaven t h at t h ey Nuretrhe i gnorant of those laws, the great importance of reason s til ° ro e ugh knowl e d ge o f w hi c h must str ik e every ' then t mind. If w h at h e h a d state d were r i g h t, he whole civilized world should be, if he might use t h e ~ .ch expression, a seties of commercial states, ; ‘ ) ;th an ,ging their various articles of produce the one .•"' tna other, in the way as the respective same counties of • l c e l l . England did. If the Hon. Member for , oitagton was of opinion that this or that free trade Pz.us full be prevented, he should push his principle to 1,41'1111 extent, and put an end to any free trade that t.miglit exist between one part of England and IP, t ,her, as was the case with the Sicilian provinces. Iv.;nlsprinciple were acted on, then all intercourse tt :t . t Ireland should be - suspended, as it had been, yeZe reproach of this country, fol. a great many ere 0, Lookin g t o t h e w h ole question, he could not the at a nY good o bj ect i on could b e ra i se d aga i nst bill_ mem ad o p te d b y his Majesty ' s Government, up Zs thoSe who opposed it, were ready to follow co uet e .principle of exclusion, and to throw each Pl,lenthY entirely on it s own resources . Th e H on . ta r !v for Callington had told them that manufac- A r am : Of this country laboured u n d er ma n y disad tage,!es, while the French enjoyed great advan olio., and t h at i t was folly, therefore, in us to strie 7.that we could carry on this trade without re joie Pls. The Hon. Member for Callington re- Mitt e .m, too - , at the removal of restrictions by former Chet'{ ode and yet, before he sat shown, he told us sil Z l if - We did not protect our manufacturers, the el ,: trade wo u ld b e l ost to the country; and that the l l Ils far back as the year 1826, he had forefortold li n r uin of this trade. The Hon. Member Cal • .gto s t . . h i _ . , too, confessed that figures were against do'llbi Certainly they were, for the trade had been teo ed; and if the Hon. Member for Callington lire Y wished to protect our trade, he ought to-de , 4rti ic' qit' our manuf acturers s h ou ld procure t h e raw Les at the , same pric e as th e manu facturers of yons. . This was all our manufacturers waisted, as • had been .informed.bY several of the most iatelli 'ltrit among them ; and he had been told, moreover, l ilt if thi s were done, our manufacturers would not Zafraidof competing with the French. The French ht 119 only in f ancy articles. . Give us tinie, and ralV articre'rit' the same rate at which the French ° cured it, an d the n we s h ou ld b e a bl e to compete V tli the F renc h i n th ose art i c l es a l so. Th ey h a d I 'tn told that silk was an exotic, and upon this r IS both the Hon. Member for Callington and Ron. Memb er f or N ewar k (M r . S a dl er ) h a d 11 gly insisted; but so was cotton also an exotic, k he sh ou ld lik e to know what there was to prevent csilk manufactures equalling our cotton manufac , s: s - -- --(Hear, hear.)— Why, our manufacturers c° positi ve l y as h ame d now of art i cles they made k t years ago, and they looked back with astonish s'l upon the progre ss th e y b a d e ff ecte d . H e s h ou ld ) 4 14 then, o p en t h e d oor w id er, g i ve them the fine _ s bL ika silk, which was what they wanted, at the 1 ; 1 at which the French procured it, and they Old beat th e F renc h i n f ancy and fuse articles. if t m , • P a ce beat its in these articles, it was because tjj Ztfee was free, and we were shackled with re lisue)l9. By a Lyons paper of the 25th of Fe ttin-l'l, he found that the same 'distress prevailed . e s °r . l g ,the . silk-weavers there as existed in this e ,ltttt l y, , B _ k y a letter, too, which he bad lately re [ °lll B*-- "-. l earnt that of 22,000 looms at Lyons, of hone-third were in employ, and that the wages p o L i e ;vetivers had been reduced to a much lower ej - r t t nan ihey had ever fallen to in this country. kip,,,hich used to be done at Bid. per yard, was tV u t one at 5d.. per yard at Lyons. He denied, e qh -t u e mre, that any argument in favour of restriction t Ok be founded upon distress, and that any eon fts"44l as to .the success of the trade could be drawn Iti the .which prevailed. If the argument, A t !, distress t i ) i'th had, been founded on distress, were worth any r u n g, it *Mild prove also that France was unfit to t 7 y on th e silk trade.—(Hear.) —Our manufac h4:ers, being saddled with a large duty at starting, `lnot yet had ' a f a i r tr i al. Th e H on . M em b er f or f tington p resente d a pet i t i on i n 1820 i n f avour o f t 4 P- e„ trade generally, and vet the same Hon. Member • last 4• opposed to this trial be 6, rught, ; that he was 1 stade For his own part, however, he must ob %tie that h • listened with the greatest 1%2 toat a f ter having qt2on , to the speech of the Hon. Member for liC u gton last• night, he could not tell, when the v o ;"• Member sat down, which way he meant to 41:' It was quite impossible to promote com- Vico by a restrictive system. That system had t i e , t tl tried in France, and it had completely failed. 11 1 h .„hi take an instance. At Terrere, which was hi e paisley of France, the spinners of fine yarn Ila fr ect foi prOtection against English yarns. A very il ti e duty was imposed 6 upon all English yarns, and Isj,:,Fonsequenee was, that the manufacturers th e 8 " and fine calico, who could not do with ou t tp;o , P l le yarns, which the French manufacturers 6 1 ,7 1 not produce, were. obliged to have our yarns 47ght in by smuggling, at the rate of between ls - Y and seventy per cent. Now, when it was k:°llected in what mode the French guarded i llnst sm ugg li ng —th a t there; were military cor e (I ,;' s in all parts of the country, through three or t' ' t of whi c h, at l eas t, s muggled goods must pass, it ii:tl/tlbeeasily believed bow difficult it was, nay, how IOPV.I I , ible it was to put a stop to smuggling where, h o t-n iceutive was sufficiently great. This place was t r "-, i n a state of complete destitution : not onen English t i r :,_en of their looms were, in employ. E g the s h " t nti: and 'mis fi t's had been introduced, u lglers beginning to sell as soon , as .they had oktfled'one cordon, and .so 4::.n. He 'would give t!ts i"Lrinstance .—An ingenious and well-known in glij "maFobtained a patent in this 'country for ma tees .for the manufacture of bobbin-net, which f ?rae . change in the manufacture o ' 4 1 ,F,t . eda complete: 7 ` 'Thiii'initiiidUtir Wing - that he had secured men. the markets in this country, which he had by the privilege of his paiciu, re;royed !,) France for the purpose of makin 7 -I,oi,i,iu-,et ! , ere. Finding, how ever, that he coal u,,t ilo xvithout Eng!i , h ptrns, he obtained them by me ,us of smugg,hag, 411 PI h a d them conveyed to ris at the ra eof 10 per cent. He did this for a time, nu rely to introduce the sr tide. Since then the same individual had re• moved some of these machines to a town on the frontier,—he %vont(' not mention the name of the town,—and there, in spite of all the French Go vernment could do, he continued the manufac ture at the expense of 20 per cent. So it was with Swiss jewellery. Though Swiss jewellery was prohibited in France, yet jewellery bought in Switzerland was actually delivered to the pur chasers, if they pleased, without risk, at Paris. These instances ought to be a lesson to France as well as this country, and teath them that the re strictive system would not do. He believed there was a disposition on the part of the French Go vernment to change their system ; but whether there was or was not, they must change it at last. The prejudices of the people were against it, and it was not to be wondered at that these prejudices should exist in such a quarter, when they saw intel ligent and enlightened men—men who had the means of information—entertaining them.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—What did the Hon. Member who made this motion for inquiry propose to gain by the inquiry ? What did the Hon. Member ask which he (Mr. Hnme) did not concede to him ? He con ceded to him the distress, and the superior advan tages of the French. It must be the remedy, then, which the Hon. Member had in view. Well, then, the Hon. Member would continue the distress which now existed during the prosecution of the inquiry; nay, he would increase it, by throwing all employed in the trade out of work, in consequence of the un certainty which would prevail respecting the re commendations of the committee. This would be doing a positive evil. Then how would the Hon. Member come out, of the committee ? The Hon. Member could conic out of it only in three ways— N‘ith a recommendation for prohibition, or for modified, or free trade.—(Hear, hear.)—lie need hardly tell the Honourable Member that that House would not agree to the first. It had been tried, and it had failed. As to raising the duty, that would be adding new inconvenieneies to the manu facturer, by burdening him with an extra duty upon the raw material. This he thought the House would never consent to, any more than the Hon. Member would consent to the third recommenda tion. As to the proposition respecting the throws ters, (lea would be to give one man employment by throwing four men out of work. He looked forward to the silk trade of this country being a great export trade, which he had no doubt it would be when the affairs of India were settled. Under these circumstances, he did not see what good would result from the appointment of a Committee. The trade had doubled itself; let the restrictions be reduced, and the progress of the trade would be in proportion to that reduction. No doubt also some thing must be done to lessen the burden of taxation, to which the depression in this as well as in other branches of our wide was in a great measure to be attributed. The Ministers must do this before long, and the country gentlemen must join in the cry for retrenchment. Mr. DAVENPORT bore testimony to the dis tress which prevailed, and urged the necessity of ap pointing a Committee. Mr. FERGUSSON stated that he should vote against the motion made by the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Fyler), because he thought that in quiry might do harm by causing a further stagnation in trade, but could not possibly do any good. He was glad that his Majesty's Ministers did not go the full length of the theories of political economists, but proposed to protect the capital invested in the silk trade by a moderate duty. If, however, he thought that by prohibition he could preserve the means of existence to those people, who were now suffering extreme distress, he would not startle at the word prohibition, but would consent to any measure for excluding the French silk from the mar kets of this country. But he thought that prohibi tion would be far from affording protection to the silk-manufacturers of this country, and would only give additional inducement to the crime of smuggling. He did not see any reason why the manufacture of silk, under proper and moderate protection, might not extend itself in the same miraculous manner as the manufacture of cotton, which during the last 40 years, from 1780, had increased 100 fold. The Hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), that advo cate of exclusion, civil, religious, and commercial, yesterday stated that Government proposed to give the preference to the manufactures of slaves, and not to the manufactures of our countrymen. He would tell that Honourable Member that the na tives of India, to whom the Honourable Member had, in using that expression, alluded, were his fellow-subjects, and some of them could reasona s well as the Hon. Member himself. He (Mr. Fergus son) thought that the Right Hon. Gent. opposite, in giving the boon he intended to our fellow-sub jects in India, had conferred a signal benefit on his country. The House should recollect that the people of this country had no right to use the in habitants of India merely for their own profit ; and, after inundating India with muslins, to the ruin of many thousands of Hindoos, deny to that people any reciprocal advantage. Mr. SADLER assured the House that he had not expressed, nor did he entertain, the sentiments imputed to him by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He never called the inhabitants of India slaves ; but only regretted that the English artisan, who was taxed to a higher amount than the Hindoo, should be subject to a ruinous rivalry with the native of India. He certainly must confess, that until these discussions commenced, he never knew that the people of India were the subjects of the British Crown. He had always recognised them as the subjects of the East India Company. Mr. FERGUSSON informed the Hon. Member, that if he would look to the Act of Parliament, he would find that the East Indies were the posses sions of: the British Crown, and that the people of hose countries were the fellow-subjects of 'English- Mr. EGERTON supported the motion of the Hon. Member for Coventry, and he did so because of the great distress existing generally in the silk trade, but which he had a particular opportunity of observing in Macclesfield and Congleton. He re gretted much the proposition made by the Right Hon. Gentleman to reduce the duty on thrown silk, because he thought it would add to the distress already experienced by the throwsters. Mr. P. THOMSON bore testimony to the very able speech which the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site delivered last night. He had not heard a s►ngle argument urged in favour of the motion before the House, except by the Hon. Member who made it. The Hon. Member for Worcester, who seconded the motion, had not shown that the distress now exist ing among the silk manufacturers was connected with the law of 1826. The Hon. Member for Callington had indeed stated that a great increase of consump. tion had taken place since 1826. 'then came the Hon. Member for Newark, who told the House that he had strong reasons for objecting to the principles of free trade, not only in the particular article of silk, but in every other article whatsoever, but he did not produce them. He (Mr. Thomson) must confess that he had looked, with not a little curio sity, to one of those vehicles by which, by some means or other, what passed in that House was conveyed to the public, to see if he could find, as he had on a former occasion, any argument in it not urged in that House, but lie must confess that he was disappointed. The Hon. Member for Newark, besides making use of mere declamation, and warn ing the House of the danger of adopting the mea sures proposed by Government, ought also to pro duce arguments to bear him out in his statements. The Hon. Gentleman had, however, thought proper to keep his arguments to himself, and be (Mr. Thomson) was not disposed to give him credit for having any, because, in the few speeches which lie had heard the Hon. Gentletnan deliver, he had not heard him make use of one ai;:,rutnent. He was op posed to the formation of a Committee of Inquiry, because he thought that inquiry a•onld only add to the distress already existing., aid make greater the stagnation in the trade. Though he kne►v that great distress e \s.ed, he still did not believe that it was so extensive as the Hon. Member for Coventry had desciibed. llc 14a.:4 in his possession a letter from an individual of the highest respectability in the commercial and manu facturing circles, stating that most branches of the silk trade were in full work at Manchester, and imputing the stagnation which prevailed in the trade partly to the unaccountable delay of Ministers in stating their intention as to the rate of duty to be, laid on thrown and manufactured silk. The Right Hon. Gentleman had shown the immense increase which had taken place in the trade. He was en- titled, therefore, to say, that there was no connec tion between the cause and effect of the Hon. Mem ber who had brought forward this question. In ad dition to our trading, there were local causes of the distress which now prevailed. Equal distress had prevailed in 1765, 1766, 1773, and 1816, when prohibition existed. But did it never occur to the Hon. Mover, and those who supported him, that other great branches of trade were now labouring under equal depression with tl:e silk-manufacture ? Although " the book price," as it was called, had been repealed, some parts of that system were still retained amongst those deluded men the silk weavers. A friend of his, a manufacturer, who had an order for a quantity of serge about two months ago, when the distress was most prevalent in Spi talfields, sent for two operatives, and told them he would give them 7d. a yard for manufacturing it. The men said they would give him an answer in three days. He agreed to this, and the men pro ceeded to the Parliament in Spitalfields, where the manufacturer's proposition was met, as he trusted the motion before the House would be, with a de cided negative. The manufacturer the► got his Work done in Es ex for sd. a yard. L► Manchester the operatives had turned out, and continued with out work for four months, during all which time they supported themselves. He would now consi der the case of the throwster. He thought the Right Honourable Gentleman had done as much as he could ; but his own opinion was, that it would be wise to go further. In sacrificing his own opinion, however, he gave one example of a poli tical economist who was not too strongly at tached to abstract principles. Unless it could be shown that the throwster had less to do since 1826 than he had before, he maintained-that it was im possible to connect his present distress with the law passed in the period to which he referred. In 1821, the proportion of Italian thrown silk to Italian raw silk, was 561 per cent. ; in 1822, it was 59 per cent.; in 1823, 55 per cent.; in 1827, two years after the operation of the law, 35 per cent. ; and in 1828, when the law was in full operation, it was reduced to 25 per cent. He therefore main tained that the throwster had no case to stand upon. Improvements in machinery, which rendered the old mills nearly useless, must have had some influence in producing the present distress. He accused Hon. Members who had spoken on this subject of not having inquired into all the circumstances connected with the question. Another great cause of distress amongst the throwsters was their want of capital, which prevented them from purchasing silk them selves, and rendered them merely the workmen of brokers. He would venture to state that no throw ster who had adopted the new machinery, and car ried on his business economically and industriously, had suffered. One of the principal throwsters had informed him that he could not have employed his capital in any business which would have produced him a better return for it. The Hon. Member then proceeded to argue, that if all duty was removed from thrown silk, the weaver would be materially benefitted. The Italian thrown silk belonged to the finer branches of the manufacture. Throwsters in this country found it less profitable to throw fine than course silk. The fine silk imported from Italy could only be thrown in that country, owing to the peculiarity of the climate. To tax this article could be of no benefit to the throwster, since he could not firid a substitute for it, and he would not be able to throw a single pound more if the duty were in creased, nor a single pound less if it were decreased. In his opinion fashion would be found to have a most important influence on the state of the silk trade. If the lady who went to Almack's wore silk, the lady who lived in St. Giles's would endeavour to dress in silk also. The lion. Member then pro ceeded to condemn the censures which the Hon. Member for Callington had thrown on the prin ciples of free trade. He knew not, however, in what instance the principle of free trade was carried into effect. He looked through the Statute-book, and saw not a single article which was not loaded with heavy' duties. At the present moment the House was discussing whether the duty on silk should be 25 or 35 per cent. It was generally ad mitted that consumption afforded the best criterion of the prosperity of a country. He would therefore state to the House the results which some returns on the table presented as to five of the principal ar ticles of consumption within the last four years. The articles to which he referred were sugar, coffee, cot ton, flax, and tallow. The amount of those articles imported was as follows :-- QUA N TITLES ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. Year I Coffee Silk, end, Sugar.* and Cotton. Flax. raw and Tallow. Jan. Cocoa. thrown. 5. --- cwts. lbs. .1 lbs. cwts. lbs. cwts. 1824 3,127,691 8,741,720 . 187,619,721 516,623,2,477,908 758,710 1825 3,167,503 8,581,909 141,063,139 721,46711,011,018 792,635 1826 2,966,981.11,137,038202,546,869 1,006,550,3,604,058 1,113,740 1527 3,574,860,13,556,109 162,889,012 696,28212,253,513 963,016 1828 3,340,927115,952,10' 0 J , 249,888,188 898,03914,213,153 1,191,197 * Deducting the amount exported in a refined state subse quent to the payment of duty. *r quenf Thus it appeared, that between 1823 and 1828, there had been an increase in the consumption of sugar of 7 per cent. (on this article the increase was smallest because the duty was highest); of coffee 90 per cent.; of cotton 34 per cent.; of flax 65 per cent. ; of 91) per cent. on silk, and on tallow 60 per cent. Those were the mischiefs resulting from the horrible free trade system I This was the ruin which had fallen upon the country !—(Hear.)— There yet remains, continued the Hon. Member, one more argument which has been urged by some of the opponents of free trade. They are the most dangerous, because they are the most moderate and the most specious ;—because, whilst they grant the truth of the general principle in words, they depart from it in spirit ;—because their argument is at once the most popular, the most apparently sensi ble, and yet the most fallacious,—l mean the argu ment of the absence of reciprocity, brought forward by the Member for Kirkcudbright. " We are friends," say they, to free trade,—" we grant all the benefit which you tell us will arise from an un restricted interchange of commodities between dif ferent nations,—we agree to all your reasoning ; but in order that there should be a free interchange, it is necessary that the amount of our restrictive re gulations should be met by corresponding measures on the part of other nations. If this be not the case, we are giving away the advantage which we possess of supplying at least ourselves with our own productions,—we throw open our ports to receive the produce of the industry of foreign countries, whilst they shut their gates to ours; and we destroy our national industry in those articles in the pro duction of which foreigners excel us, without their becoming in their turn customers for ours. The fallacy of this reasoning lies in this—these gentle• men misunderstand the nature of trade. In order to buy, we must also sell. We may open our ports to the silks and wince of France,to the c orn of Germany and Russia, to the drugs of Asia and of India, but we can get no pound's worth of any commodity without giving in return a pound's worth of our own productions. Our manufac turers will give away nothing ; t h ey w ill not sen d their goods to foreign ports without. getting an equi valent in return; and I will venture to say that producers of foreign commodities, of French silks, and German eloths, with which, according to the statement of these gentlemen, this country has been and will be o verwhilmed, are as little likely to make a present to the British consumer of their hardly xvorked produce without taking in return the staple articles of British produce. Foreign nations may, a:.; we have seen, and as we are told, be inclined to meet our liberal policy by tig-htening still more their restrictive system. The effect can only be the pre vention of their own export trade, the curtailment of their own commerce, and the suffering of their own people. If by some manic wand the nations of the Continent could suddenly surround their domi nions with the wall of brass fabled by Bishop Berk- ley—if they could effectually exclude every article of British produce, whilst their ports opened to per mit the free egress of all their own—not a vessel of theirs could find its way to our shores; or if it did, its cargo must be made a present of to our people. They would deprive their own subjects of the bene fit of mutual interchange, they would deprive us like wise of it, but they could do no more : they would im poverish and ruin their own country ; they would injure us in a less degree—they would reduce us to what I consider an unhappy condition, but which the Hon. Member for Coventry, and those who think with him, have described as a happy and a prospe rous Stag;—the necessity of producing within our selves ail that we stand in need of. But, thank God, it is not in the power of Governraents to carry into effect so desolatiag, so pernicious a principle. There is, in economical as in political affairs, a point be yond which it is not possible to go--a point at which legislation becomes ineffectual, and power power- Governments may enact laws, but mankind will successfully resist them. Thus it is with these attempts. The smuggler becomes in such a case the corrector of faulty legislation, and the friend and defender of mankind. Under his exertions the Acts of the Legislature become void, and the laws of your ports and your custom-houses are dead let ters. Do we want the experience of mankind to illustrate the truth of this great principle ? You have it within your own times. The man whose power was never surpassed in modern, and scarcely equalled in ancient times—he whose career of vic tory the bounds of Europe could scarce restrain, whose look was a word, whose word was a law, in vain attempted to counteract this great principle. Iluonaparte, when at the height of his power he fulminated his decrees from the Palace of the Duomo of Milan, which was to annihilate his only rival, thought but little that his orders could be contended or his will disputed. And yet, what was the result ? 11e, whose armies successively occu pied every capital of Europe—who made and un made Kings with a breath, was set at nought by the lowest of his subjects. The smuggler bearded him in the streets of his capital, and set his power at nought in his own ports and cities. The goods which he refused to admit found their way through the frozen ocean into the heart of France. I speak from personal knowledge when I say, that an unin terrupted line of communication was established betwem Archangel and Paris, and goods, even the bulky articles of sugar, coffee, and manufactures, were conveyed with as much case and safety, though at a proportionably increased cost, as from London to Havre. Insurances were then as safely effected at Brody and at Leipsic as at Lloyd's or at New York. But need we go farther than the very trade before us for un illustration of what I say ? Do gentlemen, who make 110 difficulty re specting the importation of raw silk (whatever they may think of thrown), know that Italy rigidly excludes all our manufactures from her ports ; and yet we take from her annually the value of 2,000,0001. sterling ? How do we pay for it, then ? Her custom-houses are shut to our produce, and the objects of our industry are as strictly prohibited as the works of Voltaire or of Gibbon. I have had the curiosity to endeavour to trace this, and what will the House think of the re sult ? Upon a careful examination of the bills which are drawn from Italy in payment of this silk, by se veral houses in the trade, at least three-fourths of them are remittances from Austria and the German States, which have been made to Manchester and Glasgow for British manufacture. It is hopeless, then, for uny nation to attempt to exclude. the pro ducsionivof another. They may injure their own subjects by enhancing the, price, but exclude they cannot. But the advantage to a country in first adopting the principle of freedom of trade, is not merely relative, but positive. Under a system of restriction with us other nations may make and up hold corresponding restrictions ; but if we set the example of free intercourse, they may make, but I defy them to uphold them. They may struggle for a time to comply with the wishes of the ignorant land interested producers in their own country, but they cannot do so long. The ruin of their own trade,—the destruction of the property of all those who are not immediately interested in the monopoly —the outcry of the whole mass of consumers, will drive them into a better and a wiser course. If we wait till they grant reciprocity, we are the slaves of their will if we give free admission to their pro duce, they become the servants of ours. What is the case with France at the present moment? No one can more deeply regret than I do the illiberal policy which guides, and, I fear, for some time must continue to guide, the commercial councils of that great people; and I speak in sorrow, not ill anger, when I refer to it. But lam induced to do so, not only because I think it a happy illustration of the errors of such a system, but because I find if not in the speeches of Hon. Gentlemen, at least in the petitions of the silk-throwsters, especially that from Macclesfield, her example is quoted, and her conduct held up as wise and just, and worthy of imitation by us. " She continues," say the petitioners, " wisely her prohibitive laws." " Look," they say, "at France : under her wise regulations, her manufacture of cotton has increased tenfold, her industry has flourished, her prosperity has augmented." I-low does the case stand? I will not speak of her cotton-mills — she may raise printed cottons at. a dear rate—she may raise iron, instead of taking it from us, at double the cost : but what effect does this have upon the general industry of the country ? What do those branches of producers say to this system, who find that there is no longer any demand for their produce ? Are they satisfied ? Do they find that other nations can buy their produce of them, when France refuses to take any thing in return ? Are they not with one voice besieging the doors of the Chambers to induce them to return to a system less ruinous to their interests ? It is a case so com pletely in point, that I cannot help referring to it.— What is the situation of the wine-growers,—an in terest five times as great as any other within the • French dominions, employing 3,000,000 of people, and a capital ten times greater than any other in France ? Listen to their language,—thus it is they address the Chamber :—" What," say they, " is the basis of the prohibitive system ? A chimera. To sell without buying. A secret still to be dis covered! If we shut our ports to the productions of other countries, it is good at least to know that theirs must be shut on our industry : this kind of reciprocity is inevitable—it is in the nature of things; and what are tl►e results ? The de struction of the power of interchange, the de struction of all emulation, the obtaining a worse article at a dearer cost ?" And how is this statement supported ? By a document showing that the decrease in the export of wines from Boor deaux and other places, has been from 100,000 to 30,000 hogsheads. They must follow our example. It is no more in the power of Governments to up hold for long, than it is for the interest of nations to suffer, such a system. I am no rash theorist,—l am not desirous of carrying a favourite principle into operation at the expence of existing interests ; but I maintain that your only course is a gradual, a pro gressi ve, but a steady approach to a free system ; and I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the very essence of manufacturing and commercial industry is freedom from legislative interference and legislative protection. Attempt, to assist its course by protective enactments, by fostering care, you , arrest its progress, you destroy its vigour. Unbind the shackles in -which your unwise tenderness has confined it,.---permit it to take unrestrained its own course,—expose it to the wholesome breezes of com petition, yott give it new life, you restore its former vigour. Industry has been well likened in my opi nion to the hard; alpine plant self-sown on the mountain side, exposed to the inclemency of the seasons, it gathers :lanai in its struggles for exist ence, it shoots forth in vigour and in beauty. Trans planted to the rich soil of the parterre,—tended the fostering hand of the gardener,—nursed in the artificial atmosphere of the forcing-glass, it grows sickly and enervated—its shoots are vigotirle!is, its flowers inodorous. In one single word lies the soul of industry—competition. The answer of the S•atesman and the economist to his Sovereign, in- quiring what he could do to assist the industry of his kingdom, was—" Let it take its own course." Such is my prayer. Relieve us from the chains in which your indiscreet tenderness has shackled us— remove your oppressive protection—give us the fair field we ask, and we demand no more. The talent, the genius, the enterprise, the capital, the industry of this great people will do the rest, and England will not only retain but she will take a yet more forward place in the race of competition for wealth and improvement, which, by the nature of things, she is destined to run amongst the nations of the world. Place us in that condition is our prayer—not by any violent change, but by slow and easy transition. Here we shall find security for our enterprise and reward for our labours— Hic patet ingcniis campus: certusque merenti Stat favor : orrmtur propriis industria donk Mr. F. BUXTON said be had heard much of political economy in the course of this discussion, but he had heard nothing urged against the appoint ment of a Committee, but that it would occasion delay, and delay would cause a stagnation of trade, — that customers would not give their orders.. This objection came with a bad grace from the Right Bon. Gentleman, who might on the first day of the session have moved for a Committee, which would have had its report ready before this time. Even if there had been some delay, its disadvantages would be compensated by the benefits that would i►ave re sulted from inquiry. After objecting to the partial views taken by some Hon. Members, of the state of the trade at particular periods, for the purpose of making out their own propositions, the Hon. Gen tleman went on to show that the trade of the throw stets was in a state of decline. In proof of this he read an extract of a letter from a gentleman whose opinion on this subject, he observed, was entitled to more weight than that of any other man in England. He alluded to Mr. Bernard Royd, of Manchester. The extract stated, that they had written to . the Right Hon. V. Fitzgerald, stating the advantages enjoyed by the Italian throwster over the throwster in England, and they begged to be allowed to take themselves and their machinery out of the country. To this letter they did not expect an answer, nor did they complain of it; but still they thought it too bad to destroy a man's trade, and not allow him to take himself and his tools to another country, where he might carry on his trade with advantage. The Hon. Member (Mr. P. Thomson) had said that the distress of the trade was highly coloured, and that there was as much felt before in the trade as at present. That might be, but the distress felt at the time of the meeting at the Mansion-house, in 1816, was temporary—it, went off in the following spring; but the present distress began in the autumn, con tinued through the winter, and there was now no chance of its being removed in the spring. He wished he could say that the distress was overrated, but unfortunately there were now thousands in the trade in a state bordering on starvation, from which they were preserved by the liberality of the public and the formation of soup societies. When he knew of that distress, which was greater than could be conceived by those who had not witnessed it, he should support the motion for a committee; he should support the motion even for the sake of the Government itself, to show that it was not the cause of the distress. It was said that the system proposed by Government would put an end to smuggling, and would create an export trade; but had it done either ? He apprehended it would be found that it had not. If the superiority of our machinery could compensate for our disadvantages in other respects, it would be something; but the costs of the raw material and the price of labour were what we had to compete with. How coda we compete with the French in the former when they produced that material ; or how could we com pete with them in the price of labour, with the heavy pressure of taxes, and the high prices of every article of consumption in this country ? Under all the circumstances, he should vote for the committee because an inquiry was but an act of justice to all parties. Mr. C. GRANT said, that as he. felt a deep in terest in the welfare of the petitioners who had recently appeared at their bar, he could not consent to vote against the motion for a Committee, with out stating the reasons why he did so. The distress existing among all parties connected with the silk trade had been urged as the reason for going into a Committee; and it had been said that because that distress existed, it was necessary to inquire into the causes which had given rise to it, and into the re medies which were best calculated to check it.— With that had been connected an auxiliary argu ment, that the distress was owing to the innova tions introduced into the commercial system of the country by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and that the cure of it was to be found in nothing else but• a recurrence to the old system. He should allude to the subsidiary argument first. He should contend that there was no ground for supposing the distress of the silk trade to originate in the policy of his Right Hon. Friend; and that there was no ground for supposing that it wort!,l experience any relief by returning to the old system of prohibitions and protections; and he should then proceed to argue, that admitting a pressure of distress to exist in the silk trade, it did not exist in that branch of trade alone; and that it did not therefore afford in itself a sufficient cause for granting a Committee. It had been said by an Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House that the manufacture of silk would be entirely destroyed by this policy, or that if the manufacture of silk was not destroyed by it, the throwing branch of the trade, at any rate, would be annihilated ; and fur this reason,—that you would have foreign thrown silk introduced in immense quantities. He asserted that such would not be the case, and maintained that the returns already on the table bore him out in the assertion.. He complained that the Hon. Mem ber for Dover had not acted fairly to iris Right Hon. Friend, in stating that the year 1821 ought not to be taken into his calculation. Why should it not? The year 1824 was the first year in which the new system was adopted. In that year the duty on raw silk was reduced to 3d. a pound, and the duty on thrown silk to 7s. a pound. He would shortly explain the effect of that reduction. In the year 1823 the total import of raw and thrown silk amounted to 2,432,2861b5. In the first quarter of the year 1824, the old system of prohibition and of import duties was still in operation, and the quan iity of raw and thrown silk imported in t quar ter amounted to 532,0001b5. weight. In the next quarter, ending the sth of July, the new system came into operation, and the quantity of raw silk imported was 949,3121b5., and of thrown silk was 135,3121b5., making a total of 1,085,0001b5. In the whole year, 1824, the quantity of raw silk im ported was 3,540,9061b5., and of thrown silk was 452,4691b5.,making a t0ta10f3,993,3791b5.,as com pared with the 2,432,2861L5. imported in the pre ceeding year. (Hear, hear.) He looked upon that result as a decisive proof of the benefical ope ration of the new system. He complained, too, that the Hon. Member for Coventry had not acted altogether fairly by his Right. Hon. Friend in con trasting the returns of the years 1825 and 1826 against the returns of the years 1827 and 1828 ; and for this reason,—that the year 1825 was a year of excessive speculation, and the year 1826 a year of excessive panic. And yet what did the contrast show? That in the two former years the quantity of raw and thrown silk imported was 5,633,7651b5. Bud in the two later 8,757,06911 n. (Hear, hear.) The Hon, Member for Coventry had likewise found fault with him for stating that the silk manufacture had been created by the law introduced by hi 3 Right Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Now, he begged leave to repeat his former assertion, that a most re spectable throwster had told him that the trade was not so much improved as created by the regulations of his Right Hon. Friend. It was notorious, that before those regulations were introduced, the trade was in a state of torpor and languor, and afforded a good example of the condition to which any trade must be reduced that was liable to the restrictions 'mposed on the silk-trade; and the result of his Right Hon. Friend's regulations exhibited a splendid triumph for the policy of removing such restrictions. Till those restrictions were removed, there was no application made for the superiority of our machinery to the purposes of the trade; indeed, engines of wood were always used where engines of iron are • now employed. The machinery of the present day does double the work of that employed before the lemoval of the restrictions. Formerly there were only 800 spindle revolutions in a minute, now the average number varied from '2,300 to 2,500; and he was informed that in one manufactory an engine was employed which gave 7,000. There were coma plaints made upon the state of the trade, but he believed that it would be foundthat those complaints in general came from those who were beaten by the new competition which had recently sprung up in the trade. He contended that there was abundant proof that the policy of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had given an impulse to the silk trade which it hind never received before. He then proceeded to examine the correctness of the state-; ment that a recurrence to the old measur:s of pro hibition would prove a remedy for the existing dis tress of the silk-trade. He lamented the distress into which the weavers were generally plunged; he felt for them deeply, and he could not but express hir. surprise at the conduct of those manufacturers and throwsters who encouraged them in the delusion that a recurrence to the old system would improve their condition. It -showed an utter forgetfulnesa of their own history : for what could be more inju- - riotts to the weaver than to teach him that prohibi tion would save him from a recurrence of the dis tress under which he now labours ? The weaves should be told that under the restrictive system he was exposed every three years to a regular return of distress. He should be reminded, that duriup: the distress, which he experienced in the years 1816 and 1817, he declared that his distress was owing to the inundation of foreign silks. At that time 40,0001. was subscribed for the relief of the weavers of Spitalfields; and it was said that upwards of 40,100 persons stood in need of it. In the year 1827 the people who were examined before a Com mittee of the House of Lords, asserted that great distress existed in Spitalfields. How, then, could it be said, with the slightest show of truth, that e return to restriction would afford relief ?—(Hear.) —They had been told that it was possible to make a distinction in the duties on different silks, as on plain silks, arid on partially figured silks. But thin he denied; for there was no difference of labour in forming the two silks. The machinery for both; was nearly the same ; indeed the only difference was, that in working the figured silks there was a treadle placed above the loom. In Lyons, when ever there was a cessation of demand for the figured silks, the weavers altered the position of the trea dle, and used their looms for plain silks'. He must advert, also, to another deviation from tha old system—he meant the abolition of the re gulation of wages by law.—(Hear, hear.)—They had not heard any thing of it that night iii the House; but lie must mention it, because he understood it to be a favourite scheme of the weavers themselves. They had formerly had au Act for regulating the amount of their wages ; that Act had been repealed ; but last year they had presented petitions to both Houses of Parliament, praying them not only to return to the old law, but also to give it a general extension to other trades—such as the cotton and the stocking trades. The weavers ought to be made aware, that that Act, which had been very properly repealed by the Legislature, had driven the capital employed in the silk trade from Spitalfields into the country; and that the same reason which had induced capitalists to remove from Spitalfields, would, in case that Act were made of general extent, drive them also out of the country...* (Hear, hear.) —The next point on which he ought to dwell was, the heavy duty upon thrown silk; but as his Right Hon. Friend had already touched upon it, he would not deteriorate his arguments by at tempting to repeat them. All that he would say upon that subject was, that he saw no reason for de parting from the improved system which his Right Hon. Friend had introduced. He now came to the distress in the silk trade, which gentlemen on the other side of the House deemed a sufficient ground for inquiry by a Committee. He admitted the ex istence of that distress; but when the House was called upon to go into a Committee upon the de clining condition of the silk trade, he was bound to inquire, whether the distress of that trade was not owing to the pressure which weighed at present upon every other branch of trade. If it were owing to a pressure weighing generally upon all branches of trade, then there would be no ground laid for granting a Committee to inquire into the state of the silk trade. The general pressure of distress might be a good ground for examining into the con dition of all branches of trade, but formed no .around at all for examining exclusively into the con dition of the silk trade. He believed that at the present moment nobody could deny that the pressure was general,—that there was a remarkable stagnation in every department of manufacturing► in dustry,—and that the farmer, the agriculturist, and the retail dealer, all felt the existence of distres. There was a want of confidence in every class of the community,—the power of consumption, if he might use such an expression, appeared to be paralyzed— we were prosperous to all outward appearance; but still there was a ground-swell at work, which made the vessel labour prodigiously. The pressure, he repeated, was not confined exclusively to the silk trade. When heknew that the pressure affected all the staple trades of the country, could he be sur prised that it also affected the silk trade ? Why, then, should they have a Committee on the silk trade alone ? The cotton trade was, he believed, still worse off than the silk trade, and they would find details of distress among the cotton-weavers fully as afflicting as those of which they had heard an account among the silk weavers. If the causes of the distress which pressed on the silk trade were not notorious, they might require investigation by a Committee : but they were notorious, and it WAS well known that great part of the pressure on the silk-trade was owing to that suspense in which the trade had been placed for the last four or live months, owing to its ignorance of the regulatio❑ by which it was to be permanently governed. That was no slight cause, and yet it was one that could not be avoided; for his Right Hon. Friend could not be immediately aware of the course which it be most expedient for the Government to pursue. That this suspense created distress was undeniable ; for there had been many orders withheld from the silk-manufacturers at this season of the year, which would have been given if the parties had been able to ascertain the conditions under which they would be executed. The next cause operating severely on a part of the silk trade was the condition of the throwsters. No parties had complained more loudly than the throwsters ; and his /tight Hon. Friend, the President cf the Board of Trade, had stated clearly the reason of their complaint. He had proved that there Wdv, an excess of competition in that branch of the trade, by showing, that though the consumption of silk by the country had increased, the number of mills in the country had increased .in a much larger propor tion. As to the' distress of the weavers, he must remind the House that there were local causes which tended very much to increase the distress in Spitalfields. The population of the district of Spital fields did not consist entirely of weavers, That was