The Sun. — London, England, 1846-03-17 00:00:00

, any 1 0611 4 e whole of qtly what the e Goverooo nce to P i r°4 ot lt labour obtain t h e notate o f i n habits i s ar btained uld e n 010 VIO bg s were due , , td vhat the 4P- TRE S Ln ete mit , th 4.tious 7 every year s h ou ld be placed on the table of bled the principallewould read the result as far as it affect tieports, showing that the ext,nsion of cla t i es l 'ad been co-extensive with the repeal of these LONDON. 111 t. 1842 the ships from toreign parts that en i 18 1. " 1 46 the port of London, were ... 4 ... ads entered in 1842 were ... 6,379 7,521 484,000 ... 567,000 • LIVERPOOL. L 1 8 4 4 2 3 the ships that entered this port were . 3,285 3,900 4 14 2 5 the g oo d s t h at entered were ..• ••• 2 18 2 8 6 '000 000 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 1,1. 4 18 NEWCASTLE. 42 the shi ps that entered this port were 612 1 41 845 908 .4 1 80 ..• ... • . ... .... 22,000 4 18 45 the goods that entered were ... ... 30,000 I ••• ••• ID" ••• •• ••• ••• ••• 411 i DUBLIN. 4164 2 the ships that entered this port were 261 4 ... ... ... ,•• . . . 307 •. ••• ••• v 842 the 21,700 to i a4s goods entered were ... ... ... Ito w L ••• ••• . 30,219 il e Would go to gCotl . a;d:— •• I I ,_ DUNDEE. 1: ; 8 7 the ships that entered here were ... 4 13 ' 14 1 4: the ' go ' od . s .. tha . i . enie — red .. w . were ... .•• 415 7,042 9,645 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 1. 18 14 42 the GLASGOW. 4 1 8 - ships that entered this port were 280 5 418 1 111 42 the goods that entered • were ... ... 212,000 .845 .. 307,000 1 " 11 ." *** ** . lath e r owed the great increase which had taken place 'At Zigo trade of the country is the three years 'At i t ha ' Passing of the Act in 1842, compared with l been previouily. A s MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. tilt, Ben gers from the Lords brought down certain et ikter some delay, 24 D a TOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION. tip o i,,cose then proceeded with the further considers atts "(e report as to the Customs and Corn Impor „ a.. u s th Of t b e question of the reduction of the duty on hops, gsti • ' LUMPTRE wished to call the attention of the N ie ri ,to the effect that the measures of the Government i 'Vok4,..."e upon the hop-growers of Kent, Sussex, and ~,`SI, p e ,,l'er- cw They considered that a protective duty of t th e i i ~ as proposed, would do the greatest injury L4 o °l3l e grower. Those acquainted with the growth 1 7417, 0 tbnst know that some time .was required to 1 111 c c, s atations into a proper state for their growth. 1 .7 6%." 4 tY Was attended-with expense, as buildings had e rected for drying them. Between 20,000 or ktpiu acres were occupied in the growth of hops in I k wh i/I°t gle- He could not speak of the extent 1 b l eu they were gro w n in other counties, Nsyri;4 knew that those plantations gave ern ad 'tit to great numbers of men, and their wives and ‘4, 41 ; who were paid on the average SL per are l ikti il t i l l 'ln those employed on arable lands. But if Zlts owed the importation of foreign hops, great num- Nt i lt° ,,t'ld be thrown out of employment, and large L 'its - , 6 ' land in Kent and other counties. in which hops 1b5,:.. 4* grown, would be turned into arable land. The bte,l'A'rer considered that if the present duty of 455. Ittc he reduced, that the Excise duties which they entopelled t o pay must b e rem i tte d, b ecause , i f 'toced the d u ty to 25 s p er cw t., an d re t a i ne d th e , , t 'tY, then they would be compelled to discharge sith..^rkpeople, an d th e vas t sums of m o ney 'lttl e i !leY li-td expended in the cultivation of the 11 4ki n !lould be lost. The hop growers of East Kent IN ~i Z I a bett er p r i ce f or t h e i r h ops t h an t h ose o f Sus lap 1 0 would, therefore, be more seriously affected ~,,,s - m e former. He therefore earnestly entreated the Li "tuent to give the subject further consideration. kt, here ten pounds paid on an acre of hops to the 21 44 t toealon who worked upon it. If they were to N.y,4: l nd thP hop plantations b _this reduction of keYts tru w culd throw a great many persona out of . !m -il ~.t Who had no other means of gaining a living. t„,,,,was another point to which he would advert. and e l ,„_4. that as the proposed . reduction would injure srwer of hops, her Majesty's Ministers would reduce fip„itletit, excise duty. N k , I' I LEL did not know that he could add any- t 04 ,4 what he had said to the Honourable Member 4 11 "se t , When the duty on hops was reduced at a k ke' t Pe • h ri o P e riod, it was then said that the reduction would Laite4 Legates'): diminish the growth in this country. The bet grew hops, and they were an article which 1 „714, 11 ef1t by a long voyage, and this country would •;`te.• - n e. tu compete with America in a very small de °pl4 i r ,V ) llsidering the small amount the Americans 0 Is t ' ~. Port into this country, and the great expense of .c., s 'to t o t 4 h e Age, he did not consider there was any in 111:1,S11„Ipprehended. He could add nothing more %f „mobi c ,",% 4 been already said, but with great respect for ~'se F riend he could not consent to the reduction qr. p e 's ( ' duty on hops. b a de l / 41 41 LLER sail that the repeal of the corn-laws ,144._ough, but to take off the duty on hops wonld i‘tittdtltve°l.Be-* The Government ought to repeal the . ;„ y which resred on the industrious classes, and ' o ll . s t i l g thly lasi. r they did or injuriou s to the agricultural interest ; but not, he wholly concurred in the .that that tax could not endure one single year 0,4 repeal of the corn-laws. tatiZel AUSTEN thought it was unnecessary to put 1 h oP•growers in competition with the American bske4terers, He had been informed, by a gentleman l oetl t tz , i n the cultivation of hops, that if the Gover9 culd allow of a sufficiently low duty to let in 'o } hops, he would send over his own cultivators, it t - prt hops from that country into England. 'IIIGLI r, ass Member for a hop-growing county, IL - it' ,Pt allow th e p ro p os ed reduction of the duty t. - Nki t l !hout comment. It appeared to him that any ' t 4 ty 4 , 441 in the duty would distress the English grower i i, ,;,ch, because he paid the duty before the hops were i;',Q te m,Lie the foreign grower would pay the duty only 4 11 ,Ns o rPs that were already dried and sorted. He ,N''"ocl that hops imported from Belgium had been Ny k d oc le the river at 21. 25. per cwt., but they were L, 4 , from being brought in, owing to the duty i titlit.4 :1 4 1 4 , 3. per cwt. If, however, the proposed duty 4to the to force, these hops would have been brought ad, th e ill\-at etriment of the English grower. He ~..1 1, the average price of hops had been 51. 9s. 2d. nit'? not a very high price, but, he would arg'le. ''§ k kt, , k ° rvign hops could be brought into the river at :` eq' t "e addition of the proposed duty making 4/. 7s. ,' l , , 0 this price would be far under what the Eng , '047P -grower had been able to accomplish, app 'would be able to accomplish, The con ' I/ -. 4 i h o would be that a very large proportion • g P land would be thrown out of cultivation, and •10,- v , vourers would be compelled to give up their li,, t r i tt- Supposing the hop grounds to be broken `l 4 - o sll 4 l,2toch he was assured would be the case—what % I c ome of these unfortunate people ? Tney must Op, it burdens on their parishes, in the same way as l izk ft :Y branch of trade was suddenly given up in a N!ti kh turin g town. In the hap districts the wages of. Ors: P er were generally very good, much superior to Isiar t r s given to any other class of agricultural 0,: The bop grounds were perfect gardens. Jetis u lt s much in hopes, before the present free-trade •74 - „of the Go ve r n m en t were i n t ro d uce d, that the , (I .' England, with proper attenti o n, w o uld hav e •L ele large garden. He sincer e ly hoped tilt -I%lAs.t°lloitrable Baronet would not reduce the price so i4tit be Prev ent t h e E ng li s h h o p grower s from cu l a ti 4 te,, . Plant. The Right Honourable Gentleman e Alps tamed the hop trade as a gambling speculation. of t „ ° certain extent a speculation, because •the %„ ,i Loa crops could never be ascertained before tAtsi 14 it was perfectly true that none but men of liitis e°lll d embark in the trade, so that they could :Ired to bear up against the exigency of a bad , tv t lll, 44 °ut the real question was, shall we ruin those men i th o w e not ? Another consideration was, that in 41) districts upwards of a million and a half yards k , „ cloth were consumed for the purpose of ~ l e,, u ags, and ten thousand tons of coals were an k, „04.,t0p - . 4.4 in order to kiln dry, and clean the hops. ‘‘Zlisi '. ll Mption of canvas and coals must neceassarily ~,, ~1.6 d if the hop trade is destroyed. He hoped ~1 Nrt Hon. Baronet would remove altogether the ' ' ks,„ a ll tY on hops, if foreign hops were to be admitted i it, - ` l ,_tlCed duty, lf - the Right Hon. Gentleman 11 4 „‘ 5 give the poor man cheap beer, let him take off :,-.,' lit on malt, and he would have the power entirely o io '‘F " 4 hatidg. 1 / 4 gi 4 alderman HUMPHERY said the hops were , VAt Zon as they were grown, and the merchant 114vp eta gener a lly a t a high price before the new , e re sown. He did not think there was any , 41 , ,,i t ? fear that hops grown in America would com e* .11 those that were grown in Kent. t,'sp t ,?,_,E observed that hop growers were not, pro , 71 111- epee cultivators of the ki soil; they were traders tt 4 1 1 4 - cultivators. Generally, the cultivation of hops 44 11 410: 5 t, uncertain speculation. The same care and 4 t ,,,_ 4 t4at procured a good crop one year, would not ttiNs a ,slmilar result on the following year. Hop 41,11tito enable to the surplus of a profitable year in Is, i t ...11able them to meet the reverses which attended e Yells 7 11 - The English growers depended on Ni'vs tri, that attended their favourable years. Hop A tit 'br b W ,lthout a capital, were not able to stand a Is ‘ _, lit i o , s o seasons ; but the hop grower, who had 4 1%74, ‘ w as able to lay up his harvest in a plentiful Ito tt l 2 4l sell it at a fair price in a scarce one, to enable % .tet its deficiencies. But, with free trade in hops, Vi 4 get its would be no longer open to him ; he L I 4 he t i l th 'ilged to sell, no matter at what sacrfice. Net, f,„: 4 lght established the ease for protection— ;l4at 0 , - ; the time being, the peculiar difficulties at- N . ath,,,,, - Ine cultivation of the hop. But when they 4 1 44, e t ki that it payed the enormous excise duty of had t •tlee e P e r Pound, and when they considered the tng 0 rta inty of the produce—the grower ever de -44 t p t he ( 1 1 1 , t , li e superfluity of one season to enable him to yeti e ko n en .' e tency of the next—surely they could not el ,t l e ts i t a very great hardship to diminish the pro. V :" VII this plant in the least particular.—(Hear, ttti'llgi ' op 6 own part he ^onsidered the Excise duty it t P. trestest evil inflicted on the hop culti s. th 1 44 • Vre fi t, If they wished a free trade in hops, t i t t ll ltood ,t i remove the duty.—(Loud cheers.) lie 0 ls tr ,.' at at the very present moment a merchant dip ii t e Ott:rprder for American hops, which he would itt tt t hos t o plg into the market at a much cheaper rate kl 4 b„ .. 1 1t0 1 ,,,, h ome growth, and he was informed that ti,lZt of t Zat present at Lloyd's.—(Hear, hear.) In Ng t s 44 ' 4- e country where he lived land let at ten Ali ' l * w e , ac re, an shillingst price of the agricultural t lt ty tti ri Zt, h e : r t . 7 ..... e1v f e . g a week all the year round Iv ti or W°°( l to or in winter they were employed in tl ti l si x _ Prepare for the harvest ; and during the oit s. a tr2celts that the latter lasted the wages; K 4 S ), o v 6 ty 07! that more, not taking into account N,Pige, it we ,cf a whole family were employed, from me h op. to the eldest. Let them take protection arc v•rp and the result would be that the land would be thrown oiif Of cultivation, and these ad- , vantages would be cast away. But on the contrary, let them remove the excise duty, and then the growth of hops would be followed as a lucrative trade, and not in the spirit 01 gambling. They ought to remember that hops were of perrennial growth, and that once planted they must be treated as trees ; he, therefore, considered that, under all these circumstances, the Government should be exceedingl). cautious before they would entirely destroy a produce—productive of such advantages to the labourers employed upon the soil where it grew; and considering that it paid such an enormous duty to the excise, in the same proportion did it demand an increased amount of protection. Mr. H. FREWEN said that the Right Hon. Baronet bad alluded to the great fortunes amassed by hop growers. Now the fact was, that although many hop growers had made a great deal of money, it would be found that the contrary was the case with a lar4e majo rity. In England, wherever sufficient protection was afforded, the manufacturer was sure to reduce the amount of his profits to the lowest possible amount. In hi:opinion, if all the hop gardens in England had been in the hands of one man for the last ten, twenty, or twenty-five years, he would have infallibly lost money.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Southwark had alluded to the year 1817, as corroborative of his statements, but that was admittedly a very extraordinary year, and ought not, therefore, to be quoted as a precedent. He would assure the House that the hop-growers generally looked on the present measure as one seriously destructive of their interests. He would not have made these obser vations were it not that he considered himself bound to answer the argument of the Hon. Gentleman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ex ceedingly, pleased by the statements made by the last speaker. He had told them that the system of protec tion had the effect of rendering the growth of hops a losing concern. Could there be any argument stronger in favour of its abolition than the fact that under the ab solute system of protection, persons of smell capital en gaged in the growth of hops were, in the long run, al most always losers.—(Hear, hear.) But when they talked of a free trade in hops, they must remembr that the Government has not put the foreign trader on an equal tooting with the home merchant—on the former they had imposed a double duty. He would ask them, was it fair that an article of such necessity should vary in its price from 51. to 381. per cwt. ? or should the excise, for the sake of maintaining a protection, lose 220,000/. a year of revenue ? The Hon. Gentleman, when he stated that the duty should be paid by the pro ducer before the hops quitted the roast-house, stated what was not the fact—the duty was not paid until several months after—and he was often not called upen to pay for a considerable time after he had sold the crop. Lord G. BENTINCK said that th , •re had been a great deal of grumbling with respect to the gambling hops were likely to produce, but very little of the same spirit was manifested with reference to the gambling really going on in railways at the present moment. He considered that no trade ought to be put down in this country, because gamblers chose to bet upon the honest efforts of patient iaduatry.—(Cheers.) He apprehended that the hop growers were not the gamblers—(Hear)—and therefore he considered there never was a more flimsy objection against any measure than that made by his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.—(Hear, hear.) The greatest proof of the advantage arising from the abolition of excise duties, was the fact that they had abolished the excise duties on auctions, amounting to 900,0001., and they had saved 52,632/. in revenue, and 450,0001. in salaries to excise officers.. They ought to follow the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Southwark, in permitting the hop grower to bond bis hops. A Gentleman from Kentwall assured him (Lord Bentinck) that under the regulation of ti.e excise, he paid in 1836, 18s. Bd. a hundred weight on 15i tons, and the year being a plentiful one, he held over his store, which he was even , ually obliged to sell for 16s. a cwt. The Chancellor of the Exche quer said that in 1817 hops were 381. a cwt., but what did he tell you ? That he hunted all Europe over, and no hops were to be found. Why, what did that prove? Nothing but that Providence visited every other country with the same blight which had fallen upon this. But he would ask them, supposing they threw the hop gardens out of cultiva tion what would they do with the Tithe Commutation Act, He understood that the same land which as weak soil paid 7s. an acre, as hop land paid 295. It would at least take seven years to remedy that evil. As the forms of the House prevented him from propos ing any intermediate duty, he wished to protest against the support he would give that resolution, as being in dicative of his opinions. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, The House then divided, when the numbers were— For omitting the item For retaining it 9l Majority . . - - The next article was boots and shoes. Mr. KNIGHT suid, with regard to boots and shoes, he had to state that since the proposal of the reduction one house in London, which paid no less than 5001. a week in wages, had shifted its establishment to Ostend. This firm was in the habit of manufacturing and export. ing an immense number of boots and shoes. He very much feared that many other interests affected by the tariff would be similarly circumstanced, and would be obliged to adopt a similar course. . . Sir G. CLERK said that in 1842 there had been a reduction in the articles of boots and shoes of 17s. This was a large amount of duty on an article the original value of which was only ls. The reduction then made brought the duty down to 7s. 6d., and it was now pro posed to make it 55., which was only 20s. per cent. on en article which could be smuggled with the greatest faci lity. The consequence of suppressing smuggling by decreasing the duty was the means of increasing the home trade in this article. They need not, therefore, Leer foreign competition. The reduction proposed would still afford ample protection to those employed at home in this department of trade. The item was then agreed to. On the reduction on straw-plait being proposed, Mr. REPTON regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had proposed any reduction in the duties on foreign straw, and he doubted very much whether, if passed into a law, it would he productive of good. In the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Bedford, and Essex, there were from 40,000 to 50,000 individuals employed in plaiting straw. They manufactured it at their own nomes, and many of the persons so engaged were chil dren and young girls. The grass out of which the plait was made grew in Tuscany, in Italy, and between Pisa and Florence ; and there were three or four kinds of plait used, which were of different qualities. Much had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet about promoting the welfare and morality of the industrious classes, but he (Mr. Repton) doubted very much whether this re duction, if carried into effect, would contribute to im prove those who were dependent on this department of industry. If the reduction took place, the quantity of plait which would be introduced into the country would be very great. He did not wish, however, to press the matter to a division, but he could not allow the item to pass without making his protest against the reduction. The item was then agreed to. The next item proposed was the reduction on silk. Mr. BANKES would propose to omit this, as well as a number of items of the same nature, of which it was proposed to reduce the duty to a large extent. In doing so he would take the liberty of referring to a challenge which had been made some time since by the Right Hon. Baronet, who challenged any one to show that any disadvantage or deterioration had resulted to any de partment since the reduction of duty which had taken place on the articles affected by the last change in the tariff. The Right Hon. Baronet undertook to say that no such deterioration had taken place. He (Mr. Bankes) would have no hesitation in accepting that challenge, and though he had no practical knowledge or experienca on this subject, nor had received any instructions upon it from his constituents (who were nevertheless inter rested in it), yet he had an authority to rely upon which could not be disputed, that the reduction of the duty on this article had been productive of any thing but good to those engaged in the manufacture in this country. So fur from the reductions which had been made by Mr. Huskisson, benefiting the trade, they had the effect ofmaterially injuring it. This had been urged upon Parliament with such forcible reasoning that the weight of it could not be resisted. Accordingly, in 1832, a Committee was appointed far the purpose of investi gating the subject. There were 32 Members of the House appointed on that Committee, and of these seven only were Members of the House now. The Right Hon. Baronet was among the number, and he had to state that the Right Hon. Gentleman attended the sit tings very seldom. He (Mr. Bankes) thought, if cir cumstances had enabled the Right Hon. Gentleman to attend that Committee oftener, he would not have thrown out the challenge respecting those whose trade or occu pation had been affected by his tariff. Had he attended, he could not entertain such opinions as he did, influenced as he would have been by the weight of evidence given before that Committee. It commenced its sittings early in the month of March, and had been occupied most as siduously for a long time afterwards in investigating the subject. The Hon. Member for Montrose had been in constant attendance, as he always was, when the public service required his labours. The terms on which the House had agreed lo appoint that Committee were— " That a Select Committee should be appointed to in quire into the state of the silk trade, and to see what effect the change made in the tariff in 1824 had upon it ; also to inquire what measures might be adopted compa tible with the interests of the public to check smuggling, and to report their observations on those matters to the House." That Committee sat for five months, and only closed its labours when Parliament concluded its sit tin's. It sat, therefore, from the Ist of March to the 2nd of August. Before they dissclved, they reported to the House that they regretted they were unable to draw up a general report on the several matters that had been submitted to them ; that the extent of the subject and the number of witnesses who were examined, and who still remained for examination, prevented them from doing more than laying before the [louse the evidence which they had taken. With the impressions which he entertained in consequence of that evidence, he would, had he been a member of the next Parliament, have moved for the re-appointment of that Committee. He had not, however, been a member of the next Parliament, nor had he sat in the House for several years afterwards. Had this been the case it would not have been his (Mr. Bankes') fault if the opinions which he, and more than half a dozen of that Committee, had entertained on that subject were not carried into effect. On that Committee was, if he did not mistake, Sir E. L. Bulwer. A majority of the Members had made up their minds to a division on resolutions, but before the division took place, an Hon. Member was sent for (Sir Henry Parnell) who, during the previous sitting of the Com mittee, had absented himself, and by this vote (which was the ca*aing one) were the Members who were guided by the evidence defeated.—(Hear, hear.) That was suffi cient to show that there had been no report worthy the consideration of the House. Had the report of the Hon. Members who took his (Mr. Bankes) aide of the ques tion, been carried, it would have shown that, so far from P 0 TITAAI) E,V*,/iiNp. MA.Re 11_17, Mr. Huskisson's experience being favourable io that article of commerce (silk), the contrary was the result. It was well known that the wages of the parties employed in this trade were high before this change had taken place, so high, indeed, that they were enabled to•enjoy much of the com-foists and luxuries of life. He would prove, however, that during six years subsequent to this change, their wages had fallen very materially. This ho would prove by quoting the evidence taken before the Committee. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read from the evidence of Mr. William Brumskiil, the silk and ribbon manufacturer of Spitaltields, which went to show that great distress had been occasioned by the competition which had taken place through the reduction of the. duty on silk, between the manufacturers of this country and foreigners. He, the witness said, that the demand in this country for the manufacture was good, but it was almost entirely sup plied by the foreigner. That he also said that smuggling was carried on to a very great extent, and most materi ally injured the revenue ; and that, in fact, he could name some very large firms who dealt in smuggled goods. He was asked, continued the Hon. Member, if he meant to attribute the great increase of wages, paid to persons in that trade, to the introduction of silk and ribbon from France, and his answer was emphatically in the affirma tive. Now what said the manufacturer of Coventry, who had also been examined by this Committee? He had told the Committee that the average wages of the men em ployed in the silk trade had fallen in the course of six years from 18s. to 10s. There was also the evidence of a Mr. Brockhurst, of Macclesfield ; he said that in 1824, there were 276,000 spindles, and the number of people employed in working them amounted to 10,000. In 1828 the number was reduced to 159,000, and the hands employ ed to 5,254 ; and in 1831 the spindles were reduced to 122,000, and the persons employed in working them were reduced to 3,000. In 1824 the wages of the able-bodied working men were at 18s., and of the young and un• practised men, 14s. The women were paid at 125., and the children at from ss. to 7s. In 1831, however, there had been a great reduction, the wages of the men had been gradually reduced till it had fallen as low as 4s. 6d., and the wages of the other persons were also compere lively reduced. It was known that at this period a great increase had taken place in the poor-law rates; it had increased to 4,2911. in Macclesfield alone; and this it would be seen was the result of the great mischief caused by the reduction of the duty on the article of silk. Was he then to be told that the injury had only lasted for four or five years ? He had shown a case where great mischief had been done by their experiments ; he had shown that wages had fallen from that period from 18s. to 4s. 6d., and if he had his will, he must say, they should not go further with their experiments. Her Majesty's Ministers might say that the great manufacturers were ready to take their chance of the injury which the change now proposed would cause—that they were ready to show the glory of the great experiment, and to suffer in common with others, the results of the measure. Well, they might be so inclined, for by their wealth they would he able to bear up for five or six years against any de pression which might ensue; but would the poor labourer —the poor working people, be able to bear up against the great reduction that would take place in their wages, and which reduction must evidently follow the passing of this measure?—(Hear, hear.) There were many of the great manufacturers in that House, and they would, no deubt, express their opinions up m the question. He should be glad to hear how they would get over that which applied to the working men. The weaver from Spitalfields, whose evidence he had quoted, was himself a manufacturer, and he, no doubt, had given his evidence most impartially; and what was its effect, but to show the great diminution of wages consequent upon the intro duction of the foreign article? It had been said by the Hon. Member for Montrose that the silk-weavers of Spitalfields had no right to settle down in that place, for that it was no place for . the manufacture of that article.—(Laughter.) He was sure, when the Hon. Member said so, that he did not mean it as it would read, but he felt confident that the Hon. Member did so deliver himself.—(" No, no," from Mr. Hume.) Now the Hon. Member had denied it, he (Mr. Bankes) would stick to it that he did so express himself.—(Laughter.) At the very moment the change took place, they then had the- means of competing with these f.areigners in the manufacture of silk and ribbons ; and in one instance, where a seizure of silk was made, it was proved to be British manufac ture.—(Hear.) It might be urged that persons employed in Lae manufacture of this article were now all em ployed, but there was this great difference, that they were not paid anything like the wages they were paid before those changes had taken place.. It required no very great acquaintance with the w- .irking classes to know that they were greatly dissatisfied with having now half the wages they got before such a reduction of duty bad taken place. It might be said that no such great reduction had taken place, and that no such injury as he had submitted to the House would result from the changes proposed by her Majesty's Ministers ; but he would read to the House the opinions of the operatives employed in the manufacturing districts. At a public meeting of the manufacturing operatives of Manchester and Salford, a Mr. Cann was called to the chair. Now he could not account for the authenticity of the proceedings of that meeting, but he had found it reported in a most respectable journal, and he had no doubt on his mind of its being perfectly accurate. The Chairman, in address ing the meeting, declared that the measure introduced by Sir Robert Peel would be of the greatest injury to the silk trade, and he was of opinion that it should be resist, d by every operative interested in the silk ma nufactures of this country. The next person who addressed the meeting was a Mr. Bennett, and after de ploring the great injury which the measure was calcu lated to inflict upon the manufacturers of the article in question, he said that every advance made towards free trade always brought injury of the most serious character upon the manufacturing labourer.—(Hear, hear.) The same speaker mentioned the names or two Hon. Members of that House, great manufacturers, as having made large fortunes by continually reducing the wages of their workmen. The names of the Hon. Members were publicly given, but he (Mr. Bankes) would not of course read them ; but the most serious charges were publicly made against those Hon. Members. In fact the manufacturers never raised the wages of the working people when food was dear. Mr. Iduskisson had brought ruin upon many poor families by his mea sures, but the measure of Sir Robert Peel would prove a still worse measure." The next speaker addressed the meeting at some length and said, " that the English artizan would be easily able to compete with the French in the manufacture of silk, if their taxes were light." Tile next speaker was a Mr. Field, and he gave ex pressions to sentiments to the same effect; he added that "it was all very well for Mr. Hume—(Laughter)—to advocate low wages, because his lady would get a silk dress or a new bonnet somewhat cheaper."—(Laughter.) Another meeting was held upon the same day in another town, of hand-weavers, at which sentiments of a like character were expressed. Now, if he found this language held at Manchester, w a s he not bound to be- Hey; that those who used it were in favour of protec tion?—(Hear, hear.) It surely could not be said that what they had stated thus openly was untrue, or that they did not really apprehend that further change would deteriorate their wages.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt those men were not men of great wealth, but it was not because they belonged to the working classes that their statements were to be disregarded.—(Hear, bear.) Those men had felt the effect of those changes, and therefore they had given expression to what they felt.—(Hear, hear.) When he (Mr. Bankes) had been told that the Spitalfield weavers had gone to Manchester, why then he followed them there, and this was the state in which he found them, and this was the language which they held in reference to the corn-laws. He would now ask this House to look at the returns which had been made to it by the Inspec tor of factories, Mr. Saunders, in the year 1845. That House had the inspection of a district embracing Derby shire, Hampshire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Surrey, e a ff n e d e York, t h and d h e a t w p e o e r a t i o t n h e o f years that I r B e 3 p B o r and t l wa s to this wa comparative increase and decrease of mills in those dis tricts, as compared with his former inquiry, was, that in the year 1838, there were 304 cotton-mills in the dis trict, and in the year 1845, there were 361, showing an increase of 59 mills in that time. Of wool mills there were, in 1838, 666 trills ; in 1845, there were 655, showing an increase of 89. Of worsted mills there were, in 1838, 388 mills ; in 1845, 438, showing an increase of 50 mills in that trade. There were 59 flax mills in 1838, and 65 in 1845, showing an increase of 6. But then, came the silk trade. Of those, there were in the whole district 69 mills in 1838, while in the year 1845 there were only 63, showing a decrease of 6, which proved the important fact that the silk trade was the only one which had decreased during that period.—(Hear, hear.) The same returns exhibited the number of children employed at 13,000, only 800 of whom were employed in the silk trade in Lancashire. Why then he would say, that he did not find that the silk ma• nufacturers, who had been reported as having been ex pelled frc-al London, had established themselves in any other part of the kingdom. It was true he might be met by the Honourable,Gentleman the Vice- President of the Board of Trade with the answer, that those persons were now mixed up with the various other branches of the silk trade ; but he (Mr. Bankes) begged again to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman that it was the question of wages exclusively to wh;ch he was now applying himself.—(Hear, hear.) He would now direct the attention of the House to another paper, which had been largely circulated, and was rather an ingenious one. He would only read an extract here and there ; one of the statements of the author was, that " the wages of the silk weavers were now less than half of that paid them in the year 1824." He (Mr. Bankes) hoped that those wages would be found to be higher elsewhere. The author then went on to say, that the gross value of silk goods exported in that year from England, would be found to be less by 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 than they were in the year 1824. The author then went into detail, and he stated that the export of silk to France from England consisted chiefly of coarse yarn or twist; while that which was imported from France to this country consisted of the very finest fabrics. The value of the article exported from England to France did not exceed 7s. 6d. per pound, while that which was imported from France to England, exceeded in value 565. per lb., and that he conceived sufficiently marked the differe.lce in the value. Then the author went on to state that the total gross value of silk goods exported from England to France, in the year 1844, did not ex ceed 160,6901, while the rross value of the same article imported from France to England, eXceedeciC6o6;666E. sterling. Now, not having a practical knowledge of this trade, he (Mr. Bankes) would not enter muck further upon the subject, but he would direct the earnest atten tion of the House to these facts, and trusted they would have the effect of preventing further experi ments. It was quite true that his constituents were not a very large body. But when, upon a former occa sion. ho urged their case upon the consideration of the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Sir R. Peel) admitted that the county which be (Mr. Bankes) represented had suffered much by - .reason of the depreciation of the silk trade, caused by the introduction of steam and zaaohinery. , . W. I But he (Mr. Bankes) begged to assure the Krght Baron( t that the manufacture of throwing silk could be quite as well and as profitably carried on by the use of water power as that of steam. Theretbre it was not the fact that the loss sustained by his constituency had been owing to the introduction 'of steam. In the coun'y "which hn represented there were at one time 400 silk-throwing mills, which vise employment to a great number of people; but now there was only one, and the number of hands employed and the wages they had received had both been greatly reduced ; and the result was, of course, that a great number had been thrown out of work. Those then were his reasons for having adopted the course he had taken in reference to the article of silk. He did not wish to mix up this item with any other porti ,n of the tariff, lest he might da mage the cause which he now pleaded. There were many other items to which -his observations would equally apply, but he now wished to separate them en tirely, and, vote as the House would in reference to the subject of the repeal of the corn-laws, he trusted that this subject would not influence their votes upon this.—(Hear.) The silk weavers had already suffered much in consequence of experiments. He had quoted the authority of a Committee of this House, which, he trusted, would have some weight. It was true that that Committee had reported unfavourably, but he had also shown that that vote would have been otherwise but for the fact of one of the Members of the Committee having been brought in to give a vote against it, though he had never attended the pro ceedings of the Committee at all.—(Hear, hear.) He had no doubt but that the Vice-president of the Board of Trade would endeavour to show the House that the silk trade was now a flourishing one in this country. But he would say, if they were so, let them be so.— (Cheers.) In conclusion, he (Mr. Bankes) begged to say be would divide the House upon this point as it mooted many other articles, all of which were in some measure connected with the article of silk.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ELLIS (who was quite inaudible in the gallery) was understood to say that he felt certain he was doing but justice to the good feelings of Honourable Gentle men opposite, when he gave them full credit for the sincerity of their statements.—(Hear.) But the ques tion then was not considered ; they turned to the former state of the silk trade. It had been assumed that if they continued protection, the manufacturers would enjoy the same wages as they formerly did. The Hon. Gentleman who preceded him had stated that since the year 1832, the number of silk weavers at Spitalfields had vastly decreased. Now, the fact was, that in Spitalfields there were not really more than six or seven independent men of capital ; and much as had been said of French manufactures, let them but induce men of capital to em bark in the trade, and they would soon be in a position to rival France, though she grew a superior description of silk.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, it might be said that already they were rivalling France, as the Messrs. Bakers printed an article of calico which they imported to France. Mr. BROCKLEFIURST would beg to contradict the Honourable Gentleman in that statement. Mr. ELLIS explained, and then continued. In 1824, a reduction took place on the duty on silk ; and such was the feeling amongst the manufacturers, that they were prepared for the total abolition, after a few years, of all duty aff-cting the article.—(H ear , hear.) Mr. BROCKLEEIURST should say that he had really been astonished that so narrow a view should be taken of the question as had been by the Honourable Gentle man who preceeded him.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He had stated that France produced a superior sort of silk. Why was that so ? Simply because she prohibited the exportation of the article, and confined it to hereelf. He had also stated that in Derby and other parts of Eng land, silks were abundantly manufactured. Now, in his opinion, that showed the imp ortance o f keep ing the silk trade in the country.—(Hear.) The petitioners also alleged that from 1816 up to 1824, the increase in the silk trade had been so great, that in the latter year no less than four millions of lbs. of silk were worked up. In 1824, the silk trade was in the height of its prosperity. The amount of silk worked up in 1844 was only an increase of that in 1824 to the extent of about 10 or 15 per cent. Thus the trade had remained almost stationary, while the cotton trade had increased 300 or 400 per cent.—(Hear, hear) The pe titioners also stated that the finer branches of the silk trade had gone to the Continent, there being uow 5,000 or 6,000 less looms in Spitalfields than formerly. The petitioners, therefore, prayed the H ouse to ta k e t hi s trade into their most gracious consideration, and not re move the present protection afforded. These were the opinions of those engaged in the silk trade.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then referred to the silk trade of France, showing that a gre a t i ncre as e h a d taken place in the exports in that country, in comparison with this. The Right Hon. Baronet had pleased to lay on the table several returns of the trade, with the object of bearing out the change he was proposing, but he did not consider he had succeeded in his object. He (Mr. Brocklehurst) would refer to those returns. The Honourable Member then went through the items referred to, endeavouring to show that up to 1824, under the protective system previously in existence, the silk trade had gone on progressively improving, while since that period, by opening the home market to foreign silk manufacturers this country had nearly lost all the finer branches. The French had taken from the weavers and manufacturers of the United Kingdom all the finer branches—(Hear, hear)—and the remainder had almost remained stationary. The trade, he con sidered, ought to be looked on as a branch of luxury, and treated as such, and also for the purpose of raising a revenue. This would be a twofold benefit, raising a revenue while it gave a guarantee to those engaged in the manufacture of silk in this country. He would leave it to the Government, whether they would post• pone this portion of the schedule, or enforce it, and drive the matter to a division. He would agree to 15 per cent. duty, but he must oppose the duty proposed in the present schedule, Sir GEORGE CLERK said that the Hon. Member for Macclesfield, at the commencement of his speech, said that he was prepared to show, in opposition to the state ments made by the Right Hon. Baronet, that the silk trade had not only temporarily but permanently suf fered by the measure of 1824. In 1832 a Committee had sat to investigate the matter, and the Hon. Member himself was upon it. Lord Sidmouth, who then held the situation of Vice-President of the Board of Trade. stated that G overnment did not enterta i n t h e s li g ht es t desire of increasing the duty fixed in 1824 nay, more, he wanted the Committee to declare that duty as much too high, and as bolding out a temptation to smuggling, and he moved an addition to the original inquiry, that the former should consider what measures should be taken to discourage smuggling. True it was that several of the wit nesses state d th en th a t there was a falling off in the wages of the operatives, as compared with an antecedent period ; and no doubt the same dis tress occurred in that trade that was prevailing in many others. He wondered that when the Hon. Member re ferred to the Committee of 1843, that he did not also refer to the evidence taken before a Committee at a former period. .The Hon. M em b er did not state t h a t th e desti tutien which existed in 1841 did not exist to the same degree in 1816, when Spitalfields enjoyed protection, and when many families were dying of want. Petitions were then presented to the House from the silk weavers of Coventry, to inquire into the state of the silk trade there, and he (Sir G. Clerk) would venture to say that the stated distress then quite equalled that of 1832 ; for men who had been formerly in the habit of earn ing 245. and upwards per week, could only at the/ period (working seventeen or eighteen hours a day, or more than 100 per week), make at the most ss. 9d. The Hon. Member must admit, then, that that stated dis tress was not justly attributable to the change of sys tem, but to the fluctuations of trade. But what was the consequence of this state of things ? That the weavers in the silk trade were exposed to every capric e of fashion ; and the evil was f ur ther augmented by the absurd regulations which prevailed with the manufac turers in the metrop o li s . It w as impossible for mas ters to give a higher rate than was fixed by a particular table ; an d no master couldintro duce a higher rate of wages for a more particular ar ticle, neither ccsuld he offer a lower, consequently when bad trade came on, they, not being able to alter the rate of wages, were compelled to discharge their workmen. Thus the trade being driven from Spitalfields, the manu facturers were compelled in self-defence to erect works at Macclesfield, Coventry, and other places. Let them look to the condition of the silk trade now. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire admitted that for a year or two the silk trade was in a more flourish ing condition than it had been. Was that the reason that he objected to the question now ? If they found that in this country silk goods were not con sidered a luxury, to be confined solely to the higher classes, but if they found that persons in the humbler sphere of life could afford to procure th em , h e thought it was a sufficient vindication that the trade was in a flourishing condition. And all this was done by adopting an exactly opposite course from that of former periods. Then t h ey had enormously high duties upon the raw m aterials. They fixed the operatives' rate of wages at . a minimum value, and thus discouraged the introduction theyntrod f lu ct o o o n o o d f t f h or a e t ig f n romthe years manu factures. Under such a system it was impossible for the silk tradea 1765 d otoo to ly 1817, flourish, and' the fi rs t t r i enn i a l , t h e s ilk trade b doubled the manufact ure ; w h ereas , now in the last triennial period they h a d more t h an tre bl e d , leaving out the water silk and the husk, so frequently referred to by Honourable Members. They found the raw silk imported amounting in that period to 1,000,000, whereas now it had increased to 4,000,000, He admitted that they were unable to compete with the French in a particular description of light goods, but it must be remembered that this particular description of goods never were, nor were th e y ever li kely to b e , m anufactured in this country. He believed that there was no doubt that British manufactures were quite equal in texture, quality, and colour to any of the manu factures on the Continent, but in point of taste the French manufactures surpassed the British; but if they removed the restrictions which had hitherto been placed on the trade, the British manufactur er wou ld be able to compete with the foreigner in thi s respe , t a l so . The next branch of the subject to which he came to was that which related to wages. Now it was diffi cu l t t o o btain correct information upon the subject of wages, for in some cases the labourer was paid by the piece, while in others he received a weekly salary. It was unjust to make a comparison between the wages of the present day and those of twenty years ago, for although the money wages of the present period were less than those of former years it must be remembered, that with the improvements in the loom the labourer could turn out double the work now to what he could twenty years ago. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had, asked him to state where the silk trade had gone to since the amount of protec tion had been removed. The Hon. Member had referred to.the report of the Factory Commissioners, and re marked that he found that while woollen and cotton mills had increased, silk mills had decreased. But the Hon. Member was mistaken, for the removal of the restrictions gave such an impetus to speculations in 'ilk nanufao tures, that, in 1824 and in 1825, adveltisemenis were put I forth from Macclesfield, stating that an immense num ber of ne .v silk mills had been started, and that the pro. prietors were ready to give employment to several thousand hands ; and from the report of the Commis sioners appointed to inquire into the state of the manufacturing districts, it would be seen that in 1844 there was a scarcity of hands in the silk trade of Derbyshire, and a consequent increase in the wages of artisans. The Hon. Member for Macclesfield suggested that the Government ought to treat silk ma nufactures as luxuries, only to be used by the rich, and place duties upon them with a view to revenue. Now, the Hon. Member forgot that even under the present low rate of duty the law was evaded with impunity, and be could assure the Hon. Member that there would be as much revenue derived from the duty now proposed as any that could possibly result from the imposition of heavier restrictions. Under these circumstances he hoped that the House would have no objection whatever to the measure proposed by his Right H n. Friend. Hoe. Members had brought forward the case of silk, to show that that trade had been injured by the removal of protection, but lie hoped he had shown that they had not made out their case. He hoped, thee, that the amendment which had been proposed would not be adopted, and that the mea sures proposed by the Government would be passed by a large majority. Mr. NE WDEGATE rose for the purpose of rebut ting some statements which had been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with respect to the present state of the silk trade in Co ventry. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the evidence which had been taken before a Committee of that House in the year 1832, with regard to the state of the silk trade, but he had misquoted the statement of facts, as then given. It was clearly shown before the Members of that Committee, that after the re moval of protection, trade was injured in the most material manner. The Right Honourable Baronet, iii the course of his argument, referred to the increased number of spindles. There was no doubt there had been an increase in the number of spindles used in that trade. But he (Mr. Newdegate) did not think that that was a proof that a corresponding increase in wages had been the result. He (Sir George Clerk) confirmed his statements, which they had heard from the Hon. Mem ber for Macclesfield, namely, that there had been a great reduction in wages.—(Protectionist cheers.) The Hon. Member for Leicester had asked how it was possible that that trade was able to compete with foreigners whilst their wages were high ? It was, because they worked harder, and he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that that was a sufficient answer to his question. Tney em ployed improved machinery, and they were able to compete with the foreigners by dint of increased exer tion. Had they not evidence before them of the increased exertion of the silk manufacturers of this country ? And he was proud to say that, in his own local district, Coventry, notwithstanding the present heavy rents, heavy taxation, and all sorts of increased expenses to which the labourers of this country were liable, he gave proof of this energy by the fact that under all the dis advantages in comparison with his adversaries, he was yet able successfully to compete with them.—(Hear.) And what did they infer from this? They inferred from this state of things, that trade was flourishing. Granted —what better reason could there be for not persisting in this measure ?-s--(Protectionist cheers.) And then he would advert to one point which had been touched by , the lion. Member for Leicestershire. He made a state ment, from which it was clear that the result of this measure would be the reduction of the operatives' wages. He did not wish to detain the House much longer. But he wished to advert for a few minutes to the statement of the Hon. Member for Macclesfield. He held in his hand an abstract, which clearly showed that both the importation of the raw material as well as manufactured silk, bad decreased since the removal of protective duties at least 251. per cent. They had clearly shown that the inevitable result of the carrying out the free trade principles was the reduction of wages, and if this measure were passed, they would still further increase the distress of the working classes. The Right Hon. Baronet had dwelt much upon the difficulties of collect ing protective duties. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not wonder at that. He himself had to complain that the leaning of the officers engaged in the collection of those duties were so much in favour of free trade—(Loud cheers from the protectionists)—that they could not dis tinguish between striped goods from plain ; and in many cases whether the goods were figured or plain. Up to this very time striped ribbons were actually received as plain ribbons. It was not wonderful that the duty was not collected as it should be, when such practices were sanctioned. He had made application himself to her Majesty's Government to appoint more qualified men, but his application had always been unsuccessful. The Government always complained that the duty did net come in, and yet they did nothing to remedy the evils of which he complained. He really thought that if the officers of the Custom-house did not look so much to making out cases for the adoption of free trade, which now appeared to be so great a favourite with the leaders of the House, they would per form their duty much more faithfully. He would conclude by repeating, that the greatest possible exertions had been made in Coventry and the adjoining district, with which he was intimately acquainted, which showed that the statement of the Hon. Member for Lei cester were incorrect. He (Mr. Newdegate) prayed that if they were about to reduce protection to agriculture, and produce pressure upon the agricultural Members of this constituency, they would not add to the difficulties by the removal of protection from the labours in which the naanufacturing portion of the constituency were em ployed. He was sorry to see the false feeling for con sistency, which formed the greatest plea on this occasion for the Government and their supporters. Mr. B. HAWES attached very considerable import ance to, and he was, therefore, sorry to see the effects of the delay which had taken place in this discussion. And yet he did not at all complain of this delay. On the contrary, he rather rejoiced in this discussion than otherwise, inasmuch as, though it seemed to him some most inconvenient arguments had been brought forward the measures adopted by the Right Honourable Baronet would undoubtedly tend to the general prosperity of this country. But he looked forward that night he owned with very considerable interest to the result of that discussion, because he expected that the challenge of the Right Hon. Gentleman, would be met upon a simple question. He (the Right Hon. Baronet) had challenged Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were opposed to his mea sures, to show one single instance in which either the producer or the consumer had been injured by a gradual relaxation of those duties. And he (Mr. Hawes) did presume therefore that in the course of this debate they should have had some evidence to show they had retro gaded, and that the consumer had derived no benefit by the relaxation of duties upon trade. At present he owned that he had no facts to lay before the House upon this question. The Hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst) had talked about revenue. Why the revenue had been impaired by the reduction of the pro tective duties, and the consequence was the increase of the general trade of the country. But he was prepared to ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed this measure whether they were prepared to go upon the present import of the raw material, or the amount of ex portsfOn ono e ic o h r thewuld'lsey stand other. He was prepared to prove that the import had large l y the He manufactured would take t hem article? on the increased, and that the export of the manufactured ar ticle had also greatly increased. Did Hon. Gentlemen recollect the arguments that were used at the time that Mr. Huskisson introduced his measure? That argument was such as he (Mr. Hawes) was at presentprepared to use. But how stood the fact, as laid before them in the papers placed upon the table of the House? If they could not ihow that exports had declined, and if, on the contrary, it could be proved that consumption has increased, he would call them to show how their manufactures had declined. He had heard that the wages of the operatives had materially declined since the con test with the foreign manufacturer. It was not quite clear that such was the fact, but he was quite willing to admit that wages for handloom weaving had seriously diminished. But what was that owing to? He would show that it was under the influence of protection that wages had fallen. He could show, from conclusive evi dence, provided trade was differently conducted, that' higher wages would be paid to the workmen than were now. In the report which had been made by the Commission, instituted to inquire into the causes of manufacturing distress—that dis tress was not attributed to foreign competition, but to the competition of one manufacturer with the other, and the total want of economy in the conduct of the trade. He did not wish the Rouse to rely on his authority, and he would therefore refer to what was stated by Mr. Muggeridge, the Commissioner appointed to examine into these facts. He stated that workmen suffer a mate rial loss of time in having to go for their work and to return again to their houses ; and that he found that where men were joined together in the manufactory system that wages increased from four and five shillings to fifteen and eighteen shillings a week. He did, therefore say that there was no trade so mis chievously protected, or that suffered so much as the silk trade. Mr. Deacon Hume was not an interested party, and he had a right to assume that his statements were accurate. He contended that the challenge of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite had been un answered, and the produce was not injured by the re laxation which had already taken place in the protective duties. Mr. BROCKLEHURST explained. Mr. ADDERLEY appealed to the House whether the principles upon wh i c h t he y su pp orted p rotection to agr i cu lt u re at all applied to the question before the House. He received a l e tter from one of his consti tuents in Leeke, which stated that he, and those manu facturers with whom he had conversed, apprehended no injury from the contemplated alterations proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. Under these circumstances he could not consent to support the amendment. Mr. ELLIS was of opinion that it was always neces sary to consider well those measures which had for their object any alteration in the silk duties. That had been his opinion at first, and it was his opinion now. They had first made a slight redu :tion, and they now proposed comparatively to remove the protective duty. His con stituents had instructed him to express their doubts as to the result of the reduction on silk.—(Hear, hear.) Yet they were of opinion that it was better the alteration should take place, than to continue a protection which did not secure them against the inroads of the smuggler. He was afraid that the silk manufacture would be in no better a condition than they were at the time mentioned by many of the Hon. Members who had spoken on the decrease of that trade. Certain classes of the satin and gauze ribbons were fast falling into decay in the manu factures of this country, from the great improvements of the foreigners in the manufacture of the articles. The House might not be award that there was a vast compe -1 tition with the foreigner in the articles of silk, ribbons, and ather Small articles. For this and other reasons he had not the confidence in this branch of the Government measure which he bed i 4 others ; but then his censtitnentawere_ssessatisfled of the manse benefits , which would result from the other parts of the measure of her Majesty's Ministers that , they would support the present reduction of duty on silk in the ,opinion that the whole measure would make up for the injury likely to - tesult from the present question. There was no Member "of that Howie who had a greater in terest in the measure than himself, for his constituents had taken the deepest interest in. the measure before the House, and for that reason he would give it his support. Lord G. B TINC might say that the best test , of protective °tenon protective legislation was- to be found in the state of wages. An Hon. Member had shown the House how greatly the number of spindles had been re duced, and this in his opinion was an incontrovertible argument in favour of 'protection to the . silk trade. An Hon. Member had said that for 50 years; in 1816, tbe silk trade of this country had not more than doubled, and that since the reduction of duties, after that eeriod, it had more than trebled its then amount. Now he did not consider this a fair comparison, This was a comparison made against protection, at a time, too, when Napoleon had the whole silk trade in his hand —atl a-time when the trade was in the hands of our enemies—at a time that we were deeply involved in war—whereas it is well known that that trade depended on peace for it 9 prosperity. Dnring the continuance of the duty, it had been proved to that House that the silk trade bad progressed ninety per cent. in the course of six years. Could that be said of it subsequent to the reduction of the duty ?—on the contrary, it was seen that it had not - so. increased, while the wages of the operatives had most materially diminished.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Lambeth had said that the trade increased to a very great extent after the reduction of the free trade principle. How the Hon. Member would make that out, he (Lord G. Bentinck) was at a loss to account. It surely was not .by the evidence adduced by her Majesty's Government in s giviug their compari sons of the exports , and imports of the ,article of silk:; for While they had given all the exportation of that ma nufactures they had not given one importation of the amount of silk from India. Now, he found that in the five years, up to 1840, the importation of manufactured silk from India was over 25,0001b5., and surely this vast amount of importation should not have been kept back. All this he would contend, for it went to afford strong proof that this country was s till no t i n a pos i t i on to con tend with France in her silk manufacture, even taking into consideration the fact of the advantage we had of thirty per cent. The Honourable Member- for Stafford had argued that this country should not in terfere in this matter ; but he (Lord George Bentinck) contended that that was no argument at all, because the statistical facts already adduced, showed beyond all doubt, that the silk trade of this couniry could not com pete with that of France. Coventry could not stand against France with a duty of 275., notwithstanding which they were about to reduce that same duty to 16s. —(Hear, hear.) What did the gentlemen who called on him yesterday tell him-respecting the rate of wages at Coventry ? Why that it would be reduced 20 per cent.—(oh, oh-1) He spoke on the. authority of the gentlemen, who assured him that since 1826 the wages of the silk weavers had been reduced 20 per cent. ; and were they going then to grind the unfortunate crea tures more heavily ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The un fortunate people 'Were formerly allowed to work at home, surrounded by their families, but, of late they were drigged . to the factories.—(Hear, hear.) By the measure proposed to the House the silk manufacturers and weavers were not the only par ties that would be affected. They should also look- to how the milliners and dressmakers would be circum stanced.—(A laugh.) - He could prove that the number of dressmakers in the kingdom amounted to 106.000, the amount of protection to whom would be reduced from 21. 10s. to 1/. 10i.—(Hear, hear.) There were in London alone '15,000 dressmakers, and he supposrd they were going to leave these unhappy creatures to starve, or take their chance, because they could not come to that House, and knock, as they were entitled to do, at its doors.—;Hear, hear.) These millions had no votes, no influence over that House, and therefore they were to be left to their fate. The protection'now afforded to them was to be reduced to one-fourth of what it now was, and they might starve, or do what 'else they thought fit. Such would be the consequences of the present measure, and there fore he asked the House to pause before they passed it into a law. ,It was a measure that would cause the ruin of thousands of poor persons, who were not in a po sition to protect themselves ; and it was to be ,passed by a coalition of Members of that House, of a most extraordinary character. The practical effect. of these proceedings would be to cause thousands of unfortunate females to be driven to prostitution to Make np for what they would lose from the operation of this measure ; and the consequences would be such as all would have occa sion to deplore.—(Hear.) Sit R. PEEL rose and said, Sir, I hope parties before passing a judgment on our commercial policy in appli cation to the silk-trade, will maturely con sider the facts within their reach—will consider before coming to a conclusion, the subject fairly and dis passionately. I trust you will take the opportunity of contrasting the state of things, not under a system of free. trade, but under a system of protection, with what has been the condition of the silk trade since the repeal of prohibitive duties, and the admission of foreign silks in competition with domestic produce; that you will fairly contrast this latter period with that previous one in which, so far as the law was concerned, absolute and unqualified protection existed. You have had the oppor tunity of learning what the effects have been resulting from unqualified protection in that most favoured seat of the silk trade—Spitalfields.—(Hear, hear.) There you had complete prohibition ; there you relied on laws that actually not only imposed a duty that was high, but a duty that was absolutely prohibitory. Now, what has been the state of things under this much-lauded system? Do you wish me to revert to it ? Does protection tend to the advantage of the manufacturing and working classes, for which you express so much sympathy ? You talk of the withdrawal of protection from females, as leading to prostitution. What has been the state of things wader the system you support ? In Spitalfields, while that system was iu operation, there occurred, in rapid succession, examples of suffering and distress, such as it will be difficult for you to find a parallel to elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.) In 1826 a letter was written by Mr. Hale, who was well acquainted with this trade, and addressed to Mr. Whitbread, calling upon him 'to make an appeal to the Legislature against that state of things then. Six years afterwards, in 1812, such was the state of the distress in Spitalfields, that it became necessary to appoint a local C immittee ; and it is stated in the report that was made by that Committee, that a large proportion of those who were called upon for the poor-rates were themselves in need of assistance. The utmost pittance that could be dealt out to the indigent was insufficient to sup port existence, and the distress became ex treme. Subscriptions were then raised, and a temporary mitigation was given to the existing dis tress. In the year 1816 it became necessary to re-ap point the Committee. They speak particularly of the weavers. They said that they are inoffensive and quiet in their demeanor ; are industrious in prosperous times, and patient in distress. In 1816, what was their posi tion ? The Committee said of that class, that two-thirds of them were not employed with work to support them selves. They said that the Committee consisted of one hundred members, which number was divided into 38 sub-committees, each of which undertook one district. They distributed 8561. in sums of one shilling and three shillings among 3,366 families, containing 14,400 indivi duals. They said that pauperism was spreading, and that all the weavers were in arrear of their rent. They were also in debt for the common necessaries of life. That was the report of the Committee in 1816. Sir Fowell Buxton, at a meeting convened in the city of London, gave an account of the state of Spitalfields under that system of protection. He said, " We have all been educated to believe that the necessity of goingto the workhouse is the last for the poor to look-to, a n d yet such is the state of Spital fields that theworkpeopi e there ac t ua lly canvass our interest in th eir favour." Sir Fowell 'B ux to n on that occas ion made an appeal to the ladies then attending the meet ing, and that showed how delusive was this protection. He said, " The ca Ise of the distress in etpitalfields is the importation of French goods, and the wearing those French goods by the ladies of this town ;" and he made a forcible appeal to them, and called upon them to discourage contraband trade, which was so injurious to the working classes of Spitalfields. Now that was under a system of prohibitory duties. Let me compare that account of 1816 with the report made Howell Mr. Howell, in October, 1845. Mr. sa id, in his report, that there was a general scarcity h e re had been a of hands in the silk districts, and that in comq e ue rise in wages, and he had been intormed that children who only worked half time, co uld they did before when they worked now earn as much as for ten hours. Now that is a compariso n with a time in which you profes se d to give absolute p rotection. I W ill ask you by what test you will determine the flourishing state o f manufactures ? Why it is by the importation of the raw material. " Oh," but you say, " the raw material in cludes certain descriptions of waste silk, called knubs' and husks.' " It may not suit refined lips to use such terms, but it must be remembered that your skill and capital convert these things into very beautiful fabrics. —(Hear, hear.) You greatly increase the value of that material. What was the reason Mr. Huskisson did not take the advice of the Hon. Member for Macclesfield ? Why, figures and facts induced him to reject it. In 1819, or 1820, the quantity of raw silk entered for home consumption was about 1,500,000 lbs. From 1814 to 1823—1 am speaking now of raw silk, rejecting alto gether the waste silk—on the average of ten years, the annual consumption was 1,521,000 lbs. Mr. littskisson, therefore, substituted a moderate duty for the then existing duty, which amounted to prohibition. And what was the result ? Why, the average consumption of raw silk, from 1834 to 1843, had risen from 1,521,000 to 3,742,00 0 lbs. This, therefore, exhibits the wisdom of the course pursued by Mr. Huskisson.—(Hear.) Now, is the feeling of 'trade against it ? Considerable abuse has been thrown upon the Government for attempt to injure the trade by this measure, but from the trade itself I hear no accusations, and I venture to say that if Coventry felt real alarm at the reduction of protection from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent., Coventry has inde pendence and intelligence enough to make loud represen tations against us. Coventry, however, argues that it is not a proposal simply and abstractedly to diminish the duty on silk. No, Coventry connects with the reduction of the duty on silk the total reduction of the duties on beef, the admission of maize free of duty, and the great reduction that will be made upon articles of clothing and food generally. Looking at it in that point of view they are perfectly content with the measure. T ans supported in this opinion by what has recently taken place at Leek. My Honourable Friend the Member for Staffordshire says, he went there as a thorough protectionist, but to his great surprise, he was told by the people of Leek that, although tney . hai a silk Manufactory, they were perfectly content with the measure of the Government. Now, with regard to Macclesfield—it is true a petition has been presented from ldsoolesfield again. t theyneasure, but in thelatter whitah likiiiViiipsialed that petition, f am in formed that the people of Macclesfield are perfectly content to have some, reduction , of the protective duty on silk— that - Macclesfield , would be . content with a reduction from 30 to 20 per cent. Now, we propose , 15 'per cent. ,There is only therefore a difference of 5 per cent, be- • tween our opinion, and the opinion of the people of Macclesfield. Spitalfislds comes next, and I cannot say ' that r have received many representations against it ' feoin S,pitelfields. Connecting it with the other mea- ' i sures, I believe it is adopted there. forlam not aware that the.people of Spitalfields are-at' all opposed to the gene ral proposal' ef . the, Government. Therefore, as far as the trade is concerned, judgingfrom the opinions of par ties engaged in , it, the trade generally speaking are satisfied with the whole measure. Now my Noble Friend has adopted a channel for arriving at conclusions ' upon this subject -which I think is not at all satisfactory, namely, the ,quantity of, raw material taken for home consumption. He takes the 'declared value of the exports for the last five. years, •and compares it with the de clared value of the imports of the five preceding years ; but that is an erroneous test. Alderman Webb was constantly insisting on it that this country was ruined, because the declared value of the manufactured exports did not keep pace with the imports. But he was told that this was neither a safe nor a just test to go by, because as there was a great reduction in the cost of nroduction, the value of the manufactured articles sold and exported year by year was diminished. It did not, however, follow that because the declared value of ma- • nufactured exports diminished yearly that their should be an increase in the imports over the exports. So it is with silk. The cost of silk manufactures has been diminished within the last five years ; improvements in manufactures and the exercise of greater skill has di minished the cost of production within the last five years, and it would be strange indeed if the declared value of the manufactured exports of the last five years had not diminished as compared with the declared value of the manufactured exports of the preceeding five years; but this by no means indicated that the silk manu facturers of this country had flourished during the last .five years. The cost of. production may have decreased, and • must'. have decreased is consequence of the diminished cost 'of raw material ; so in the cotton-trade, and woollen-trade, as in the silk-trade,' and therefore the declared value is necessarily no indi cation of the quantity of the article exported. But I am asked, how do you account for so much of the raw material being consumed at home ? Why, the fact is, there is a growing taste for silk manufactures in this country, and we cannot do better than encourage it. Cottons and woollens have hitherto been the formidable rivals of silk, but we never take into account what for midable competitors cotton and wool are to silk. It i s not foreign competition that has diminished the silk trade, but it is the wool and cotton-trade ; but there is a growing desire in this country to consume silk in preference to these articles, and you cannot do better than encourage it. There has, therefore, necessarily been an increase in the quantity of foreign articles brought into this country. In the five years pr e c e di ng the last five, there was an extensive system of smug glingcarried on. But within the last five years there has been some check put upon it, and in consequence of that check, the customs show an increase in the amount of silk imports.—(Hear, hear.) Silk was growing upon the domestic manufactures-of the country, and it is therefore desirable that you should use every means to put a check upon smuggling. It is presumed by some that smuggling does nest exist under a duty of thirty pet' cent., but there is no "denying it, smuggling does ex ist. It is now three-and. twenty-years since the attention of the House cf Lords was called to this subject. A Committee was then appointed to inquire into the state of our foreign trade, and that is the tribunal to which my Noble Friend alluded when he called upon the House of Lords to oppose this measure in the event of its passing this House. The House of Lords appointed a Com mittee upon the foreign trade of this country, and silk was one cf the articles to which they referred. Now, what conclusion did the House-of Lords come to in the year 1821 ? Why, that if a small duty of from twelve to fifteen per cent. were placed upon the introduction of the raw material, it would enable the British manufac turer to compete with The foreigner, while it would di minish smuggling ; and yet the N o bl e L or d ca ll s u p on the House of Lords to reject this measure indignantly, as tending to undermine the interests of the manufac turer, and as sowing the seeds of vice and immorality. Ile calls upon the House of Lords to do this after one- of its tribunals had maturely considered this subject, ex amined witnesses interested in the domestic silk manu factures of the country, and declared that the public interest only required the existence of a duty from twelve to fifteen per cent. Supposing also—which was then in contemplation in the House of Lords—we reduce the duty upon the articles of subsistence, and so enable the manufacturer of this country to compete with the foreign manufacture, we pay not 121. but 151. per cent. ; and when the House of Lords do refer to their own recommendation, I shall be surprised indeed if they do reject the measure which her Majesty's Government proposes. Sir, my Noble Friend has referred, and naturally has excited the sympathy of those who placed confidence in his statement with re spect to the position of the unprotected classes of the milliners and dressmakers. Sir, I think I could show that if there be any class that suffers from the illicit introduction of goods, it is that very class--(Hear, hear) —to which my Noble Friend revers. I believe, in respect to all those articles, that they are introdUced in a con traband manner ; that there is a false reliance placed upon protection ; that at any time you can insure the introduction of silk goods (Hear, hear) — and silk dresses—(Hear, hear)—for an amount, the extra cost not being greater than the duty which is placed upon that article. And if the system be so—if the taste for silk goods do advance in this country —you will promote and encourage the price of that article— you will give the manufacturer the advantage of com peting in the open day with the duty-paid article ; but if you subject him to that 'unknown disadvantage, he can take no precaution against the smuggling of goods pay ing no duty, and the honest trader suffers the greatest loss and the greatest injustice by competition with the dishonest trader. If you will permit the manufacturer fairly to compete at a known advantage with his foreign rivals, and if you will discourage among the higher classes the use of those contraband articles, by facili tating the admission of them at moderate prices—(Hear, hear)—then, I say, the manufacturer of silk, the opera tive employed in the silk manfacture, the dress-maker, and the milliner (to whom my Noble Friend refers), has a better chance in honest employment of gainieg an honest subsistence, as they ought to be enabled to gain by continuous labour, than any advantage they can now derive from high nominal duties, which you cannot enforce against the evasion of your own laws. —(Hear, hear.) Sir, these are the con siderations which induced her Majesty's Government to propose this measure, feeling that it was for the interest of the revenue that we should admit goods at a moderate rate of duty, believing it to be for the interest of the manufacturer that he should compete under ascer tained terms, believing it to be for the interest of those employed in the manufacture, that we should, if it were possible,.pluck up by the root the system of smuggling, which, while it professes to give protection, is really delusive, and which inflicts a much greater injury upon manufacturers than any that can be inflicted by a fair and honest competiton.—(Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said he should not detain the House above two miuutes—(Hear, hear)—while he made a few observations with respect to those made by the Right lion. Gentleman in answer to his Noble Friend; and whilst he made one more effort to induce Hon. Gentlemen to enter into the same lobby as he himself should, be cause he believed that the case which his Honourable Friends were advocating that night was really the ohjoct of the working classes.—(Cries of " Hear, h ear.") Theßig laidhtlitohneougrruebaletestGesntrtelesms aunponhatdhe pe rorationitnemipntaatio which the trade was liable to, in regard to smuggling, as well as the responsibility which her Majesty's Go vernment possessed in struggling with that dark power, which with the protection of 30 per cent., baffled as it would seem all the efforts of her Majesty's Ministers.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But what they wished to in quire of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, how they suc cessfully struggled against the smuggler, who had an inducement to carry on his trade by the 1200 per cent. placed upon tobacco, and 250 per cent. which was placed upon tea.—(Protectionist cheers.) When they heard of those stories of the extraordinary power and achieve ments of the smugglers, with respect to the silk trade, he was at a loss to know where the Right Hon. Gentle man obtained his information, unless it were from that celebrated individual—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—who he (Mr. D'lsraeli) observed had lately paid a visit to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade—(Great laughter)—he meant the fortunate Mr. Campden. He (Mr. Disraeli) knew not whether her Majesty's At torney-Gereral had assisted at that interview, but it seemed quite clear that the Treasury Bench on this and on previous discussions had profited by that acquaint ance.—(Hear, and laughter.) Now the Right Hon. Gentleman had turned to the situation—the too pitiable situation—of the silk trade in 1812, and while he had dilated upon the miseries which the operatives of that trade had endured in the year 1812, he had turned round to the House and said, "See what protection has produced."—(Hear, hear.) He had said to the Hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr, Disraeli's) side of the House, do you wish to bring back or rather to perpetuate tinch a state of things as this ? Why, the working classes of this country he said had nothing to suffer so much from as protection. Why, it was during the period of the terrible war, he believed, that wheat was sold at 1208. the quarter.—(Opposition cheers.) It was a period almost as unfortunate for all trades as that very period to which the Right Honourable Gentleman had referred—he meant the period 1816, which remained as unprecedented for the general commercial depression of the country —(Hear, hear)—and those were the instances, the answers, and the arguments that were brought for ward against his Noble Friend (Lord George Bentinck), and thus he supported his argument by economical prin ciples, as flagrant as his historical fallacies, which were opposed by all the social experience they possessed.— (Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman referred to knubbs and husks, and while dilating on the importance and the value of that article, he said what does it signify if it employs labour and produces a great demand.—(Hear.) Observe, in the first place, knubbs and husks are no more to be accounted silk, than a sheep-skirt is to be accounted wool.—(Cheers.) But to work up 2,ooolbss of raw silk would employ per week 800 people, and concluding from this datum, to which he be lieved he might pledge himself for its accuracy, t o work up the whol e 1,700 , 0001b 5 . i mporte d would occupy in one year only 1,200, while to man t is facture the same quantity of the good material would employ for the same length of time 13,000 persons.-- (Elear, hear.) Now he would leave it to the House to make its own deductions on the relative valite of the two articles in the trade and their respective proluce.—(Hear.) Then the Hon. Gentlemen accounted for the increase of their exports by alleging that it was the effect of the increase of duty on the raw material. Whatwas the fact? That increase aulowtted to the one-twentieth of a penny.