The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-08 00:00:00

empire was composed of adamant, it would be crushed to
pieces by political economists. He gave his solemn ne-
gative to the proposition.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY was opposed to the proposition,
because he thought the kelp-manufacturer an infant ma-
nufacturer, and therefore standing in need of encourage-
ment. The British alkali was composed of salt and sul-
phuric acid, awl the carriage of the materials to form these
employed three times as many tons of shipping as were
employed in the carriage of the barilla. He begged the
House to consider the propriety of a gradual reduction of
duty instead of a large reduction at once, in effect, giving
protection to foreigners.
Mr. ROBINSON cordially supported the proposition,
and thought the eons( quences of it had been ridiculously
over-rated. Even if what had been ,aid about the effect
it would have upon the kelp-manufacturers were true
—which it was not—still their interests ought not to
be put in competition with the interests of commerce ge-
nerally, nor even with the interests of the manufacturers
and consumers of soap.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that his Right Hon.
Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade had done
quite right. It was, in fact, making the chymical engine
with which the manufacturers had to work as cheap as
possible. If they made the proper article dearer, they
would compel the manufacturer to have recourse to an in-
ferior article as a substitute. He begged to state fur the
benefit of the Hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler,)
that by giving the manufacturer all the prime engines fin•
his use, they took the surest mode of furnishing employ_
ment for labour.
___ _

Sir JOHN BURKE, admitting the principles bit
down by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, wal
still rather inclined to proceed with caution.

An Hon. MEMBER recommended that they should revert
to the former drawback rather than adopt the proposed
measure.

Mr. SYKES supported the motion. If political eco-
nomy were at all like the doctrines of the Hon. Member
for Newark (Mr. Sadler), it would indeed deserve all that
Hon. Member said against it. He always remarked that
people who were most violent in their abuse of political
economy, were sure to have some absurd notion of legis-
lation of their own. It was so obvious that the present
proposition must give employment to labour, that the only
satisfactory solution of the ground which the Hon. Mem•
her for Newark had taken, was that the Hon. Member
might have an opportunity of railing at the political
economists.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
detain the House many minutes. The Hon. Member for
Newark had spoken with much zeal and declamation re-
specting the poverty that existed in the country ; but la-
menting that poverty as much as man could, still allow him
to say that the course which the Hon. Member for Newark
advocated would add to, and not diminish it.—(Hear.) It
was a great mistake to suppose that the measure of his Right
Hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade
would destroy the kelp manufacturers ; and it was well
known that wherever kelp and barilla were applicable to
the same purposes, the barilla, even now, drove the kelp out
of the market. He was surprised to hear the Hon. Member
for Newark say, that there was nothing which free trade
had touched which it had not destroyed. The extension of
the silk trade, and of other trades, to which the principles
of free trade had been, in some degree applied, quite dis-
proved that assertion. He denied that the introduction of
barilla, at the duty proposed, would have the effect of de-
stroying the manufacture of kelp. The reason why British
barilla was not employed in the slap trade was, because it
imparted a sulphurous smell to the soap, and it was there-
fore of importance to that trade that the foreign barilla
should be imported at a cheap rate.
_ _

Mr. Alderman WAITIBIAN denied that there had been
any real or prosperous extension of the silk trade on account
of the application of the principles of free trade.
11r. :,ADLER maintained that the principles of free
trade could not be Justly or fairly applied to a country en-
eumstanced as this was. If this country were upon the
same footing with ether countriea, no man would be
more ready than he would then be to advocate a free and
unrestricted commercial intercourse with regard to all
possible sorts of raw and manufactured produce. If it
were in his power, be would rather support than oppose
Ministers.

Mr. MABERLY said that any person who had any
thing to do with practical concerns must be aware that
the arguments of the Hon. Member for Newark, with
regard to the employment of the poor, were most fallaci-
ous. He would say to that Hon. Member, let him bring
that question before the House in the shape of a motion,
and let the subject be thoroughly sifted to the bottom,
and he (Mr. Motherly) would engage that that Hon.
Member's arguments and statements would receive a com-
plete and most triumphant answer.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL conceived that the Hon.
Member for Abingdon, with all *his ability, was a little
mistaken if he supposed that he could answer in two
minutes a speech of two hours. He (Sir E. Knatchbull)
was satisfied with the explanation of the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) as far as the
Government was concerned. A recurrence, however, of
such a precedent should be prevented. This was a dif-
ferent question for those who were out of office, and who
never expected to be in office, and for those who were in.
and those who were contending to get in again ; and it
was one with regard to which the House ought distinctly
to assett its privileges. For his part he would say, that
as long as the Government continued to support the bona
fide interests of the country, they should have his support.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON stated, that from the in-
formation which he had received on this subject, and
which was totally different from that mentioned by the
Hon. Member for Newark, he could deny that the conse-
quence had been that 40,000 people had been thrown out
of employment in Scotland. He should support the re-
solutions. The keeping up the duty on the raw produce
materially affected the manufactured article.
Mr. ATTWOOD said, that he, should certainly vote
against the resolutions, for he had not heard a single con-
vincing fact or argument urged from the other side of the
House in support of them. The country was in a de-
plorable state, and they would be allowed to seek for the
cure foe all its various evils in the nostrums of political
economy alone. They had come, it seemed, to the last
refinement of Government,—when the Government was
confided to philosophers. The Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, in what he had done, bad usurped the functions
of that House, of which it ought to be peculiarly jealous.
Having committed such an error, instead of bringing for-
ward resolutions likq, the present, Ministers out to have in-
troduced a Bill of Indemnity, stating the grounds upon
which they had interfered where the House of Commons
should alone be competent to interfere, and seeking for an
acquittal from the House, instead of compelling the Honse
to register the acts of political imbecility.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER depre-
cated further discussion upon what had already been ad-
mitted to have been an error.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was necessary to give a
latitude in such cases to Government, but which ought
never to be exercised but upon necessity, and when that
necessity could be explained to the House. The question
was totally distinct from that of free trade, and it stood
upon its own merits.
Mr. BERRIES said, that the question was simply
whether the duty on barilla were too high or not, and it
bad no relation to the question of free trade.
Mr. HUME thought that the question did involve that
Of free trade, and that, upon the principle of free trade,
barilla ought to be relieved from duties. The measures
pursued respecting the silk trade was a triumphant answer
to those who argued against the reduction of the duty
upon barilla.
Sir G. CLERK said that he hoped when the question
was next under discussion, to have the assistance of the
President of the Board of Controul, who in 1804 had con-
tributed to raise the duty upon barilla.
Mr. HUNT said that as he had always intended to vote
on one side or the other of every question, he should now
state why he intended to give a vote in favour of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers. As soon as he understood the point at
issue, it was that Ministers had committed an error, and
now that they bad explained, there was an end to it, espe-
cially when be found that the opposition Members had
made errors of a similar description.—(Cries of " No,
no.")—" Then," said the Hon. Member, " I am in
error."—(A laugh.)—He had called the attention of the
public to the question, but having made further inquiries
into the subject, he found that he had made allusions which
he ought not to have done. He now regretted that the
whole duty was not taken off.
After a few words from Mr. G. RoSINSON, Mr. SLA-
NEy, Mr. MORRISON, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. Alderman
WAITIIMAN, the clause was carried; and the Bill having
passed through the Committee, the report was ordered to
be received on Wednesday next.
The House then resumed.
FINANCE.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gay
notice that upon Friday next he intended to state the views
of his Majesty's Ministers upon several financial questions.
The House then proceeded to the Orders of the Day.
Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion which he intended
to make to-morrow, respecting the Militia.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from the inhabitants
of St. John's, Clerkentren, praying for an abolition of the
Corn Laws.
Mr. HUNT postponed his moti r a repeal of