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

,LUN DON, TUESDA j M.QRYING, MARCH 17, 1846.

account for- every -year should-beplaced on theltible_of
th, H,,nse: He Could read the result as far as it affect-
ed the principal ports, showing ;hat the extension
.of
trade had been co•extensiv°e with the repeal of these
duties.

LONDON.
In 1842 the ships from foreign parts that en-
tered the port of London, were
In 1845 ...
Th., goods entered in• 1842 were
In 1845 ...

... 6,379
... 7,521
• ... 484,000
• 567,0u0

LIVERPOOL.
DI 1842 the ships e.at eut*red, this port were
In 1845 ...
In 1842 the goods that entered were
In 1845

NEWCASTLE.
In 1842 the ships that entered this port were
In 1842 the goods that entered a ere ...
In 1845 ... ...

DtTnati.
In 1642 the ships that entered this port were
In 1845
In 1842 the goods entered were ... ...
In 1845 ...
Now he would go to Scotland:—

DUNDEE.
In 1842 the ships that entered here were
In 1845 ... ... ... • ...
In 1841 the goods that entered were .
In 1845 ...

GLASGOW.

312
415
7,042
9,645

In 1842 the ships that entered this Fort were 280
In 1845 ... ... ... 418
In 1842 th, goods that entered were ... 212,000

In 1845 ... ... 307,000
This showed the great increase which had taken place
in the foreign trade of the country in the three years
since the passing of the Act ta1842, compared with
what it hat been .previously, •
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought down certain
Bids. After some delay,
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION.
The House then proceeded with the further considera-
tion of the report as to the Customs and Corn Impor-
'tation.
Oe the question of the reduction
-of the duty on hops,
Mr. PLUMPTRE wished to call the attention of the'
House to the effect that the measures of the Government
would have upon the hop-growers of Kent, Sussex, and
'orcester. • They considered that a protective duty of
255. per cwt., as proposed, would do the greatest injury-
to the home grower. Those accputinted with the growth
of hops must know that 'some time was required to
bring plantations into a' peeper, state for their growth.
This delay was attended with expense, as buildings had
to be erected for drying them. Between 20,000 or.
30.000 acres were occupied in the growth of hops.in
Kent &one. He could not speak of the extent
to which -they were grown in other counties,
but he knew that those plantations gave em-
ployment to great numbers of men, and their wives and
children, 'who were paid on the average 8L per acre
more than those employed on arable lands. But if
they allowed the importation of foreign hops, great num-
bers •would be thrown out of employment, and large
tracts of land in Kent and other counties, in which hops
were now grown, would be turn, d into arable land. The
hop grower considered that if the preient duty of 455.
was to be reduced, -that the Excise duties which they
were compelled to pay must be remitted, because, if
they reduced the duty to 25s per cwt., and retained the
Excise duty, then they would be compelled to discharge
their workpeople, and the vast sums of money
which they h,d eiperided in the cultivation of the
article would be lost. The hop growers of East Kent
obtained a better price for their hops than those of Sus-
sex, who would, therefore, be, more seriously affected
than the former. He therefore earnestly entreated the
Government to give the subject further consideration.
There were ten pounds paid on an acre of hops to the
labourer alone who worked upon it. If they were to
put an end to the hop plantations by this reduction of
du y, it would throw a great many persons out of em-
ployment who had no - other means of gaining a living.
There was another point to which he would advert. and
that was, that as the proposed reduction would. injure
the grower. of hops, her Majesty's Ministers would-reduce
the present excise duty.
Sir R. PEEL did tot know that he could add any-
thing to what he had said to the Honourable. Member
for Sussex. When the duty on hops was reduced at a
former period, it was then said that the reduction would
materially diminish the growth in this country. The
United States grew hops, and they were an article which
did not benefit by a long voyage, and this country would
only have to compete with America in a very small de-
gree. Considering the small amount the Americans
would import into this country, and the great expense of
the long voyage, he did hot consider there wag -any in=
jury to be apprehended.
.He could add nothing more
to what had been already said, but with great respect for
his Noble Friend he- could not_ consent to. the reduction
of the excise duty on lonise
Mr. .FULLER said that the repeal of the corn-laws
was bad enough, but to take off the duty on hops wonld
be still worse. The Government ought to repel the
malt duty which pressed on the industrious classes,- and
was highly injurious .to the agricultural interest ; but
whether they did or not, he -wholly concurred in the
opinion that that tax could not endure one single year
after the repeal of the corn-laws.
Colonel Al.J.,TEN.thtmght it was unnecessary to put
English hop growers in competition with the: American
hop-growers. He'had been informed, by a gentleman
engaged in the cultivation of hops, that if the Govern-
ment would allow of a sufficiently low.eltity to let in
foreign hops, he would send over his own cultivators,
and export hops from that country into Eagland.
Mr. KNIGH as a Member fora hop-growing county,
could not allow the proposed reduction of the duty to
pass without comment. It' appeared to him that any
relaxation in the duty would distress the English'grower
very much, because he paid the duty before the hops were
dry, while the foreign grower would pay the duty only
on the hops that were already dried and sorted. He
understood that hops imported from Belgium had been
offered in the river at 21, 25. per cwt., but they were
excluded from being brought in; owing to the duty
being 41 4s. per cwt. If, however, the proposed duty
had been in force, 'these hops would have been brought
in to the great detriment of the English grower. He
found that the average
price of hops had been 51. 9s. 2d.
This was not a very high price,. but, he would argue,
'that if fori.ign'lMPs could be brought into the river at
'2l; 2s. the addition of the proposed duty making. 4/. 7S.
per cwt., this price would be far under what the Eng-
lish hop-grower had been able to accomplish,
or never would be able to • accomplish, The con-
sequence would be that a very large 'proportion
!of the hop land would be 'thrown out of cultivation, and'
many labourers would- be• compelled to give up their
employment. Supposing the hop grounds to be broken,
up—and such he was assured would be the case--ewhat
would become of-these unfortunate people ? They must
become burdens on- their 'parishes, iu the same way as
when any branch of. trade was suddenly given up in a
manufacturing town. Its' the hop districts the wages of
the labourer were generally very good, much superior to
the wages . given to any other class of agricultural
labourers. The hop grOunds were perfect gardens,
and he was much in hopes, before the preseat free-trade
measures of the Government were introduced, that the
whole .of. England, with proper attention, would have
become one large garden. He sincerely hoped the
Right Honourable Baronet would not reduce the price so
low as to prevent the Eegl:sh hop growers from culti-
vating the plant. The Right Honourable Gentleman
had dsignated the hoparatie as a eambling speculation.
It was to a certain -extent a speculation, because :the
value of the crops could never be ascertained before-
hand, and it was perfectly true that none but men of
'capital could embark the trade, so that they could
season, but the real question was, shill we ruin those men
be prepared to bear .11p
or shall we not ? Another consideration was, that in
the hop districts upwards of a million and a half yards
of canvas cloth were consumed for the purpose of
against the exigency of a bad
making bags, and ten thousand tons of coals were an-
nually
.used in order to kiln dry, and clean the hops.
The censumption of canvas and coals must neceasssrily
be diminished if the hop trade is destroyed. He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet- would remove altogether the
excise duty on hops, if foreign hops were to be admitted
at a reduced duty. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
wanted to give the poor man cheap beer, let him take off
the duty on malt, and he would have the power entirely
in his own hands.
Mr. Alderman IIUMPHERY said the hops were
sold as soon' as they• were grown, and the merchant
bought them generally at 'a -high price before the new
crops were sown. lie did not think there was any
r'eas'on to fear that liops-grown in America would com-
pete with those that were grown in Kent: • .
Mr..HOPE observed that
sea the cultivation of hops
boP growerseoitheety-e%reerneottr,.a
rt°drers
The same care and
attention that procured agood c
'roervearses which attended
pewsear
well
mpaeoei: speaking,
uncertainn cultivators.g,' cu l iv as tpGoerecsui olearf
speculation. The
one year, would not
insure a similar result on. the following year. Hop
profitable year in
a bed season. The English, growers depended on the
surplus that attended their favourable years. Hop
,;rowers
growers, without a capital, were not able to stand a
order
to
enable looked t
ht to
them
theto
meets u r p ltuhse
run of bad seasons ; but the hop grower, who had
a capital, was able. to lay up his harvest in a plentiful
season, and sell it at a fair price in a scare, one, to enable
him to meet its deficiencies. But, with free trade in hope,
such a course would be no longer open to him • he
would be obliged to sell, no matter at what sacrifice 4
This he thought established the case for protection--
waving, for the time being, the peculiar difficulties at-
tendeat on the cultivation of the hop. • But when they
remembered that it payed the enormous excise duty of
two-pence per pound, and when they -considered the
'great uncertainty of the produce—the grower ever de-
pending on the superflaity of one season to enable him to
meet the deficiency of the next—surely they could not.
but reckon it et very great hardship to cliininish the pro-
tection upon this plant in the least particular.—(Hear,
hear.)
_For hs own part he considered the. Excise duty
as the greatest evil inthcted on the hop culti-
vlttor, and if aidled a free trade''!:o hops,
let them fir t remove the dutee—(Lond• cheers.) lie
understood that at the very present moment a merchant
gave a large order for American hops, which he would
be able to bring into the market at a much cheaper rat(
than thoscof home growth, and he was 'informed that
the cargo was at present at Lloyd's.--(Hear, hear.) -• In
the part of the country where he lived land let at ten
shillings an acre, and the price of the agricultural
lab Curer was twelve shillings a week all the year round
—(Hear, hear.)—for in winter they were employed in
cutting wood to prepare for the harvest ; and during the
five or six weeks that the latter lasted the wages
were a great' deal more, not- taking into account
that every one.of a whole family Wete employed,e from
the youngest to. the eldest. Let them .tak.o protection
from. cite Oop-greiTer, tad the reodt would be that the

land_would be thrown ont of cultivation, and these ad-
vantases 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 of gambling. They ought to remember that
hops were of perrennial growth, and that once planted
they must be t eated as trees ; he, therefore, considered
the', under all these circumstances, the Government
should be exceedingly cautious heft re 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 ad enormous duty to the
excise, in the same proportion did it demand en increased
amount of protection.
Mr. H. FREWEN said that the Right Hon. Baronet
had 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 large 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 his 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 piotec-
thin 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-
soarte system of prOteetion, persons of small 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 iu hops, they must remembr that
the Government has not put the foreign trader on an
equal footing 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 Si. to 381. per cwt. ? or should the
excise, for the sake of maintaining a protection, lost.
220,000 L 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 nut paid until
several months after—and he was often not called upon
to pay for a considerable time after he had sold the crop.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that there 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 industry.—(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 Loret
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., avid they had saved
52,6321. 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 ,bop='
grower to bond his hops. A Gentleman from Kentwall
assured him (Lord nentinck) that under the regulation
of tLe excise, he paid in 1836, 18s.8d. a hundred weight
on 15} tons, and the year being a plentiful o'ne, he
held over his store, which he was eventually 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 prose? 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 44
For retaining it 9l

Majority
The next article was boots and shoes
Mr. KNIGH 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 is. 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. ou
an 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 .teed not, therefore,
fear 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
homes, 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. Ile 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 experience
4,11 this subject, nor had received any instructions upon
it from his constituents (who were nevertheless inter-
restest 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 far from the reductions which had been
made by Mr. Huskisson, benefiting the trade, they had
the effect of materially 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 fir 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 Hen. 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 ho 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 to 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-
tings. It sat, therefore, from the Ist of March to.tho
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 examine:l, and who still remained for examination,
prevented them from doing more than laying before the
Home the evidence which they had taken.: With the
impressions which he entertained in consequence of that
evidence, he would, had he been a anember 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 bad he sat in the /louse far
several years afterwards. Had this been the case it would
not have been his (Mr. Banked') 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, it ho did not mistake, Sir E. L.
Bulwer. A majority of the Members had made up their
minds to a d vision 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 casting one) were the Members who were guided by
the evidence defeats d.—(Hear, hear.) That was suffi-
cient to. show that there had bet n no report worthy the
consideirelion of the House. Ilad the report of the lion.
Members who—took his. (Air. &tikes) side of the ques-
tioai Wen varied, it would have sholvßtiurt, to far from

. -47

Mr. Huskisson's experience being favourable to that
'article breciainnerce (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 comforts and luxuries of life. He would
prove, however, that during six years subsequent to this
change, their wages had fallen -very materially. This
'he would prove by quoting the evidence taken before the
Committee. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read
from the evidence of Mr. William Bruwskiil, the silk and
ribbon manufacturer of Spitaltields, which went to
show that great distress had been occasioned
by the competition which had taken piece
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 Dirge 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 1541 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 mss 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 45..6d.,
and the wages of the other persons were also compara-
tively 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 'emnaoiewith others, the results of the measure. Well,
they might be so inclined, for by their wealth they would
146 able to bear up for five or six years against any de-
pression' which might ensue; but would the poor labourer
'—the poor workirg 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 or
the great manufacturers in that House, and they would,
no'deubt, express their opinions upon the question. He.
should be glad to hear how they would get over that
which applied to , the working"men. The weaver from
Spitalfiehls, whose evidence he had quoted, was himself
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 bad
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 foreigners 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 the 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 working classes to
know that they were greatly dissatisfied with having.
now half the wages they got before such a reduction of
duty had taken place. . It might be said that no such
great teduction 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 a but he
would read to the House the opinions of the operatives
employed in the manufacturing districts. At a pablic
'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 lie 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 Rebert 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
I 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 tower is free
trade always brought injury of the most serious character
upon the manufacturing labourer.—(Hear, hear.) The
same speaker'mentioned the names of two Hon. Members
of that House, great manufacturers, as having made
lare-e fortunes by continually reducing the wages of their
workmen. The names of the Hon. Members were
publicly given, but ho (Mr. Baulics) 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.' hiuskisson
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."
The next speaker was a Mr. Field, and he gave'ex-
pressions to sentiments.to the same effect; he lidded 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."—.-(Latighter.)
Another meeting was held upon the same day in another
town; of hand-weavers, which sentiments of a like
character were expressed. Now, if' he found this
language held at Manchester, was he not bound to be-
lieve 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 belenged to the working classes that their
statements were to be disregarded.—(Hear, hear.)
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 Spitaltield 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 inreference
to the cord-laws. He would now ask this Hoillie to look
at the returns which had been made to it by the Inspec-
tor of factories, Mr. Saunders, in the year 1845. That
[louse had the inspection of a district embracing Derby-
shire, Hampshire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Surrey,
and York, -and a portion
.of that report was to this
effect :—That between the years • 1838 and 1845, the
comparative increase and decrease of mills in those dis-
tricts, as cbmpared with his 'former inquiry, was, that
in the year 1838, there were 304 cotton-mills in the dis-
trict, and in the year.lB4s, there were 361, showing an
increase of 59' mills in that tin elB 45 Of woothere wl mil
em ls there
were, in 1838, 566 mills ; n , ,
olwi3rsi ,
3 showing ns
si increase ; e
in
nf 89
. 1845, 04f38, worsted
showing millsa n there
increasewe of
in 8
50 mills in that trade. There were 59 flax mills in 1838,
and 65 in 1815, showing nn 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 onle
one which had 'decrees e.l during than period.—(Hear.
hear.) The same returns exhibited the number of
children employed at 13,000, only 800 of wva.ohni
were employed in the silk trade in Lancashire.
gthierbse.ielnk me
xi)t.
nthuefnachtuerive-r(T,lwdhsna3h,,atdhabteehne'id.,!pdonrto:dfi.
ans htani stn
the kingdom. It was true he
pelled from London, had established themselves ia
any other part of
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
branchea of the silk trade ; but he (Mr. Bankes) begged
again to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman thai
it was the question of wages exclusively to wh;ch
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 kss than halt
of that paid them in the would
1824." He (Mr. Banker)
hoped that those wages would be found to be higher
elsewhere. The author then went on to say, that the
grass value of silk goods eaported in that year from
England, would be found to 'be less by 2,000,000 ot
3,000,000 than they werein the year 1824. The author
then went into detail, and he stated that the export of
to France from England consisted chiefly of coarse
yarn or twist; while that which was imported from
Fiance to this country congaed ot theory finest fabrics.
The value of the article exported from England to France
did net exceed 7s. 6d. per paund, while that which was'
imported from France to England, exeeeded• in value
ees. per lb,, and that lie- conceived sufficiently marked
the differeace in the value. Then the author went Oirtt:i
state that the total gross valu.e.oe silk goods exportee
from England to France, in the year 1814, did not ex-
ceed 16.9,6901, while the gross value of the.same article'
imported front France to. England, exceeded 1,000,0001.
sterling. New, not having a practical knowledge of this
trade,. he (Mr. Baakes) would notonter much further
upon the subject, but he would direct the earnest atten-
tion of the House to these facts, arid 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, urged their case upon the consideration of the.
.Right Hon. Baronet, he (Sir R. Peel) adnaittal that the
county which he (Mr. Bankes) represented bad suffered
much by :reason of the depregiatioaeof Van silk trade,
'caused by. the 414%1049u of Waal .and ;ga1:40401.y.

But he (Mr. Bankes) begged to assure the Bight Hon.
Baronet that the manufacture of throwing silk could be
quite as well and as profitablf Carried on' by the use of
water power as that of steam. Therefore it was not the
fact that the loss sustained by his constituency heel been
owing to the introduction of steam. In the county
which he represented there were at one th.aa
400 silk-throwing mills, which gave employment:
to a great number of peopleebut 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 es of the tariff, lest he might dee
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 Ole 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 cf 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 rote
against it, though he had never attended the pro-
' ceedings of the Committee at all.—(Hear, hear.)
He hail no doubt but that the Vice-president of the Board
cf. 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 se, let them be so.—
(Cheers.) In conclusion, he (Mr. Bankes) begged to
say he would divide the House upon this point as it
.mooted many other articles, all of which wore in some
measure connected with the article of silk.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BUIS (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 of polite, when he gave them full crelit for the
sincerity of ..their statements.—(Hear.) But the ques-
tion then was not considered; they turned to the f nesser
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
>f silk.—(Hea,r, 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. BitOta.LEIIURST would beg contradict the
:onourable Gent inan 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-affecting the article.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROCKLEIIURST 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 herself. He
had also stated that in 'Derby and other parts of Eng-
land, silks were abundantly manufactured. Now, in his
opinion, that showed the importance of 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 fear 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 now 5,000
or 6,000 less looms in Spitalfields than formerly. The
petitioners, therefore, prayed the House to take this
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 great increase had
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
eiot consider he bad 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 bad gene 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
bad almost remained stationary. The trade, he con-
side.red, 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 its
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 CLERIC 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 eHon. Baronet, that the silk
trade had not only temporarily but permanently suf-
fered by the measure of 1824. In 1852 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 Government did not entertain the slightest
desire of increasing the duty fixed in 1824
nay, more, he wanted the Committee to declare that
duty as much too high, and as holding 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 witnesses stated then that 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 lion. 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. Member did not state that the desti-
tution 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 that
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 caprice of
fashion ; and the evil was further augmented by the
absurd regulations which prevailed with the manufac-
turers in the metropolis. It was impossible for mas-
ters to give a- higher rate than was fixed by
lueepaartii)eiguhlaerr
rtaetbeleof;
weengdee
fnoor
ammasoterer
pcaorut
ilcdu
ar intro-
ar
tiele, neither could he 'offer a lower, consequently when
led trade came on, they, not being able to alter the rate
af wages, were compelled to discharge their workmen.
Thus the trade being driven from Spitalfields, the mann-
tVeturers 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 them, be 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 they had enormously high
duties upon the raw materials. They fixed the
operatives' rate of wages at 'a . minimum value,
and thus discouraged the introduction of foreign manu-
factures. Under such a system it was impossible for the
silk trade to flourish, and they found that from the
years 1765 to 1817, during the first triennial, the silk
trade had only doubled the manufacture ; whereas, now
in the last triennial period they had more than trebled,
leaving out the water silk and the husk, so frequently
referred to by Honourable Members. They found the
raw silk imnorted 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 they ever likely to be,
manufactured in this country. He believed that there
was no cleat that British manufactures were
quite equal
in texture, quality, and ml-;orto any of the manu-
factures on the Continent, lot in point of gage the
French manufactures surpassed the British; but if they
remote d the restrictions a Melt had 'hitherto been placed
en the trade, the. British manufacturer would be able to
compete with.' the foreigner in this respeet - also. The
ne-at'braisch of the subject to which he came to was that
which related to wages: Now it was difficult to obtain
correct information upon the 9ubject of wages, for in
some case's the lebotirer was pia by the piece, while in
"others Lc received a weekly salary. It was unjust to
nelhe a cemearison bete een the wages of the
present day and those of twenty, years ego,
for although the money wages .of the present
p.t. rind were . less than those of former years
it must be remembered, that with the improvements in
the loom the labourer could tune out double the work
now to what he could twenty years ago. The Hon.
Member fer Dorsetshire had asked him to state where
the silk trade had gone to since the amount of piotec-:
tion had been removed. The Hon. Member bad 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.
gethher vias miatike4, for the removal of the restrictions
gave Acttl3k impetus ,t 9 0044,tioas ;gad o-