The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-24 00:00:00

were to have fetalrarleirinrn, they engirt so hate free trtsJe
leeee - ,I.r2;_•7ll('S`C 1.17%; r.rl that it caght
11:E.t,'3 he e fr.c, From or
interference of the reeisemnn;
Lord ASHBURTON said the Noble Earl who had just sat
down, had said that this was but the part of that one great
question, the repeal of the duty on the importation of foreign
corn. It was certainly a past of the great question, " Shall
we protect our native industry ?"—Hear, hear.) In that
respect then, ' he agreed that this question was
part of the question of free trade. The question
for their consideration was whether they should protect the
cultivation of their own land—whether their home industry
should be protected as far as the cultivation of hops. After
that, they would go into the question of shoes, boo.ts, and all the
different articles of home manufacture. The question, as it
had been laid before their Lordships by the Noble Earl opposite,
and those who held the same opinions, was whether the manu-
facturers, &c., of foreign countries should be preferred to the
labouring population of our own country. In that respect he
agreed with the Noble Earl, that it was c-ne question only, and
that was, what they caged free-trade.
The Earl of RADNOR said, that the cultivation of hops
was avo,. edly a gambling speculation. A very extensive
hop-grower in the county of Kent had told him to about two
years ago ; and he knew that it was the opinion amongst hop
growers elsewhere, that that business was entirely a gambling
speculation. bone year a man might realise by his hops several
hundred round?, and in the next year he might be aitnost
ruined. And,-with respect to the wages paid to the labouring
classes in the hop-growing counties, le cot Id assure their
Lordships, that so low 'were the wages paid to them, that they
were in the most abject state of pauperism before the carrying
out of the late Act 1, r the amendment of the poor-laws. The
wages in those parts of the country were, on the average, loss
than those paid in any other part of the kingdom.
Earl STAN HOPE admitted that the duties on malt ought
to be repealed, but he contended, at the same time, that the
people of this country, from one extremity to the other, were of
opinion that the Government ought at once to repeal the duties
also on tee, coffee, soap, and all such necessary articles of do-
mestic consumption.
The article was then agreed to without a division.
On the article lace being read,
Earl STANHOPE rose for the purpose of giving hisdecided
objection to the reduction of the duty upon its importation, be.
lieving, as he did, that of the- articles in the tariff this was un-
doubtedly the one on which the duty should not be repealed.
The reduction of the duty on the article of lace would inter-
fere most unjustly with the poorer portion of the labouring
classes of this country, and more especially those resident in
the county of Buckingham. Into whatever cottage their Lord-
ships might enter in that county, they would find that the
wives and children of the labouring classes were engaged in the
manufacture of lace.' And what would be the consequences
if their Lordships consented to repeat the duty on this article?
The labouring classes of the people of Devonshire were largely
employed in the manufacture of lace. The wages at present
were as low as six shillings per week, and yet, low as that re-
muneration was, the Government proposed to deprive the poor
people of it. In Buckinghamshire the wages per week allowed
to a woman and one or two children', at resent, amounted to
twelve shillings, and ore that remuneration the labouring
classes in that part of the country chiefly depended for their
livlihood. The proposal of her Majesty's Government, how-
ever, was that those poor people should be deprived of their
present remnant of protection. If there was one article more
than another on which the duty should not be repealed he con-
tended that that article was lace.—(Hear, hear.) He felt
strongly upon this point, and he was determined to take the
sense of the House upon the question.
The Duke of RICHMOND—His Noble Friend had said
most truly, that of all other articles included in the tariff, that
of lace was pre-eminently the one on which the duty should not,
for the protection of the interests Of the labouring people of
Buckinghamshire, &c., be repealed. At the present moment
the wives of the labouring classes of that part of the
country were employed in their own cottages in the
manufacture of lace, and their Children were instructed by them
in everything pertaining to industry and morality.—(Hear,
hear.) Those habits of industry enabled the families at present
to purchase all the necessaries of life. Lace was an article
of luxury, and not necessary for any one. But what would be
the effect of this proposed repeal of the duty thereon on the
children of these earties? They would be deprived of educe-
:is, clothing, and the comforts of life, which they now en-
joyed. But, of course, his Noble Friend was prepared to obey
the orders of his bislem—Sir Robert Peel—(Laughter)—in.
everything, and it could not be expected that he would be per-
suaded to withdraw his consent from any measures of the Pre-
mier. He (the Duke of Richmond) sheuld have the greatest
satisfaction of voting with his Noble Friend.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that it wculd have been
more appropria' e, perhaps, if the Noble Duke bad termed Sir
Robert Peel bis ( the Earl of Dalhousie's) moderator instead of
bishop, as he happened to be a Presbyterian. But he denied
that he fell. wed Sir Robert Peel in enything that did not
appear to him (the Earl of Dalhousie) to be just and reason-
al.le.—( Hear, hear.) Those engaged in the manufacture of
lace would not, in his opinion, be injured in the least by the
passing of this measure.

Lord STANLEY looked upon this measure not as one cal-
culated, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, to benefit
the people of t Lis country, but merely as a measure to fill the
coffers of the revenue. That had been the effect
of the measure of 1842, and he had no doubt that this
Mil was ',sought forward with the expectation that
similar results wont follow the passing of this measure.
He did hope that the House would not consent to the proposed
reduction. They were dealing with a matter which, if it
might be one of indifference to the revenue, was not so by any
means to the parties concerned, who were women and chil-
dren. And he would ask the House to deal in the same manner
with this article as they bad done with regard to made-up
goods.

- Earl D ILHOITSIE hoped that the House would adopt the
suggestion of the Noble Lord, and deal with lace as they had
crone with made-up goods, and that would be by not agreeing
to the amendment proposed, but by imposing a rate of ten per
cent. ad vac rem. In his opinion Mr. Deacon Hume never
went so fares to assert that 25 per cent. could give them
the same amount of protection as 20 per cent.
Lord STANLEY—Mr. Deacon Hume says that merchants
and traders will be willing to pay the 25 per cent. sooner than
run the risk of paying. 20 to the smuggler, and that the revenue
will not suffer at the 25 per cent.—( Heir, hear.)
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that Mr. Deacon Hume never
said that the same per centage of duty would secure them in
every article. He was sure that Mr. Deacon Hume never said
that such would be the effect with regard to bee.—(l-leer,
hear.) It might be so with regard to some buiky article, such
es co,n, but not in that of a lighter texture, such as that which
they were at uresent discussing. He was very much connected
with ree.,uniry wheio :La lace.trade existed. End_he considered
that. there was no employment less conducive to the moral cul-
ture of the young than this very manufacture. The trade was
not carried on in the houses of fathers and mothers, but in
manufact-ries, _and it' also unfitted the women employed in it
for any other kind of work.

The Earl of GALLOWAY said it Vasa grievance in this
country that parents were too apt to employ their children in
such occupations as the lace manufactures from motives of cu-
pidity, and that at a time when those children should be at
school. He was aware of many who, from being thus early
employed, were totally ignorant of every other subject, acd
were not even capable of Mending their own clothes.—(Hear,
hear.) He wou:d therefore support the reduction.
After a few words from Earl Stanhope, the Duke of Rich-
mond, and the Earl of Galloway,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw. On our re-admission
we fgund that the clause had been agreed to without any
division. _ _

Earl STANHOPE rose to object to the reduction of two-
pence per square yard on stained paper.
Lord ASHBURTON said that these reductions were the
mere pedantry of political economy. He would oppose the
reduction on the ground that it would reduce the wages of the

operative.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE did not dispute that certain
masters might take advantage of the reduction to diminish
ages, but he denied that such would be the case with the
paper stainers of the country generally.
The item was then agreed to.
SILK.

On the reduction on silk being proposed,
The Nike of RICHMOND regretted that their Lordships
did not accede to the motion he made last night, that they
should hear counsel at the bar relative to the effect of this re-
duction. He thought that the course then pursued was inju-
dicious. He would ask why counsel was not heard? Was
there a fear entertained that the case would be too strong for
them to resist ? He would ask what were the operatives to do
when the reduction took place ?
The Ea7l of GALLOWAY—Give them cheap provisions.
Duke of RICHMOND—The Noble-Earl said 'give them
cheap provisions ;" but if they had no employment and no
wages, where would be the benefit of cheap provisions?
The Earl of GALLOWAY—If all kinds of provisions were
accessible to the working classes, in proportion to their means
to purchase them, would the Noble Duke think that no be-
nefi‘

Duke of RICHMOND—That was the fallacy ofall recent
proA • elvtea to the principles of free trade. He would now
brie fly refer to the petition, and he re graied that he was s,
emp oyed during the morning that he had not time to peruse
it beforehand. The petitioners stated that a great mistake
had been made with regard to the protection of 15 per cent.
They also stated the argument as to smuggling. was either
sheer folly or intentional de7usion.—( Hear, hear.) The
gross annual value of silk goods manufactured in this
country at, present was from two to three millions
less than in 1824 —( Herr.) He would detain their Lord-
ships no further upon the subject, hut he thought when a large
ela=s of the humble classes of this country esked to be heard
against a reduction which affected their interests they ought to
hare been heard. He thought that when another Government
came into office, they would be obliged for the sake of the
revenue, to put on seine of those duties which it was now pro-
posed to take off. He would in conclusion move that the item
on silk be omitted.

After a few words in explanation from the Earl of GAL-
LOWAY and the Duke of BUCCLEUCII,
The Earl of DAL iOUSIE regretted that he felt himself
called upon last night to oppose the motion of the Noble Duke,
but his reason for doing so was because he considered
it Would be 'establishing a precedent which on future
occasions . would materially interfer with public bizsines.
Flo did , not think, however, that petitioners suffered
any loss from counsel on their behalf not having been heard
at the bar, as the case had been ably advocated by the Noble
Duke on the cross-benches. He would now refer to the duties
on the article of silk. The mode of levying the duties on this
article was a matter of extreme difficulty, arising from the
varieties, and the very delicate differences which-prevailed in the
manufactured articles. It was impossible to levy a duty ad
tuba ens, for in that case it must have been necessary to have
examined the separate parcels, so great was the variety. But
that would have involved a loss of time to the officers employed
and to those interested in the manu!acture ; and much more
this practice would h-ive proved destructive to articles of so
very delicate manufacture as some of them were. If, however,
,they levied the duty not ad valorem, but according to the
weight of the article, that would have raised the objections
so common •in interfering with commercial transactions,
that they would be raising the highest duty on the heaviest
article, although that article would generally be found the worst.
It. had been attempted on that account to make a classification,
and. to give the parties concerned the option of a duty ad valo-
rem, or according to weight. Since the year 1824 (the year in
which a great change was made in this trade), it was found
that the existing classification was become exceedingly unequal.
Anew classification had therefore been made up ; silks and
satins and ribbons were placed on tables by themselves,
,tlhice,
value of these separate articles was ascertainec
When he stated
different descriptions Of fabres, whether plain oir,fiagnudretdhe
dfuty
t. on the average value.
• that the duty had been
these articles must, be of a higher value, and
aware that some of
pedr cen
imposed on the average valne, he was
duty on them must be somewhat less than 15
I other Band that some .ut them of a lower
per cent., and on t.-e
hipper rate of duty than ,the 15
of these articles the merchant
valve. must IleCessarilY ply a.
per cent. But on the whole
duty of 15 Per Cont. These re-
will find that he has p
wthaastfitheedreaftoriest he .
d to the department
ma Pln consequence of representationson
nected, by the
with which he (Earl-,Dalhousie) was c
marks applied to breadto slysa,iatins,' and silk g&rze and ribbons. •
manufacturers of Co .entry and 1 the Member for; the place,
these parties had Been put in Communieatioi with the proper
officers of the department. And Classifications and modifica-
tions had been-made, which he understood were quite satisfac-
tory t i the parties. IL,
hearing counsel at the tar (Earlwas
conducted, and the examination of an array of witnesses would
not have led their Lordalio one
til a Dt
thealh o
argument.usie 's )
hou e
v fore r ably not
nit nearer the point which