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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAIICII 17, 1846.

e thrown out 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 hi
the spirit of gambling. They ought to remember that
hips were of perranntal growth, and that once pl-anted
they must be treated as trees ; he, therefore, considered
than, under all these circumstances, the Government
should be exceedingly cautious before they would entirely
destroy a prodnce—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 au increased
amount of protection.
Mr. H. FREWEN said that the Right Hon. Baronet
had alluded to the great fortunes amassed by hop
growers. Nov the feet was, that although many hop
grower.; 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 lest 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. Ha 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 ESC lIEQUER 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 small capital en-
gaged in the growth of hops were, in the long run, al
most always losers.—(Hear, bear.) But when they
talked of a free trade in hops, they must remerubr that
the Government has not put the foreign trader on an
equal footing with the liwne 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 .5/. to 381. per cwt. ? or should the
excise, for the sake of maintaining a protection, lose
9.20,000/. 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 mouths after—and he was often not called upen
to pay fur a considerable time after he had sold the crop.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that there had been a

woul

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 efibrts of patient industry.—(Cheers.)
He apprehended that the hop growers were not the
gamblers—(Hear)—and therefore ho 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 bad abolished. the excise duties
on auctions, amounting to 900,0001., and 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 hop-
grower to bond his hops. A Gentleman fromlientwall
assured him (Lord Bentinck) that under the regulation
Of tl:e excise, he paid in 1836, 18s. Bd. a hundred weight
on 151 tons, and the year being a plentiful one, he
held over his store, Which he was eventually obliged to
sell for 16s. a cwt. The Chancellor of the Exchc-

quer said that in 1817 hops were 381. a cwt., but what
did he tell you ? That ho 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 293.
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 or his opinions.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw,
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For omitting the item 44
For retaining it..
Majority

-47

The next article was boots and shoes.

Mr. KNIGHT said, 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 au 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 wade
brought the duty down to 7s. 6d., and it was now pro-
posed to make it 55., which was only 20s. per cent. on
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 reed 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
wero 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 en 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 anfor,e 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
on this subject, nor had received any instructions upon
it from his constituents (who were nevertheless inter-
rested in it), yet ho 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. Huskiason, benefiting the trade, they had
the effect of material ly 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 Hon. Gentleman attended the sit-
tings eery,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 hand agreed :o appoint that— Committee were—
That
quireinto 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 the
2nd of August. Before they dissolved, they reported to
the House that they regretted tiv=3, were unable
to draw up a general report on the several matters
that bad 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
House the evidence which they had taken. With the
impressions which ho 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 beets 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 wae, it he did not mistake, Sir E. L.
Bulwar. . 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 casting 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 lion.
Members who took his (Mr. Bankes) side of the ques-
tion, been carried, it would have shown that, so far from

Mr. Huskisson's experience being favourable to that
article of commerce (silk), the contrary was the result.
I t 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 eery materially. This
he would prove by quotingtlee evidence taken before the
Committee. The Bon. Member then proceeded to read
from the evidence of Mr. William Brumskill, the silk and
ribbon manufacturer of Spilt:Me:cis, 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 Is3l 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 mew were at 135., 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 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 4,291/. in Macclesfield alone ; and this it
would be.seen a as the result of the great mischief caused
by the reduction of the duty on the article of silk. Was
be 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. Iler 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
be 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 deuht, express their opinions. up on 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 foreigners in the manufacture of
silk and ribbons ; and in one instance, where a seizure
of silk was made, it was proved to bo British manufac-
ture.—(Hear.) It might be. urged that persons employed
in tae 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 reduction load 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 p Arlie
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 Rebert Peel would he of the greatest injury to
the silk trade, and he was of opinion that it should be
resisted 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-
plering 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 lion. 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. Lluslsisson
had brought ruin upon many poor families by his mea-
sures, but the measure of air 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."
T:ie 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, 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 saidethat
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 Spitallield weavers
had gene 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,
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 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
38 n
3,18 m
838
increase,ilsls ; 66ion mills
89.i1
1845,1 s ; n 1845, there were 655,
s
Of worsted mills there were,
in
433, 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
w theer only
t6an3, showing t
fact
ttat a decrease
thosint of 6, which
tradew,astheproovnelyd
one which had decreased during that period.—(Hear,
number bwe ikoomf
ciwlheeiarl rod. r)eei Tp
lheom:
epdsl oliar eetn
tl h react
Et
then he would say, that ho did not find that the silk ma-
nufacturers, n3:toroeaoxti lei iyd
tBhoeo
Lancashire. ‘l, by
who had been reported as having been ex-
pelled Crean 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 svh;ch he
was now applying hiinself.—(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 easel
there ; one of the statements of the anther 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 difference 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 gross value of the same article
imported from France to England, exceeded 1,000,0001.
sterling. Now, not having a practical knowledge of this
trade, he (Mr. Bankes) would not enter much 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 vary largo body. But when, upon a former occa-
sion, he urged their case upon the consideration of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he (Sir R. Peel) admifted that the
county which he (Mr. Bankes) represented had suffered
much by ;reason of the' depreciation of the silk trade,
oauscd by the introduction of steam and machinery.

But he (Slr. Bankes) begged to assure the Right Hon.
Baronet 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. Therefore it was not the
fact that the loss sustained by his constituency had been
owing to the introduction of steam.. In the county
which he represented there were. at one time
400 silk-throwing mills, which gave 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 re:luced ; 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. lie did not wish to mix up this item
with any other portion 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 brousht 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 he 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 113 they formerly did. The Hon.
Gentleman who preceded him had stated that since the
year 1832, the number of silk weavers at Spitalfields hal
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. BROCKLEHURST 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 affecting the article.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. BROCKLEHURST should say that he had really
been astonished that so narrow a view should be taken
of the question as had been by the Hoaourable 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 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 1814 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, sheering 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
not consider he had succeeded in his object. lie (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 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 „lion. 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 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 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 lion. 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
a particular table ; and no master could intro-
duce a higher rate of wages for a more particular ar-
ticle, neither ceuld 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 ether places. Let them
look to the condition of the silk trade now. The Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire admitted that for a year
ur 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' he thought
it was a sufficient vindication that the trade was in a
flourishing condition. Anti 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
3.ealBllub during the first triennial, the silk
led the manufacture; whereas, now
last
only
to
do
t r
ie
nnial
period they had more than trebled,
leaving h'ese had i
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, bat it
must be remembeNd 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 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 manufacturer would be able to
compete with the foreigner in this respect also. The
next branch of the subject to which he came to was that
which related to wages. Now it was difficult to obtain
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 fur Dorsetshire had inked 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, fur the removal of the restrictions
gave such an impetus to speculations in silk manage-

tures, that, in 1824 and in 1825, advertisements were put
forth from Macclesfield, steelier, that en immense num-
ber of new silk mills had Le-en started, and that the pro.
prietors were ready to give employment to several
thousand hands ; and from the report of the Commis•
stoners appointed to inquire into the state
of the mahufecturing districts, it would be seen
that in 1844 there was a ecareity of hands in the silk
trade of Derbyshire, and a consequent increase in the
wages of artisans. The lion. Member for Maceletfield
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
he 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 header restrictions. Under
these circumstances he hoped that the House would
have no objection whatever to the measure proposed
by his Right H in. Friend. Hon. Members had brought
forward the case of silk, to show that that trade had
been injured by the removal of protection, but he
hoped he had shown that they had not made out their
case. He hoped, the; 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 dowie 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, in
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 wagee.—(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. They 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 manufacturersof 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 ?—(Protectionist cheers.) And then he
would advert to one point which had been touched by
the Hon. 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, had decreased since the removal of protective
duties at least 25/. per cont. 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 fia,;ured 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. lie 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 t 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 manufacturing portion of the constituency were em-
ployed. He was cowry to see the false feeling for con-
sistency, e, hick formed the greatest plea on this occasion
:Or 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.
A.nd 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
ef the Right lion. Gentleman, would be met upon a simple
question. fie (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 ethe
present import of the raw material, or the amount of ex-
ports of the manufactured article? On which would they
stand ? He would take them on the one or the other.
lie was prepared to prove that the import had largely
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
show 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
House to rely on his authority, and lie
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 pi inciplesnpon which they supported protection to
agriculture at all applied to the question before the
House. He received a letter 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 lion. 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 wits his opinion now. They
had first made a slight redu ;than, 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 theta 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 menu•
factures of this country, from the great improvements
of the foreigners in the manufacture of the articles. The
House might not be aware that there was a vast compe-
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 bad in others but then