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

P 0 TITAAI) E,V*,/iiNp. MA.Re 11_17,

Mr. Huskisson's experience being favourable io that
article of commerce (silk), the contrary was the result.
It was well known that the wages of the parties employed
in this trade were high before this change had taken
place, so high, indeed, that they were enabled to•enjoy
much of the com-foists and luxuries of life. He would
prove, however, that during six years subsequent to this
change, their wages had fallen very materially. This
ho would prove by quoting the evidence taken before the
Committee. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read
from the evidence of Mr. William Brumskiil, the silk and
ribbon manufacturer of Spitaltields, which went to
show that great distress had been occasioned
by the competition which had taken place
through the reduction of the. duty on silk, between the
manufacturers of this country and foreigners. He, the
witness said, that the demand in this country for the
manufacture was good, but it was almost entirely sup-
plied by the foreigner. That he also said that smuggling
was carried on to a very great extent, and most materi-
ally injured the revenue ; and that, in fact, he could
name some very large firms who dealt in smuggled goods.
He was asked, continued the Hon. Member, if he meant

to attribute the great increase of wages, paid to persons
in that trade, to the introduction of silk and ribbon from
France, and his answer was emphatically in the affirma-
tive. Now what said the manufacturer of Coventry, who
had also been examined by this Committee? He had told
the Committee that the average wages of the men em-
ployed in the silk trade had fallen in the course of six
years from 18s. to 10s. There was also the evidence of
a Mr. Brockhurst, of Macclesfield ; he said that in 1824,
there were 276,000 spindles, and the number of people
employed in working them amounted to 10,000. In 1828
the number was reduced to 159,000, and the hands employ-
ed to 5,254 ; and in 1831 the spindles were reduced to
122,000, and the persons employed in working them were
reduced to 3,000. In 1824 the wages of the able-bodied
working men were at 18s., and of the young and un•
practised men, 14s. The women were paid at 125., and
the children at from ss. to 7s. In 1831, however, there
had been a great reduction, the wages of the men had
been gradually reduced till it had fallen as low as 4s. 6d.,
and the wages of the other persons were also compere-
lively reduced. It was known that at this period a
great increase had taken place in the poor-law rates; it
had increased to 4,2911. in Macclesfield alone; and this it
would be seen was the result of the great mischief caused
by the reduction of the duty on the article of silk. Was
he then to be told that the injury had only lasted for
four or five years ? He had shown a case where great
mischief had been done by their experiments ; he had
shown that wages had fallen from that period from 18s.
to 4s. 6d., and if he had his will, he must say, they should
not go further with their experiments. Her Majesty's
Ministers might say that the great manufacturers were
ready to take their chance of the injury which the
change now proposed would cause—that they were ready
to show the glory of the great experiment, and to suffer
in common with others, the results of the measure. Well,
they might be so inclined, for by their wealth they would
he able to bear up for five or six years against any de-
pression which might ensue; but would the poor labourer
—the poor working people, be able to bear up against the
great reduction that would take place in their wages,
and which reduction must evidently follow the passing
of this measure?—(Hear, hear.) There were many of
the great manufacturers in that House, and they would,
no deubt, express their opinions up m the question. He
should be glad to hear how they would get over that
which applied to the working men. The weaver from
Spitalfields, whose evidence he had quoted, was himself
a manufacturer, and he, no doubt, had given his evidence
most impartially; and what was its effect, but to show the
great diminution of wages consequent upon the intro-
duction of the foreign article? It had been said by the
Hon. Member for Montrose that the silk-weavers

of Spitalfields had no right to settle down
in that place, for that it was no place
for . the manufacture of that article.—(Laughter.)
He was sure, when the Hon. Member said so, that he
did not mean it as it would read, but he felt confident
that the Hon. Member did so deliver himself.—(" No,
no," from Mr. Hume.) Now the Hon. Member had
denied it, he (Mr. Bankes) would stick to it that he did
so express himself.—(Laughter.) At the very moment
the change took place, they then had the- means of
competing with these f.areigners in the manufacture of
silk and ribbons ; and in one instance, where a seizure
of silk was made, it was proved to be British manufac-
ture.—(Hear.) It might be urged that persons employed
in Lae manufacture of this article were now all em-
ployed, but there was this great difference, that they
were not paid anything like the wages they were paid
before those changes had taken place.. It required no
very great acquaintance with the w- .irking classes to
know that they were greatly dissatisfied with having
now half the wages they got before such a reduction of
duty bad taken place. It might be said that no such
great reduction had taken place, and that no such injury
as he had submitted to the House would result from the
changes proposed by her Majesty's Ministers ; but he
would read to the House the opinions of the operatives
employed in the manufacturing districts. At a public
meeting of the manufacturing operatives of Manchester
and Salford, a Mr. Cann was called to the chair. Now he
could not account for the authenticity of the proceedings
of that meeting, but he had found it reported in a most
respectable journal, and he had no doubt on his mind of
its being perfectly accurate. The Chairman, in address-
ing the meeting, declared that the measure introduced
by Sir Robert Peel would be of the greatest injury to
the silk trade, and he was of opinion that it should be
resist, d by every operative interested in the silk ma-
nufactures of this country. The next person who
addressed the meeting was a Mr. Bennett, and after de-
ploring the great injury which the measure was calcu-
lated to inflict upon the manufacturers of the article in
question, he said that every advance made towards free
trade always brought injury of the most serious character
upon the manufacturing labourer.—(Hear, hear.) The
same speaker mentioned the names or two Hon. Members
of that House, great manufacturers, as having made
large fortunes by continually reducing the wages of their
workmen. The names of the Hon. Members were
publicly given, but he (Mr. Bankes) would not
of course read them ; but the most serious charges
were publicly made against those Hon. Members.
In fact the manufacturers never raised the wages of the
working people when food was dear. Mr. Iduskisson
had brought ruin upon many poor families by his mea-
sures, but the measure of Sir Robert Peel would prove
a still worse measure." The next speaker addressed
the meeting at some length and said, " that the English
artizan would be easily able to compete with the French
in the manufacture of silk, if their taxes were light."
Tile next speaker was a Mr. Field, and he gave ex-
pressions to sentiments to the same effect; he added that
"it was all very well for Mr. Hume—(Laughter)—to
advocate low wages, because his lady would get a silk
dress or a new bonnet somewhat cheaper."—(Laughter.)
Another meeting was held upon the same day in another
town, of hand-weavers, at which sentiments of a like
character were expressed. Now, if he found this
language held at Manchester, was he not bound to be-

Hey; that those who used it were in favour of protec-
tion?—(Hear, hear.) It surely could not be said that
what they had stated thus openly was untrue, or that
they did not really apprehend that further change would
deteriorate their wages.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt
those men were not men of great wealth, but it was not
because they belonged to the working classes that their
statements were to be disregarded.—(Hear, bear.)
Those men had felt the effect of those changes, and
therefore they had given expression to what they
felt.—(Hear, hear.) When he (Mr. Bankes)
had been told that the Spitalfield weavers
had gone to Manchester, why then he followed them
there, and this was the state in which he found them,
and this was the language which they held in reference
to the corn-laws. He would now ask this House to look
at the returns which had been made to it by the Inspec-
tor of factories, Mr. Saunders, in the year 1845. That
House had the inspection of a district embracing Derby-
shire, Hampshire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Surrey,
ea
ffn
ede York,t h and dh
eat
wpeoerat i otnh
eo f
yearsthat
IrBe3pBo r
andt l was to this
wa
comparative increase and decrease of mills in those dis-
tricts, as compared with his former inquiry, was, that
in the year 1838, there were 304 cotton-mills in the dis-
trict, and in the year 1845, there were 361, showing an
increase of 59 mills in that time. Of wool mills there
were, in 1838, 666 trills ; in 1845, there were 655,
showing an increase of 89. Of worsted mills there were,
in 1838, 388 mills ; in 1845, 438, showing an increase of
50 mills in that trade. There were 59 flax mills in 1838,
and 65 in 1845, showing an increase of 6. But then,
came the silk trade. Of those, there were in the whole
district 69 mills in 1838, while in the year 1845 there
were only 63, showing a decrease of 6, which proved
the important fact that the silk trade was the only
one which had decreased during that period.—(Hear,
hear.) The same returns exhibited the number of
children employed at 13,000, only 800 of whom
were employed in the silk trade in Lancashire. Why
then he would say, that he did not find that the silk ma•
nufacturers, who had been reported as having been ex-
pelled frc-al London, had established themselves in
any other part of the kingdom. It was true he
might be met by the Honourable,Gentleman the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade with the answer, that
those persons were now mixed up with the various other
branches of the silk trade ; but he (Mr. Bankes) begged
again to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman that
it was the question of wages exclusively to wh;ch he
was now applying himself.—(Hear, hear.) He would
now direct the attention of the House to another paper,
which had been largely circulated, and was rather an
ingenious one. He would only read an extract here and
there ; one of the statements of the author was, that
" the wages of the silk weavers were now less than half
of that paid them in the year 1824." He (Mr. Bankes)
hoped that those wages would be found to be higher
elsewhere. The author then went on to say, that the
gross value of silk goods exported in that year from
England, would be found to be less by 2,000,000 or
3,000,000 than they were in the year 1824. The author
then went into detail, and he stated that the export of
silk to France from England consisted chiefly of coarse
yarn or twist; while that which was imported from
France to this country consisted of the very finest fabrics.
The value of the article exported from England to France
did not exceed 7s. 6d. per pound, while that which was
imported from France to England, exceeded in value
565. per lb., and that he conceived sufficiently marked
the differe.lce in the value. Then the author went on to
state that the total gross value of silk goods exported
from England to France, in the year 1844, did not ex-
ceed 160,6901, while the rross value of the same article

imported from France to England, eXceedeciC6o6;666E.
sterling. Now, not having a practical knowledge of this
trade, he (Mr. Bankes) would not enter muck further
upon the subject, but he would direct the earnest atten-
tion of the House to these facts, and trusted they
would have the effect of preventing further experi-
ments. It was quite true that his constituents were
not a very large body. But when, upon a former occa-
sion. ho urged their case upon the consideration of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he (Sir R. Peel) admitted that the
county which be (Mr. Bankes) represented had suffered
much by -.reason of the depreciation of the silk trade,
caused by the introduction of steam and zaaohinery.

, .
W. I
But he (Mr. Bankes) begged to assure the Krght
Baron( t that the manufacture of throwing silk could be
quite as well and as profitably carried on by the use of
water power as that of steam. Theretbre it was not the
fact that the loss sustained by his constituency had been
owing to the introduction 'of steam. In the coun'y
"which hn represented there were at one time
400 silk-throwing mills, which vise employment
to a great number of people; but now there was only one,
and the number of hands employed and the wages they
had received had both been greatly reduced ; and the
result was, of course, that a great number had been
thrown out of work. Those then were his reasons for
having adopted the course he had taken in reference to
the article of silk. He did not wish to mix up this item
with any other porti ,n of the tariff, lest he might da-
mage the cause which he now pleaded. There were
many other items to which -his observations would
equally apply, but he now wished to separate them en-
tirely, and, vote as the House would in reference to the
subject of the repeal of the corn-laws, he
trusted that this subject would not influence their
votes upon this.—(Hear.) The silk weavers had already
suffered much in consequence of experiments. He had
quoted the authority of a Committee of this House,
which, he trusted, would have some weight. It was true
that that Committee had reported unfavourably, but he
had also shown that that vote would have been
otherwise but for the fact of one of the Members of the
Committee having been brought in to give a vote
against it, though he had never attended the pro-
ceedings of the Committee at all.—(Hear, hear.)
He had no doubt but that the Vice-president of the Board
of Trade would endeavour to show the House that the
silk trade was now a flourishing one in this country.
But he would say, if they were so, let them be so.—
(Cheers.) In conclusion, he (Mr. Bankes) begged to
say be would divide the House upon this point as it
mooted many other articles, all of which were in some
measure connected with the article of silk.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ELLIS (who was quite inaudible in the gallery)
was understood to say that he felt certain he was doing
but justice to the good feelings of Honourable Gentle-
men opposite, when he gave them full credit for the
sincerity of their statements.—(Hear.) But the ques-
tion then was not considered; they turned to the former
state of the silk trade. It had been assumed that
if they continued protection, the manufacturers would
enjoy the same wages as they formerly did. The Hon.
Gentleman who preceded him had stated that since the
year 1832, the number of silk weavers at Spitalfields had
vastly decreased. Now, the fact was, that in Spitalfields
there were not really more than six or seven independent
men of capital ; and much as had been said of French
manufactures, let them but induce men of capital to em-
bark in the trade, and they would soon be in a position
to rival France, though she grew a superior description
of silk.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, it might be said that
already they were rivalling France, as the Messrs.
Bakers printed an article of calico which they imported
to France.

Mr. BROCKLEFIURST would beg to contradict the
Honourable Gentleman in that statement.
Mr. ELLIS explained, and then continued. In 1824,
a reduction took place on the duty on silk ; and such
was the feeling amongst the manufacturers, that they
were prepared for the total abolition, after a few years,
of all duty aff-cting the article.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROCKLEEIURST should say that he had really
been astonished that so narrow a view should be taken
of the question as had been by the Honourable Gentle-
man who preceeded him.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He
had stated that France produced a superior sort of silk.
Why was that so ? Simply because she prohibited the
exportation of the article, and confined it to hereelf. He
had also stated that in Derby and other parts of Eng-
land, silks were abundantly manufactured. Now, in his
opinion, that showed the 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 1824 to the
extent of about 10 or 15 per cent. Thus the trade had
remained almost stationary, while the cotton trade had
increased 300 or 400 per cent.—(Hear, hear) The pe-
titioners also stated that the finer branches of the silk
trade had gone to the Continent, there being uow 5,000
or 6,000 less looms in Spitalfields than formerly. The
petitioners, therefore, prayed the 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
not consider he had succeeded in his object. He (Mr.
Brocklehurst) would refer to those returns. The
Honourable Member then went through the items
referred to, endeavouring to show that up to 1824,
under the protective system previously in existence, the
silk trade had gone on progressively improving, while
since that period, by opening the home market to
foreign silk manufacturers this country had nearly lost
all the finer branches. The French had taken from the
weavers and manufacturers of the United Kingdom all
the finer branches—(Hear, hear)—and the remainder
had almost remained stationary. The trade, he con-
sidered, ought to be looked on as a branch of luxury,
and treated as such, and also for the purpose of raising
a revenue. This would be a twofold benefit, raising a
revenue while it gave a guarantee to those engaged in
the manufacture of silk in this country. He would
leave it to the Government, whether they would post•
pone this portion of the schedule, or enforce it, and
drive the matter to a division. He would agree to 15
per cent. duty, but he must oppose the duty proposed
in the present schedule,
Sir GEORGE CLERK said that the Hon. Member
for Macclesfield, at the commencement of his speech, said
that he was prepared to show, in opposition to the state-
ments made by the Right Hon. Baronet, that the silk
trade had not only temporarily but permanently suf-
fered by the measure of 1824. In 1832 a Committee
had sat to investigate the matter, and the Hon. Member
himself was upon it. Lord Sidmouth, who then held
the situation of Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
stated that 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 bolding out a temptation
to smuggling, and he moved an addition to the original
inquiry, that the former should consider what measures
should be taken to discourage smuggling. True it was
that
several of the 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 Hon. Member did not state that the desti-
tutien which existed in 1841 did not exist to the same
degree in 1816, when Spitalfields enjoyed protection,
and when many families were dying of want. Petitions
were then presented to the House from the silk weavers
of Coventry, to inquire into the state of the silk trade
there, and he (Sir G. Clerk) would venture to say that
the stated distress then quite equalled that of 1832 ; for
men who had been formerly in the habit of earn-
ing 245. and upwards per week, could only at the/
period (working seventeen or eighteen hours a day, or
more than 100 per week), make at the most ss. 9d. The
Hon. Member must admit, then, that that stated dis-
tress was not justly attributable to the change of sys
tem, but to the fluctuations of trade. But what was the
consequence of this state of things ? That the weavers
in the silk trade were exposed to every 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 couldintro-
duce a higher rate of wages for a more particular ar-
ticle, neither ccsuld he offer a lower, consequently when
bad trade came on, they, not being able to alter the rate
of wages, were compelled to discharge their workmen.
Thus the trade being driven from Spitalfields, the manu-
facturers were compelled in self-defence to erect works
at Macclesfield, Coventry, and other places. Let them
look to the condition of the silk trade now. The Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire admitted that for a year
or two the silk trade was in a more flourish-
ing condition than it had been. Was that
the reason that he objected to the question now ? If
they found that in this country silk goods were not con-
sidered a luxury, to be confined solely to the higher
classes, but if they found that persons in the humbler
sphere of life could afford to procure them, he 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
theyntrod flu ctooonoodf
tfhoraetigfnromthe
years manu-
factures. Under such a system it was impossible for the
silk tradea 1765 d
otoo toly
1817, flourish, and'
the first triennial, the silk
trade b
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 imported amounting in that period
to 1,000,000, whereas now it had increased to 4,000,000,
He admitted that they were unable to compete with the
French in a particular description of light goods, but it
must be remembered that this particular description of
goods never were, nor were 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 respe,t 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 for Dorsetshire had, asked him to state where
the silk trade had gone to since the amount of protec-
tion had been removed. The Hon. Member had referred
to.the report of the Factory Commissioners, and re-
marked that he found that while woollen and cotton mills
had increased, silk mills had decreased. But the Hon.
Member was mistaken, for the removal of the restrictions
gave such an impetus to speculations in 'ilk nanufao-

tures, that, in 1824 and in 1825, adveltisemenis were put
I forth from Macclesfield, stating that an immense num-
ber of ne .v silk mills had been started, and that the pro.
prietors were ready to give employment to several
thousand hands ; and from the report of the Commis
sioners appointed to inquire into the state
of the manufacturing districts, it would be seen
that in 1844 there was a scarcity of hands in the silk
trade of Derbyshire, and a consequent increase in the
wages of artisans. The Hon. Member for Macclesfield
suggested that the Government ought to treat silk ma-
nufactures as luxuries, only to be used by the rich, and
place duties upon them with a view to revenue. Now,
the Hon. Member forgot that even under the present
low rate of duty the law was evaded with impunity, and
be could assure the Hon. Member that there would
be as much revenue derived from the duty
now proposed as any that could possibly result
from the imposition of heavier restrictions. Under
these circumstances he hoped that the House would
have no objection whatever to the measure proposed
by his Right H n. Friend. Hoe. Members had brought
forward the case of silk, to show that that trade had
been injured by the removal of protection, but lie
hoped he had shown that they had not made out their
case. He hoped, thee, that the amendment which had
been proposed would not be adopted, and that the mea-
sures proposed by the Government would be passed by
a large majority.
Mr. NE WDEGATE rose for the purpose of rebut-
ting some statements which had been made by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with
respect to the present state of the silk trade in Co-
ventry. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the
evidence which had been taken before a Committee of
that House in the year 1832, with regard to the state
of the silk trade, but he had misquoted the statement
of facts, as then given. It was clearly shown before
the Members of that Committee, that after the re-
moval of protection, trade was injured in the most
material manner. The Right Honourable Baronet, iii
the course of his argument, referred to the increased
number of spindles. There was no doubt there had
been an increase in the number of spindles used in that
trade. But he (Mr. Newdegate) did not think that that
was a proof that a corresponding increase in wages had
been the result. He (Sir George Clerk) confirmed his
statements, which they had heard from the Hon. Mem-
ber for Macclesfield, namely, that there had been a great
reduction in wages.—(Protectionist cheers.) The Hon.
Member for Leicester had asked how it was possible
that that trade was able to compete with foreigners
whilst their wages were high ? It was, because they
worked harder, and he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that
that was a sufficient answer to his question. Tney em-
ployed improved machinery, and they were able to
compete with the foreigners by dint of increased exer-
tion. Had they not evidence before them of the increased
exertion of the silk manufacturers of this country ? And
he was proud to say that, in his own local district,
Coventry, notwithstanding the present heavy rents,
heavy taxation, and all sorts of increased expenses to
which the labourers of this country were liable, he gave
proof of this energy by the fact that under all the dis-
advantages in comparison with his adversaries, he was
yet able successfully to compete with them.—(Hear.)
And what did they infer from this? They inferred from
this state of things, that trade was flourishing. Granted
—what better reason could there be for not persisting in
this measure ?-s--(Protectionist cheers.) And then he
would advert to one point which had been touched by,
the lion. Member for Leicestershire. He made a state-
ment, from which it was clear that the result of this
measure would be the reduction of the operatives' wages.
He did not wish to detain the House much longer. But
he wished to advert for a few minutes to the statement
of the Hon. Member for Macclesfield. He held in
his hand an abstract, which clearly showed that both the
importation of the raw material as well as manufactured
silk, bad decreased since the removal of protective
duties at least 251. per cent. They had clearly shown
that the inevitable result of the carrying out the free-
trade principles was the reduction of wages, and if this
measure were passed, they would still further increase
the distress of the working classes. The Right Hon.
Baronet had dwelt much upon the difficulties of collect-
ing protective duties. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not
wonder at that. He himself had to complain that the
leaning of the officers engaged in the collection of those
duties were so much in favour of free trade—(Loud
cheers from the protectionists)—that they could not dis-
tinguish between striped goods from plain ; and in many
cases whether the goods were figured or plain. Up to
this very time striped ribbons were actually received
as plain ribbons. It was not wonderful that the duty
was not collected as it should be, when such practices
were sanctioned. He had made application himself to
her Majesty's Government to appoint more qualified
men, but his application had always been unsuccessful.
The Government always complained that the duty did net
come in, and yet they did nothing to remedy the evils of
which he complained. He really thought that if the
officers of the Custom-house did not look so much to
making out cases for the adoption of free trade,
which now appeared to be so great a favourite
with the leaders of the House, they would per-
form their duty much more faithfully. He would
conclude by repeating, that the greatest possible
exertions had been made in Coventry and the adjoining
district, with which he was intimately acquainted, which
showed that the statement of the Hon. Member for Lei-
cester were incorrect. He (Mr. Newdegate) prayed that
if they were about to reduce protection to agriculture,
and produce pressure upon the agricultural Members of
this constituency, they would not add to the difficulties
by the removal of protection from the labours in which
the naanufacturing portion of the constituency were em-
ployed. He was sorry to see the false feeling for con-
sistency, which formed the greatest plea on this occasion
for the Government and their supporters.
Mr. B. HAWES attached very considerable import-
ance to, and he was, therefore, sorry to see the effects of
the delay which had taken place in this discussion.
And yet he did not at all complain of this delay. On
the contrary, he rather rejoiced in this discussion than
otherwise, inasmuch as, though it seemed to him some
most inconvenient arguments had been brought forward
the measures adopted by the Right Honourable Baronet
would undoubtedly tend to the general prosperity
of this country. But he looked forward that night he
owned with very considerable interest to the result of
that discussion, because he expected that the challenge
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, would be met upon a simple
question. He (the Right Hon. Baronet) had challenged
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were opposed to his mea-
sures, to show one single instance in which either the
producer or the consumer had been injured by a gradual
relaxation of those duties. And he (Mr. Hawes) did
presume therefore that in the course of this debate they
should have had some evidence to show they had retro-
gaded, and that the consumer had derived no benefit
by the relaxation of duties upon trade. At present he
owned that he had no facts to lay before the House upon
this question. The Hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr.
Brocklehurst) had talked about revenue. Why the
revenue had been impaired by the reduction of the pro-
tective duties, and the consequence was the increase of
the general trade of the country. But he was prepared
to ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed this
measure whether they were prepared to go upon the
present import of the raw material, or the amount of ex-
portsfOn ono
eicohr
thewuld'lsey
stand other.
He was prepared to prove that the import had largely
the
He manufacturedwould take t
hem article?
on
the
increased, and that the export of the manufactured ar-
ticle had also greatly increased. Did Hon. Gentlemen
recollect the arguments that were used at the time that
Mr. Huskisson introduced his measure? That argument
was such as he (Mr. Hawes) was at presentprepared to use.
But how stood the fact, as laid before them in the papers
placed upon the table of the House? If they could not
ihow that exports had declined, and if, on the contrary,
it could be proved that consumption has increased,
he would call them to show how their manufactures
had declined. He had heard that the wages of the
operatives had materially declined since the con-
test with the foreign manufacturer. It was not quite
clear that such was the fact, but he was quite willing
to admit that wages for handloom weaving had seriously
diminished. But what was that owing to? He would
show that it was under the influence of protection that
wages had fallen. He could show, from conclusive evi-
dence, provided trade was differently conducted, that'
higher wages would be paid to the workmen than
were now. In the report which had been made
by the Commission, instituted to inquire into
the causes of manufacturing distress—that dis-
tress was not attributed to foreign competition,
but to the competition of one manufacturer with the
other, and the total want of economy in the
conduct of the trade. He did not wish the
Rouse to rely on his authority, and he
would therefore refer to what was stated by Mr.
Muggeridge, the Commissioner appointed to examine
into these facts. He stated that workmen suffer a mate-
rial loss of time in having to go for their work and to
return again to their houses ; and that he found that
where men were joined together in the manufactory
system that wages increased from four and five
shillings to fifteen and eighteen shillings a week.
He did, therefore say that there was no trade so mis-
chievously protected, or that suffered so much as the
silk trade. Mr. Deacon Hume was not an interested
party, and he had a right to assume that his statements
were accurate. He contended that the challenge of the
Right Honourable Gentleman opposite had been un-
answered, and the produce was not injured by the re-
laxation which had already taken place in the protective
duties.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST explained.
Mr. ADDERLEY appealed to the House whether
the principles upon 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 Hon. Baronet. Under these circumstances he
could not consent to support the amendment.
Mr. ELLIS was of opinion that it was always neces-
sary to consider well those measures which had for their
object any alteration in the silk duties. That had been
his opinion at first, and it was his opinion now. They
had first made a slight redu :tion, and they now proposed
comparatively to remove the protective duty. His con-
stituents had instructed him to express their doubts as
to the result of the reduction on silk.—(Hear, hear.)
Yet they were of opinion that it was better the alteration
should take place, than to continue a protection which
did not secure them against the inroads of the smuggler.
He was afraid that the silk manufacture would be in no
better a condition than they were at the time mentioned
by many of the Hon. Members who had spoken on the
decrease of that trade. Certain classes of the satin and
gauze ribbons were fast falling into decay in the manu-
factures of this country, from the great improvements
of the foreigners in the manufacture of the articles. The
House might not be award that there was a vast compe-
-1 tition with the foreigner in the articles of silk,
ribbons, and ather Small articles. For this and other
reasons he had not the confidence in this branch of the
Government measure which he bed i 4 others ; but then

his censtitnentawere_ssessatisfled of the manse benefits
, which would result from the other parts of the
measure of her Majesty's Ministers that, they would
support the present reduction of duty on silk in the
,opinion that the whole measure would make up for the
injury likely to-tesult from the present question. There
was no Member "of that Howie who had a greater in-
terest in the measure than himself, for his constituents
had taken the deepest interest in. the measure before the
House, and for that reason he would give it his support.
Lord G. BTINC might say that the best test, of
protective °tenon protective legislation was- to be found
in the state of wages. An Hon. Member had shown the
House how greatly the number of spindles had been re-
duced, and this in his opinion was an incontrovertible
argument in favour of 'protection to the.silk trade. An
Hon. Member had said that for 50 years; in 1816, tbe
silk trade of this country had not more than doubled,
and that since the reduction of duties, after that
eeriod, it had more than trebled its then amount.
Now he did not consider this a fair comparison,
This was a comparison made against protection, at a
time, too, when Napoleon had the whole silk trade in
his hand—atl a-time when the trade was in the hands of
our enemies—at a time that we were deeply involved in
war—whereas it is well known that that trade depended
on peace for it 9 prosperity. Dnring the continuance of
the duty, it had been proved to that House that the silk
trade bad progressed ninety per cent. in the course
of six years. Could that be said of it subsequent to the
reduction of the duty ?—on the contrary, it was seen
that it had not - so. increased, while the wages of the
operatives had most materially diminished.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member for Lambeth had said that the trade
increased to a very great extent after the reduction of
the free trade principle. How the Hon. Member would
make that out, he (Lord G. Bentinck) was at a loss to
account. It surely was not
.by the evidence adduced
by her Majesty's Government insgiviug their compari-
sons of the exports, and imports of the ,article of silk:;
for While they had given all the exportation of that ma-
nufactures they had not given one importation of the
amount of silk from India. Now, he found that in the
five years, up to 1840, the importation of manufactured
silk from India was over 25,0001b5., and surely this vast
amount of importation should not have been kept back.
All this he would contend, for it went to afford strong
proof that this country was still not in a position to con-
tend with France in her silk manufacture, even taking
into consideration the fact of the advantage we had
of thirty per cent. The Honourable Member- for
Stafford had argued that this country should not in-
terfere in this matter ; but he (Lord George Bentinck)
contended that that was no argument at all, because the
statistical facts already adduced, showed beyond all
doubt, that the silk trade of this couniry could not com-
pete with that of France. Coventry could not stand
against France with a duty of 275., notwithstanding
which they were about to reduce that same duty to 16s.
—(Hear, hear.) What did the gentlemen who called
on him yesterday tell him-respecting the rate of wages
at Coventry ? Why that it would be reduced 20 per
cent.—(oh, oh-1) He spoke on the. authority of the
gentlemen, who assured him that since 1826 the wages
of the silk weavers had been reduced 20 per cent. ; and
were they going then to grind the unfortunate crea-
tures more heavily ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The un-
fortunate people 'Were formerly allowed to work at
home, surrounded by their families, but, of late
they were drigged. to the factories.—(Hear, hear.)
By the measure proposed to the House the
silk manufacturers and weavers were not the only par-
ties that would be affected. They should also look- to
how the milliners and dressmakers would be circum-
stanced.—(A laugh.)- He could prove that the number
of dressmakers in the kingdom amounted to 106.000,
the amount of protection to whom would be reduced
from 21. 10s. to 1/. 10i.—(Hear, hear.) There were in
London alone '15,000 dressmakers, and he supposrd they
were going to leave these unhappy creatures to
starve, or take their chance, because they could
not come to that House, and knock, as they
were entitled to do, at its doors.—;Hear, hear.)
These millions had no votes, no influence over that
House, and therefore they were to be left to their fate.
The protection'now afforded to them was to be reduced
to one-fourth of what it now was, and they might
starve, or do what 'else they thought fit. Such would
be the consequences of the present measure, and there-
fore he asked the House to pause before they passed it
into a law. ,It was a measure that would cause the
ruin of thousands of poor persons, who were not in a po-
sition to protect themselves ; and it was to be ,passed
by a coalition of Members of that House, of a most
extraordinary character. The practical effect. of these
proceedings would be to cause thousands of unfortunate
females to be driven to prostitution to Make np for what
they would lose from the operation of this measure ; and
the consequences would be such as all would have occa-
sion to deplore.—(Hear.)
Sit R. PEEL rose and said, Sir, I hope parties before
passing a judgment on our commercial policy in appli-
cation to the silk-trade, will maturely con-
sider the facts within their reach—will consider
before coming to a conclusion, the subject fairly and dis-
passionately. I trust you will take the opportunity of
contrasting the state of things, not under a system of
free. trade, but under a system of protection, with what
has been the condition of the silk trade since the repeal
of prohibitive duties, and the admission of foreign silks
in competition with domestic produce; that you will
fairly contrast this latter period with that previous one
in which, so far as the law was concerned, absolute and
unqualified protection existed. You have had the oppor-
tunity of learning what the effects have been resulting
from unqualified protection in that most favoured seat of
the silk trade—Spitalfields.—(Hear, hear.) There you
had complete prohibition ; there you relied on laws that
actually not only imposed a duty that was high, but a
duty that was absolutely prohibitory. Now, what has
been the state of things under this much-lauded system?
Do you wish me to revert to it ? Does protection
tend to the advantage of the manufacturing and working
classes, for which you express so much sympathy ? You
talk of the withdrawal of protection from females, as
leading to prostitution. What has been the state of
things wader the system you support ? In Spitalfields,
while that system was iu operation, there occurred,
in rapid succession, examples of suffering and distress,
such as it will be difficult for you to find a parallel to
elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.) In 1826 a letter was
written by Mr. Hale, who was well acquainted
with this trade, and addressed to Mr. Whitbread,
calling upon him 'to make an appeal to the Legislature
against that state of things then. Six years afterwards,
in 1812, such was the state of the distress in Spitalfields,
that it became necessary to appoint a local C immittee ;
and it is stated in the report that was made by that
Committee, that a large proportion of those who were
called upon for the poor-rates were themselves in need
of assistance. The utmost pittance that could be
dealt out to the indigent was insufficient to sup-
port existence, and the distress became ex-
treme. Subscriptions were then raised, and
a temporary mitigation was given to the existing dis-
tress. In the year 1816 it became necessary to re-ap-
point the Committee. They speak particularly of the
weavers. They said that they are inoffensive and quiet
in their demeanor ; are industrious in prosperous times,
and patient in distress. In 1816, what was their posi-
tion ? The Committee said of that class, that two-thirds
of them were not employed with work to support them-
selves. They said that the Committee consisted of one
hundred members, which number was divided into 38
sub-committees, each of which undertook one district.
They distributed 8561. in sums of one shilling and three
shillings among 3,366 families, containing 14,400 indivi-
duals. They said that pauperism was spreading, and
that all the weavers were in arrear of their rent. They
were also in debt for the common necessaries of life.
That was the report of the Committee in 1816. Sir
Fowell Buxton, at a meeting convened in the city of
London, gave an account of the state of Spitalfields under
that system of protection. He said, " We have all
been educated to believe that the necessity of goingto
the workhouse is the last for the poor to look-to, and
yet such is the state of Spitalfields that theworkpeopi e
there actually canvass our interest in their favour." Sir
Fowell 'Buxton on that occasion made an
appeal to
the ladies then attending the meet-
ing, and that showed how delusive was this
protection. He said, " The ca Ise of the distress
in etpitalfields is the importation of French goods, and
the wearing those French goods by the ladies of this
town ;" and he made a forcible appeal to them, and called
upon them to discourage contraband trade, which was so
injurious to the working classes of Spitalfields. Now
that was under a system of prohibitory duties. Let me
compare that account of 1816 with the report made
Howell Mr. Howell, in October, 1845. Mr. said, in
his
report, that there was a general scarcity
here had been a
of
hands in the
silk districts, and that in comq e ue
rise in wages, and he had been intormed that children
who only worked half time, could
they did before when they worked now earn as much as
for ten hours. Now
that is a comparison with a time in which you professed
to give absolute protection. I Will ask you by what
test you will determine the flourishing state of
manufactures ? Why it is by the importation of the raw
material. " Oh," but you say, " the raw material in-
cludes certain descriptions of waste silk, called knubs'
and husks.' " It may not suit refined lips to use such
terms, but it must be remembered that your skill and
capital convert these things into very beautiful fabrics.
—(Hear, hear.) You greatly increase the value of that
material. What was the reason Mr. Huskisson did not
take the advice of the Hon. Member for Macclesfield ?
Why, figures and facts induced him to reject it. In
1819, or 1820, the quantity of raw silk entered for home
consumption was about 1,500,000 lbs. From 1814 to
1823—1 am speaking now of raw silk, rejecting alto-
gether the waste silk—on the average of ten years, the
annual consumption was 1,521,000 lbs. Mr. littskisson,
therefore, substituted a moderate duty for the then
existing duty, which amounted to prohibition. And
what was the result ? Why, the average consumption of
raw silk, from 1834 to 1843, had risen from 1,521,000
to 3,742,000 lbs. This, therefore, exhibits the wisdom
of the course pursued by Mr. Huskisson.—(Hear.)
Now, is the feeling of 'trade against it ? Considerable
abuse has been thrown upon the Government for attempt-
to injure the trade by this measure, but from the trade
itself I hear no accusations, and I venture to say that if
Coventry felt real alarm at the reduction of protection
from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent., Coventry has inde-
pendence and intelligence enough to make loud represen-
tations against us. Coventry, however, argues that it
is not a proposal simply and abstractedly to diminish the
duty on silk. No, Coventry connects with the reduction
of the duty on silk the total reduction of the duties on
beef, the admission of maize free of duty, and the great
reduction that will be made upon articles of clothing and
food generally. Looking at it in that point of view they
are perfectly content with the measure. T ans supported
in this opinion by what has recently taken place at Leek.
My Honourable Friend the Member for Staffordshire
says, he went there as a thorough protectionist, but to
his great surprise, he was told by the people of Leek
that, although tney.hai a silk Manufactory, they were
perfectly content with the measure of the Government.
Now, with regard to Macclesfield—it is true a petition has
been presented from ldsoolesfield again. t theyneasure, but

in thelatter whitah likiiiViiipsialed that petition, f am in
formed that the people of Macclesfield are perfectly content
to have some, reduction, of the protective duty on silk—
that -Macclesfield , would be . content with a reduction
from 30 to 20 per cent. Now, we propose, 15 'per cent.
,There is only therefore a difference of 5 per cent, be- •
tween our opinion, and the opinion of the people of
Macclesfield. Spitalfislds comes next, and I cannot say '
that r have received many representations against it '
feoin S,pitelfields. Connecting it with the other mea- '
isures, I believe it is adopted there. forlam not aware that
the.people of Spitalfields are-at' all opposed to the gene-
ral proposal' ef. the, Government. Therefore, as far as
the trade is concerned, judgingfrom the opinions of par-
ties engaged in, it, the trade generally speaking are
satisfied with the whole measure. Now my Noble
Friend has adopted a channel for arriving at conclusions '
upon this subject -which I think is not at all satisfactory,
namely, the ,quantity of, raw material taken for home
consumption. He takes the 'declared value of the exports
for the last five. years, •and compares it with the de-
clared value of the imports of the five preceding years ;
but that is an erroneous test. Alderman Webb was
constantly insisting on it that this country was ruined,
because the declared value of the manufactured exports
did not keep pace with the imports. But he was told
that this was neither a safe nor a just test to go by,
because as there was a great reduction in the cost of
nroduction, the value of the manufactured articles sold
and exported year by year was diminished. It did not,
however, follow that because the declared value of ma- •
nufactured exports diminished yearly that their should
be an increase in the imports over the exports. So it is
with silk. The cost of silk manufactures has been
diminished within the last five years ; improvements in
manufactures and the exercise of greater skill has di-
minished the cost of production within the last five
years, and it would be strange indeed if the declared
value of the manufactured exports of the last five years
had not diminished as compared with the declared value
of the manufactured exports of the preceeding five years;
but this by no means indicated that the silk manu-
facturers of this country had flourished during the
last .five years. The cost of. production may have
decreased, and • must'. have decreased is consequence
of the diminished cost 'of raw material ; so in
the cotton-trade, and woollen-trade, as in the silk-trade,'
and therefore the declared value is necessarily no indi-
cation of the quantity of the article exported. But I
am asked, how do you account for so much of the raw
material being consumed at home ? Why, the fact is,
there is a growing taste for silk manufactures in this
country, and we cannot do better than encourage it.
Cottons and woollens have hitherto been the formidable
rivals of silk, but we never take into account what for-
midable competitors cotton and wool are to silk. It i s
not foreign competition that has diminished the silk
trade, but it is the wool and cotton-trade ; but there is
a growing desire in this country to consume silk in
preference to these articles, and you cannot do better
than encourage it. There has, therefore, necessarily
been an increase in the quantity of foreign articles
brought into this country. In the five years preceding
the last five, there was an extensive system of smug-
glingcarried on. But within the last five years there has
been some check put upon it, and in consequence of that
check, the customs show an increase in the amount of
silk imports.—(Hear, hear.) Silk was growing
upon the domestic manufactures-of the country, and it is
therefore desirable that you should use every means to
put a check upon smuggling. It is presumed by some
that smuggling does nest exist under a duty of thirty pet'
cent., but there is no "denying it, smuggling does ex-
ist. It is now three-and. twenty-years since the attention
of the House cf Lords was called to this subject. A
Committee was then appointed to inquire into the state of
our foreign trade, and that is the tribunal to which my
Noble Friend alluded when he called upon the House of
Lords to oppose this measure in the event of its passing
this House. The House of Lords appointed a Com-
mittee upon the foreign trade of this country, and silk
was one cf the articles to which they referred. Now,
what conclusion did the House-of Lords come to in the
year 1821 ? Why, that if a small duty of from twelve
to fifteen per cent. were placed upon the introduction of
the raw material, it would enable the British manufac-
turer to compete with The foreigner, while it would di-
minish smuggling ; and yet the Noble Lord calls upon
the House of Lords to reject this measure indignantly,
as tending to undermine the interests of the manufac-
turer, and as sowing the seeds of vice and immorality.
Ile calls upon the House of Lords to do this after one- of
its tribunals had maturely considered this subject, ex-
amined witnesses interested in the domestic silk manu-
factures of the country, and declared that the
public interest only required the existence
of a duty from twelve to fifteen per cent.
Supposing also—which was then in contemplation in the
House of Lords—we reduce the duty upon the articles
of subsistence, and so enable the manufacturer of this
country to compete with the foreign manufacture, we
pay not 121. but 151. per cent. ; and when the House of
Lords do refer to their own recommendation, I shall be
surprised indeed if they do reject the measure which her
Majesty's Government proposes. Sir, my Noble Friend
has referred, and naturally has excited the sympathy of
those who placed confidence in his statement with re-
spect to the position of the unprotected classes of the
milliners and dressmakers. Sir, I think I could show
that if there be any class that suffers from the illicit
introduction of goods, it is that very class--(Hear, hear)
—to which my Noble Friend revers. I believe, in respect
to all those articles, that they are introdUced in a con-
traband manner ; that there is a false reliance placed
upon protection ; that at any time you can insure
the introduction of silk goods (Hear, hear)—
and silk dresses—(Hear, hear)—for an amount, the
extra cost not being greater than the duty which is
placed upon that article. And if the system be so—if
the taste for silk goods do advance in this country—you
will promote and encourage the price of that article—
you will give the manufacturer the advantage of com-
peting in the open day with the duty-paid article ; but if
you subject him to that 'unknown disadvantage, he can
take no precaution against the smuggling of goods pay-
ing no duty, and the honest trader suffers the greatest
loss and the greatest injustice by competition with the
dishonest trader. If you will permit the manufacturer
fairly to compete at a known advantage with his foreign
rivals, and if you will discourage among the higher
classes the use of those contraband articles, by facili-
tating the admission of them at moderate prices—(Hear,
hear)—then, I say, the manufacturer of silk, the opera-
tive employed in the silk manfacture, the dress-maker,
and the milliner (to whom my Noble Friend refers), has
a better chance in honest employment of gainieg an
honest subsistence, as they ought to be enabled to
gain by continuous labour, than any advantage
they can now derive from high nominal duties,
which you cannot enforce against the evasion of
your own laws. —(Hear, hear.) Sir, these are the con-
siderations which induced her Majesty's Government to
propose this measure, feeling that it was for the interest
of the revenue that we should admit goods at a moderate
rate of duty, believing it to be for the interest of the
manufacturer that he should compete under ascer-
tained terms, believing it to be for the interest of those
employed in the manufacture, that we should, if it
were possible,.pluck up by the root the system of
smuggling, which, while it professes to give protection,
is really delusive, and which inflicts a much greater
injury upon manufacturers than any that can be inflicted
by a fair and honest competiton.—(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said he should not detain the House
above two miuutes—(Hear, hear)—while he made a few
observations with respect to those made by the Right
lion. Gentleman in answer to his Noble Friend; and
whilst he made one more effort to induce Hon. Gentlemen
to enter into the same lobby as he himself should, be-
cause he believed that the case which his Honourable
Friends were advocating that night was really the
ohjoct of the working classes.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Theßig
laidhtlitohneougrruebaletestGesntrtelesms
aunponhatdhe pe-
rorationitnemipntaatio
which the trade was liable to, in regard to smuggling,
as well as the responsibility which her Majesty's Go-
vernment possessed in struggling with that dark power,
which with the protection of 30 per cent., baffled as it
would seem all the efforts of her Majesty's Ministers.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But what they wished to in-
quire of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, how they suc-
cessfully struggled against the smuggler, who had an
inducement to carry on his trade by the 1200 per cent.
placed upon tobacco, and 250 per cent. which was placed
upon tea.—(Protectionist cheers.) When they heard of
those stories of the extraordinary power and achieve-
ments of the smugglers, with respect to the silk trade,
he was at a loss to know where the Right Hon. Gentle-
man obtained his information, unless it were from that
celebrated individual—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—who
he (Mr. D'lsraeli) observed had lately paid a visit
to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade—(Great
laughter)—he meant the fortunate Mr. Campden.
He (Mr. Disraeli) knew not whether her Majesty's At-
torney-Gereral had assisted at that interview, but it
seemed quite clear that the Treasury Bench on this and
on previous discussions had profited by that acquaint-
ance.—(Hear, and laughter.) Now the Right Hon.
Gentleman had turned to the situation—the too pitiable
situation—of the silk trade in 1812, and while he had
dilated upon the miseries which the operatives of that
trade had endured in the year 1812, he had turned
round to the House and said, "See what protection has
produced."—(Hear, hear.) He had said to the Hon.
Gentlemen on his (Mr, Disraeli's) side of the House,
do you wish to bring back or rather to perpetuate tinch
a state of things as this ? Why, the working classes of
this country he said had nothing to suffer so much from
as protection. Why, it was during the period of the
terrible war, he believed, that wheat was sold at 1208.
the quarter.—(Opposition cheers.) It was a period
almost as unfortunate for all trades as that very period
to which the Right Honourable Gentleman had
referred—he meant the period 1816, which remained as
unprecedented for the general commercial depression of
the country —(Hear, hear)—and those were the instances,
the answers, and the arguments that were brought for-
ward against his Noble Friend (Lord George Bentinck),
and thus he supported his argument by economical prin-
ciples, as flagrant as his historical fallacies, which were
opposed by all the social experience they possessed.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman referred to knubbs and
husks, and while dilating on the importance and the
value of that article, he said what does it signify if it
employs labour and produces a great demand.—(Hear.)
Observe, in the first place, knubbs and husks are no
more to be accounted silk, than a sheep-skirt is to be
accounted wool.—(Cheers.) But to work up 2,ooolbss
of raw silk would employ per week 800 people,
and concluding from this datum, to which he be-
lieved he might pledge himself for its accuracy,
to work up the whole 1,700,0001b5. imported
would occupy in one year only 1,200, while to mantis
facture the same quantity of the good material would
employ for the same length of time 13,000 persons.--
(Elear, hear.) Now he would leave it to the House to
make its own deductions on the relative valite of the two
articles in the trade and their respective proluce.—(Hear.)
Then the Hon. Gentlemen accounted for the increase of
their exports by alleging that it was the effect of the
increase of duty on the raw material. Whatwas the fact?
That increase aulowtted to the one-twentieth of a penny.

THEATRE ROYAL, ADELPHI.
W""th..ol,4ueeess and heart,' shouts of laughter at the New Farce
" Old you ever scud your Wife to Camberwell ?"
THIS EVENING
Will be Perilmned a New Petite Drama, in Two Acta, called,
THE CABIN toy. Mons. Vincent, Mr. 0. Smith; Largecetti,
11-. Paul Bedford ; Julien, Madame Celeste; Mdlle. Laroche, Miss
Woolg:tr.

After which, a New Farce, entitled, DID YOU EVER SENT)
YO it WIFE TO CAMBERWELL ? Chesterfield Moneybun, Mr.
Wright ; Isaac Crank, Mr. 0. Smith ; Mrs. Honeybun,
Hiss Wool ar.
To be followed by TAMING A TARTAR ; or, Magic and Ma-
;r
zotirkavhobia. In which Messrs. Paul Bedford and Wright, Miss
Woolgar, Madame Celeste, &e. perform.To conclude with a New Farce, entitled THE PHANTOM
BRE A KFAST. Supported by Mr. Paul Bedford, Mr. Wright, Miss
Woolaar, &c.

PRINCESS'S THEATRE, ox.IRD-STREET.
THIS EVENING

Will be performed a New Vaudeville Comedy, Tim
•
FOLLIES OF A NIGHT. Duke de Chartres, MrJ.
g
•te Brissac, Mr. Harris ; Dr. Druggendraftitir:iner , Duchess
Compton ;;
Pierre
t
Mr. C. Mathews; Mdlle. Duval, Miss E
de Chartres, Madame Vestris.
After which, a New Comic Drama, entitled DIATREWS
AND CO. Characters by Messrs. Charles Mathews, Compton,
Walton, Oxberry, and Miss E. Houner.
To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled, A SPEARING
LIKENESS. Baron de Raney, Mr. Granby; Alfred, Mr. James
Vining; Coco, Mr. Compton; Marlette, Madame VTWO IN THE
estris.
To I,e succeeded by a Comic Scene, celled,
:MORN INII. By Mr. Charles Mathews and 3I r. Compton.
To conclude with a DIVERTISSEMENT. In which Messrs.
Gilbert, Marshall. Adrien, Miss Bailin, Miss Marshall, and Millie.
Melanie Duval will appear.

NEW STRAND THEATRE.
PHILLIPPE'S SOIREES and 31A1 'NEES MYSTERIEUSES.
Two Morning Performances during the Week.
At the urgent and reiterated solicitations of many distinguished
families, and in order to accommodate the crowds who Ronk
to
4tten,l his Morning Performances, M. rffiLLtrrE will give his
s;rand Juvenile Entertainment every Wednesday and Saturday
11Grimg, 'Fwo o'clock.
M. Phillippe's most Popular Deceptions and Peculiar Experiments
will be repeated every Evening, varied by the Amusing Per-
sorrnances of the Chiarini Family, and the astounding Feats of the
American Brothers.—Doors open at a quarter put SeNen, to com-
mence at a quarter before Eight.
stalls, 35.; Boxes, 2s. ; Pit, Is.; Gallery, 6d. ; irate Boxes,
1/. Is., arid 1/. lle. 6d.

AsILEY'S RoYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF AItTS.
Proprietor, Mr. W. Batty.
Last Week but Three of the Winter Season, and of the present
brilliant Spectacle, which is acknowledged by the countless throngs
of admiring Spectators to surpass all previous efforts, in gorgeous
24141eaux and magnificence of effect.—Splendld Double Band, Stu-
pendous Performing Elephants, &c.
THIS EVENING
Will be perfermed a New Drama, entitled THE RAJA OF
NAL; PORE ; or. the Sacred Elephants of the Pagoda. In which the
wpme of the Company and beautiful Stud will appear.
Lillque Scenes of the Circle, combining the unequalled Feats of
the Aritigh and Foreign Company,
uclucle with TILE IRISH SCHOOLMASTER.

RAILWAY SHARES BY PUBLIC SALE.
MESSRS. LAMOND, SMALE, AND
LAMOND, Railway Share Auctioneers, beg to thank their
Friends and the Public for their continued support and patronage,
and to announce that their Public Sales of Railway Shares, &c.,
take place every TuasDAY and FRIDAY. at One o'clock„ at the
Hall of Commerce, Threadneedle-street, London, to which place all
•uvours, containing Instructions, are respectfully requested t• be
addressed.

All Scrip and Share Certificates raust be deposited for exa-
mination at least one day previously to their being offered ; and
advices of results will be forwarded by the first post after the sale,
and the proceeds immediately disposed of according to instructions.
Offices. stall of Commerce. Threadneedle-street, London.

THE WEATHER.—SUN OFFICE, MARCH 17.
THERMOMETER, Lowest, 35; Highest, 57 ; Noon, 45
BAROMETER, 29.5.—W1ND N.W., cloudy.

HUM WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Morning .. 22 minutes after 4. I Evening .. 40 minute after 4.

, _
, .
,xlrs7`: 02, '• 40,,a0,01.4*
t us. ,:11. - • i•

SECOND EDITION.