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

his constituents were so satisfied of the many benefits
which would result from the other parts of the
measure of her Majesty's Ministers that they would
supp.ort the present reduction of duty on silk in the
opinion that the whole measure would make up for the
injury likely to result from the present question. There
was no Member of that House who had a greater in-
tere,t in the measure than himself, for his constituents
had taken .the deepest interest in the measure before the
11, ,use, and for that reason he would give it his support.
Lord G. BENTINCK might say that the best test of
protective or non-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, the
silk trade of this country had not more than doubled,
and that since the reduction of duties, after that
period, 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—at 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 its prosperity. Daring the continuance of
the duty, it had been proved to that House that the silk
trade had 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, whili 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 in giving their compari-
sons of the exports and imports of the article of silk ;
fur while they had given all the exportation of that ma-
nufacture, 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 Mmber 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 !) 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 " near, hear.") The un-
fortunate people were formerly allowed to work at
home, surrounded by their families, but of late
they were dragged 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. 103. to 11. 10x.—(Hear, hear.) There were in
London alone 15,000 dressmakers, and he supposed 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 doers.—Jfear, 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 ba 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 up 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.)
Sir 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 protecaon in that most favoured seat of
the silk trade —Spitaidelds.—(Efear, 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. Nov, 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 under the. system you support ? In Spitallields,
while that system was in 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 Jmmittee ;
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 cf 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.ll
the said,
es
been educated to believe that
is the last fur the poor to look to, and
enec '
necessity V e
of have
gun g allo
ye
t
the workhouse
that the
favour."
. Sir
workrople
theretsuacchttiisa
itihyeesatnavtaes
so four
p tinterestalfieds li
in their
Fowell Buxton on that occasion wade an
appeal to the ladies then attending the meet-
ing, and that showed how delusive was this
protection. lie said, "The cause of the distress
in spitalfields 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
hisby
compare that account of
1845.181 1816 with
Mr. Howell, in October,L reportv e said,
in made
report, that there was a general scarcity of hands in the
silk districts, and that in consequence there had been a
rise in wages, and he had been in!ormed that children
who only worked half time, could now earn as much as
they did before when they worked 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-
eludes 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 WES the reason Mr. Huskisson did not
take the advice of the Hon. Member for Maecleafield ?
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-s-I a:n 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. Huskisson,
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 1813, had risen from 1,591.000
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 el protection
from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent., Coventry, has lade •
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. lam 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 they had 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 Macclesfield against the measure, but