The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-02 00:00:00

2, 1860.

good feeling and encouraging :friendly relations between
England and France, to streligthen the war party in
France.. (Hear, hear.) He must add that, viewing these
remissions as they affected Brirish interests and English
policy, they appeared to him to be a wanton waste of re-
venue on articles which were not of general consumption,
and upon which there could be no objection to derive re-
venue.

The CHANCELLOR of the:EXCHEQUER said that it
was entirely for the right hon. baronet to judge for himself
whether it was a waste of time or not to discuss the articles
proposed for remission. The right hon. baronet and himself
might perhaps come to the same conclusion upon that sub-
ject, though he was afraid upon very different grminds. (A
laugh.) He had thought that the doctrine of unrestricted
competition., had been conceded by the right hon. baronet,
but now he found it stiffly co ntested by him. The right hon.
baronet denounced the surrez [der of this revenue obtained by
differential duties as a wastel'ul proceeding. He (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) did not think it was convenient
now to discuss the general p rinciples upon which the finan-
cial scheme of the Government was founded. He was con-
tent to argue that there existed very strong reasons for the
removal of these duties. But the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets and the hon. member for North Warwickshire de-
murred to the Government proposals on two different points
of view. The hon. menal.)er for North Warwickshire com-
plained of their parting with duties levied on articles of
luxury, and the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets re-
gretted that they were abandoning duties on articles raised
by handicraft, and not by the great capital of great estab-
lishments. These were two questions totally and absolutely
distinct. With respect to articles of luxury, it was a great
fallacy to suppose that differential duties levied on such ar-
ticles were better than other differential duties. It was a

proper thing to consider when they were raising revenue
whether or not they should first select articles of luxury, but
when they came to the question of imposing differential
duties on articles because they were articles of luxury, they
then involved themselves in the some folly and evil as if
they were not articles of luxury. Why should they give to
one class the power of obtaining a higher price or profit
than another ? It signified not a rush what the article
was, or whether it was one of luxury or not, It was a
bad and unjust principle as between English workers. The
true principle was to give to the purchaser perfectly free
and unrestricted choice of all articles of industry; but by
differential duties to secure a particular price to a particular
class of goods, as compared with another class of goods, be-
cause they were articles of luxury, they generally failed to
accomplish the object they had in view, did positiue mis-
chief to the very people they intended to benefit, and did
that which was decidedly wrong, because they created a mo-
nopoly in favour of a particular class. But the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets said there was the case of handi-
crafts and of needlewomen. Now, to talk of protection to
needlewomen by protective duties was just as rational as to
talk of protecting the peasaats of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire
by the corn laws. (Hear, hear.) The condition of oar
needlewomen was a melancholy fact in the state of English
society ; but with respect to foreign labour they had nothing
to fear, for unhappily they were much lower already through
the competition of English labour than they would be if esta '
posed to foreign competition. (Hear, hear.) He confessed
that he should have thought that the hon. gentleman who
represented the Tower Hamlets was well aware by that time
of that fact. He must know that they were entirely beyond
the reach of any legislation. With regard, however, to the
class of people who made artificial flowers and embroidery,
he hoped the case was different. The wages of those em-
ployed in embroidery were not, he trusted, low, and he had
no reason to suppose they would be lower. The hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets said that the abolition of protection
worked in a totally different direction in different cases. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not aware of that
diversity of experience, and he had yet to learn in what case
within the limits of this country protection had been abolished
without a great benefit resulting. There had been paraded
before the house the question of corks, and if hon. gentle-
men now revived it he would undertake to show that it
was the meet wretched case which had ever bean brought
upon the floor of the hoase. (Hear, hear.) And with re-
gard to the nine other articles, not a single voice had
reached him either from masters or workmen against the pro-
posed abolition of duties., He might remind the committee
that, besides all the general principles which led them to
the conclusion at which they had arrived, they had in view
a great reform of the customs administration and a great
reduction} of establishments. Even where it appeared, on
first inspection of the tables of revenue, that £lO,OOO or
£20,000 was realised by one of these articles, that did not
show the real profit which it yielded. They were all arti-
cles of a nature to require very minute investigation, which
entailed a very great deal of delay and expense. For these
reasons he hoped, and felt perfectly convinced, that these
votes would receive the approval of the committee.
Sir J. PAKINGTON explained that he had not objected
to the repeal of these duties on the ground of their being
differential duties, but because, in the present state of the
finances, it was a wanton waste of the resources of the coun-
try to part with upwards of £400,000 of revenue derived
from these articles.
Mr. NEWDEGATE had heard with much pleasure the
able speech of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets,
which made him think the old Tories were going to be joined
by the Radicals again. (A laugh.) Political economy had
indeed been turned into a car of Juggernaut, and driven
over the people. Everything was sacrificed to a blind de-
terminafion to abolish import duties, for the sake of the ab-
stract doctrines of a school, or of a few large interests. This
ought not to be.
In answer to a question as to whether any time would be
allowed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
proposed that the reduction or abolition of these duties
should take effect immediately, but there was no informa-
tion to lead him to suppose that any injury would be done
to any class by the immediate operation of the change.
The next article in the list was that of artificial flowers.
Sir W. Joliffe, Mr. Steuart, and Lord J. Manners reite-
rated the same objections which had before been taken to
the sacrifice of revenue by the repeal of those differential
duties, which would not make the articles any cheaper.
Mr. CRAWFORD could not admit that taking off the
duty would have no beneficial effect besides reducing the
price to the consumer, If articles at this sort, displaying
French 'taste and skill in design, wore allowed to come in,
it would be the best possible thing for those people in this
country who were engaged in the manufacture of these
commodities ; for they would learn more taste and skill in
eompeting with the French manufacturers.
Mr. VANSITTART wished to know whether the whole
course of this legislation was for the protection of our own
people or of the foreigner.
Lord W. GRAHAM asked whether there was any in-
spection of things imported into this country ; for, if he was
rightly informed, things had been imported into this coun-
try which would greatly shock the modesty of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer.
Thu CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that there was an inspection to prevent the admission of
the articles the noble lord referred to.
In answer to a Hoar. MEMBER, who asked a question
with regard to linen yarns,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
believed that the duty on linen yarns in France was for-
merly from 10 to 20 per cent. We had no specific conven-
tion on the subject of any one article of manufacture; but
he understood it was the intention of the French Govern-
ment to follow the course which was taken in England, and
place the duty on half manufactured goods in subordinate
relation to fully manufactured goods. He therefore in-
ferred that as the duties on linen would be reduced to be-
tween 25 and 30 per cent., for the safety of the linen manu-
facture of France, the duty on linen yarns would be reduced
in proportion ; and consequently, without being able to give
a pledge on the subject, his expectation certainly was that
the duties on linen yarn would be reduced to as low a point
as that at which they stood before 1842.
The item was then agreed to.
On the item of opera glasses, •
Mr. VANSITTART asked if the Berlin opera glasses
were to be admitted to the same privilege as those of
France
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
would be no distinction.
The item was agreed to.
On the item of silk,
Sir J. PAXTON said the interest of the silk manufacture
was so largo that he trusted the committee would give him
their attention for a little time while he brought the subject
as clearly as he could before them. He believed that there
were about 30 towns and villages employed in the manufac-
ture of silk, but Coventry, Macclesfield, Derby, Spitalfields,
and Manchester were the chief seats of the manufacture.
From all these places, he believed, except Manchester, there
had been petitions to that house against taking off the duty
on silk; but from Manchester his hon. friend the member
for Birmingham had presented a petition for the remission
of the duty. Now, on looking over the duties on silk, he
found that none had been levied on the kind manufactured
in Manchester. Last year the duty on silk amounted to
£387,000, and £166,000 of this was levied on articles simi-
lar to those manufactured by his constituents at Coventry;
and, therefore, lie thought they had a right to be heard on
this question. The silk manufacturers at Coventry had been
for the last month in a depressed condition. As soon as the
announcement of the treaty was made the Mayor of Coven-
try and a deputation of the inhabitants waited on him (Sir
J. Paxton) and his colleague, and the mayor said he could
hardly be answerable for the safety of his city if the duty
were taken off. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) did not
altogether concur in the dismal forebodings of the mayor;
but still the ah we would undoubtedly strike a great blow
at the prosperity of the town he represented. Nor must the
committee suppose that it was a place which had not pro-
gressed with the times. In 1821 the population of Coven-
try was 21,000; in 1859 it was 42,000. In 1840 there were
in it 18,000 persons employed in the silk trade ; in 1860
there were 28,000. In 1340 there were 4,732 small hand-
'owns ; at the present time there were only 500, but of large
steam looms there were 6,550; and while in the former
year the production a silk ribbons was 795,000 yards, it
was now no less than 2,300,000 yards per annum.
(Hear, hear.) The tax on silk had never been considered
a burdensome one ; and even the Liverpool Financial
Reform Association, in whose steps the Chancellor of the
Exchequer seemed to be treading, had declared that, so
long as customs duties were levied at all, the duty on
silk ought to be retained. The tax was 16 per cent. ; and
the trade of Coventry would have been content to surrender
half of it at once, and the other half in seven or eight years,
by which time they might be prepared to meet the shock ;
but, as it was, they considered that their industry, had been
bartered away for a French treaty, under which they got
no equivalent. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) believed
that he was as good a free-trader as any man in the house,
and his constituents were also free-traders. (Derisive
cheers.) They were free-traders, and they were willing tu
give up. the I rotective duty they enjoyed provided that their
own productions were admitted into France on equal terms.
(Hear, hear.) He begged to move the following amend-
ment :—" That it is inexpedient to reduce the duties on silk
manufactures without making provision for the simultaneous
admission of English manufactured silk and ribbons into
France on equal tern. F." (Cheers.)
Mr. MASSEY said the hon. baronet had not moved his
amendment in precisely the terms of his notice; but though
he h.id now omitted all specific notice of the treaty, which
the committee were nut considering, the motion had clearly
a substantial reference to the engagements of that treaty.
It did not therefore appear to him to be one that he could
fitly report to the house, and he should therefore decline to
aces pt it.
Mr. AYRTON suggested the following addition to the
original motion, in lieu of the amendment : "being manu-
factures of, or imported directly from, any country which
permits the free importation of the silk manufactures of tho
United Kiegdont." (him., hear.)
Sir J. PAXTON eagerly accepted this suggestion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know if the resolution as
now put was in order.
Mr. MASSEY—Yes ; certainly.
Mr. S. BOOTH hoped the right hon. gentleman would
not give way to the appeal now inede to The
people of
Coventry were very good free araders some 14 or 15 years ego,
but now they were desirous of having that indulgence ex-
tended to them which they refused to others under similar
circumstances. He trusted that all these remnants of prc-
teetion would be given up. The remission of the duta, oar

silk was one of the most important in the treaty. It was
one from which a great many people would derive consider-
able benefit, and it was one of the last upon which the right
hon. gentleman should give way. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the hon. gentleman who
spoke last spoke as a Conservative. He (Mr. Newdegate)
was practically an older Conservative than the hon. gentle-
man, and he should advise him, if he intended to stand well
before the country, • not to encourage an internecine war
between tho various interests of the country. He himself
had cast aside the friendship of eminent statesmen, but he
did so on no narrow grounds. He did so because he believed
it to be unwise for this country to be dependent on foreigners
for its supply of food. He deprecated the principle of now
turning round upon other interests because they had sup-
ported the abolition of protection to agriculture. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to silk,' Mr.Pittrotained prohibition in
its favour. Was Mr. Pitt an ignorant and benighted states-
man ? Mr. Huskisson retained a duty of 33 per cent. ; and
Sir R. Peel retained a duty of 15 and 10 per cent. These
statesmen were of opinion that such an amount of protection
was necessary to counterbalance the naturaladvantages pos-
sessed by France with regard to silk. This duty was one
most easily levied, and it was one with regard to which the
right hon. gentleman, who had a deficiency of £5,000,000
to make up, would complain of as an ignorant impatience of
taxation. The remission of duties which had taken place
formerly were accompanied by. great distress. Mr. 'Hus-
kisson's measure was passed in 1826, and in 1831 Mr.
Brocklehurst stated before a committee that the silk weavers
were in a poor, ragged, and miserable condition. In Coventry
£40,000 had to be distributed amongst the poor people in
addition to the peers rate after that measure had taken
effect, and in Nuneaton two-thirds of the people were out
of work. Let it not be said, then, that these free trade
measures had not produced distress Let him remind the
hon. member for Birmingham that last year, in reply to
a communication from certain workingmen, he stated that
so much was this country mixed up with the miserable com-
plications of foreign affairs, that he was not surprised at the
wish of the people to emigrate, Now, ho would ask that
hon. member and that house, was not this treaty a severe
taste to our people of the misery of our being mixed up with
foreign complications ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. A. TURNER observed that the hon. member for
Coventry (Sir T. Paxton) had stated that all the silk trade
were unanimous against that part of the treaty which re-
lated to silk, with one exception—Manchester. He (Mr.
Turner) was proud to say it was so. (Hear, hear.) It
might be said that this treaty or budget was such a Man-
chester treaty or budget that the people of Manchester were
bound to support it in all its particulars. He was glad to
say that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had ex-
pressed a unanimous opinion in favour of this budget.
(Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a memorial on the same
subject, dated November, 1852, which had been presented
to the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckingham-
shire from the silk trade of Manchester. The memorial set
forth that their trade was in a depressed condition, that the
workpeople were not fully employed, and that that branch
of manufacture was almost stationary. They went on to
say this was owing chiefly to the limited nature of the fo-
reign demand for their goods, and they were of opinion that
was attributable to the high protective duty, owing to which
they could not compete with the foreign manufacturer, and
that threw the manufacture almost entirely into the hands
of the French and Swiss. Now he (Mr. Turner) was of
opinion that if the Manchester manufacturers of silk, cot-
ton, or any other branch could not maintain their position
against competition with foreign nations, it was time for
them to turn their attention to some other branch of busi-
ness, and he firmly believed that instead of their being in-
jured by competition, they would be stimulated, as they had
always been by competition, to renewed exertions in trade.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. GROGAN, as a representative of a city which car-
ried on a rather extensive trade in silk, would give his sup-
port to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry.
Mr. BRIGHT would not long take up the time of the
house. The hon, gentleman the member for Warwickshire
laid very heavy charges at their door—that they had no
principle of justice and no feeling of benevolence towards a
portion of our people; that, indeed, was but the very least
of what he said during a long speech. Another conclusion
his mind seemed to have arrived at was, that he (Mr. Bright)
and others could influence the legislature of France. Well,
he must say he found it quite hard enough to do his duty
towards his constituents in his own country. As for the
amendment, it in effect was, that we were not to take any-
thing free from France or from any other country, unless
France or that other country took something, or every-
thing, or anthing from us. Suppose we were to apply that
principle to corn, what then ? As regarded France, now
there was a sliding scale in the importation of corn. They
had no sliding scale here, but if the hon. gentleman carried
his resolution he would be quite in order, and it would be a
consistent proposition to propose another resolution that we
were to have no more cattle or corn from France unless
France consented to have corn and cattle from us. (Hear.)
He believed the people of Coventry were labouring under a
great delusion in thinking that (to use a favourite protec-
tionist term) they should be " inundated" with French
silks. Nor could he see why the French people might not
suffer themselves to be led away by a similar fallacy that
they would be inundated with the silks of Coventry. He
could not see that the same articles would be exported from
France to England and from England to France without
being a profit to the manufacturers in both countries. The
Coventry manufacturers bought their silks as cheaply as
the French manufacturers bought theirs, the latter also in
many cases buying in China and in Italy. Well, in what
other element of cost was there such a difference ? It could
not be said we were not superior to France in power of ma-
chinery. A phantom haunted many of late regarding the
sending of our coals to France, Well, at any rate, we had
our coals for our manufactures on the spot, and so consi-
derably cheaper. In cotton and in all other manufactures
the machinery producing power was cheaper than in
any other country. Well, another element in the cost of
production was the wages of labour ; but hero too any one
conversant with the condition of France of late years must
know-that the wages of labour there as well as here were
on the increase. (Hear.) As to the respective abilities of
the French and English workmen, he had never spoken to
any gentleman able to form a judgment on the subject who
was not of opinion that an English workman in any depart-
ment of mere labour, not design, was superior to a French
workman. (Hear.) As to design and skill, there was no ap-
preciable difference between the two countries. There were
many trades in this country which were furnished with
French designs by Frenchmen residing in England, and
indeed a man might easily bring from France the best and
newest designs, were he so inclined, at little or no cost, in
his carpet-bag or portmanteau. His hen, friend the mem-
ber for Coventry spoke of the increase in prosperity and
population of Coventry during late years. Well, but did
not this show the great enterprise, industry, skill, and capi-
tal of her manufacturers, and their vast command of machi-
nery power—all tending to establish what no one could
doubt—their complete success. He ventured to say that if
his hon. friend came here in ten years to come, as he (Mr.
Bright) hoped his hon. friend would, he would admit that
the progress of the trade in Coventry was even greater in
the interval. Protection not only made arts and manufac-
tures wither and decay, but it also seemed to enfeeble the
mind and reasoning powers ofthose who were subject to its
influence. (Laughter.) In its advocates there was an utter
want of logic, an absence of faith, and a giving way to ter-
ror--of which even children ought to be ashamed. (Hear,
hear.) His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had challenged any member to point out a single class
of operatives or capitalists which had been deteriorated
during the last ten years by the changes which had taken
place in our legislation ; and, indeed, it must be surmised
that the few who still upheld such principles practically
every day of their lives condemned them. He was glad to
hear a member for an agricultural county (Mr. Sclater,
Booth) say that the principles which had been applied to ag •
riculturo might be applied to manufactures. He (Mr.
(Bright) thought the argument irresistible. Events had
shown how false the prediction of the working of those prin-
ciples had been in the case of the land, and that they had
been not pernicious, but eminently beneficial. Therefore
he hoped the right hon. member for Coventry would take
courage, and when he went down to his constituency tell
them that he had great reason to think those dangers had
been much over-stated, and he trusted that in future meet-
ings nis hon. friend would have the satisfaction of telling
them that though he had made this final and hopeless
effort, he must then congratulate them that they had en-
tered upon the field of enterprise opened to them in the
proposal now laid before the house.
Mr. AYRTON rose amid loud cries of " Divide." His
hon. friend the member for Birmingham had never been
able to induce the working people of England to adopt any
of his dogmata, nor the people of the United States his no-
tions of free trade. There was no people in the world who
had ever adopted those philosophic dogmata of free trade,
which, though striking in the abstract, were not applicable
to the condition of all classes under all circumstances.
France, above all other nrtions, stood by protection up to
prohibition, and yet its silk trade had increased threefold
within a short period of years. The Manchesterts school
talked not logic, but absolute nonsense upon
conceivableponthhead.
The application of abstract theory under every
circumstance would lead in some cases to the greatest ima-
ginable hardships. There was no such restriction_ on the
wpreordeuicmp
tionortoefdsifrlko.m It
France was stahied
samethat wkhiailde silk_ of gg_ooooddss
could
werenot
manufacturede sent ther
of th
there. Bute b
theest
kindsgoodsof
imported
French from
France silk,
and were used by the wealthy, who did not complain of the
duty. But the commoner sorts of silk, motearofeehi? silk,ue
were manufactured as cheaply here. , her
asked what, if all the silk manufactories were shut up to-
morrow, would become of the people ? Why they might
go into Lancashire and obtain employment in the cotton
trade. 'Well, who would profit by the transaction? (Ironical
" Hear, hear's.") Why the manufacturers of thenorth. He
should not wish to see one interest sacrificed for another,
and therefore should support the motion of his hon. friend.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
anxious before the committee went to a division to say a
few words on the important subject under their considera-
tion. It had been asserted that the present proposition had
been recommended to the notice of the committee under the
pressure of two Governments—that the vote to which they
were asked to come upon it was not to be taken on the merits
of the case, but as the result of certain political engage
meats which had been entered into between England and
France. Now, he wished in the most explicit manner to
inform the committee that that statement was one which
was the reverse of the fact. (Hear, hear.) The proposition
to which he invited hon. members to assent was
made on
its own merits—was recommended to them as being in har•
mony with the legislation of recent years, and calculated in
itself to prove highly beneficial to the country. If, therefore,
iorwnfe aaat shs oterno
en,
caeihtryewhichubsinhy ou in
stance
contend,its el f was
fo
rg
rejectinge d and
itw sound,as
ttnt
hoho
eebsmept
sufficient
l
stamneschesthofatwithwieahs
ontihadere through
the medium of a treaty by moans of which other benefits
were sought to be attained. (Hear, hear.) Now, the motion
before the committee, he was prepared to admit, had been
brought forward by the hon, member for Coventry with
great moderation, when the peculiarity of his position was
taken into account; but it was one to whioh, nevertheless,
the Government did not deem it consistent with their duty
to accede. The committee was probably aware that as re.
garded the great article of ribbons theduty levied in France
was lower than that whichwe levied on French silks. It was
a duty amounting to 7 per cent.—ox somewhat at the rate
of 3s. per lb.—on the value of the goods, while the duty
-ehich we imposed, while nominally 15 per cent, was in
point of fact considerably more upon the silks which we
imported. The whole question had, however, been argued
upon the broadest grounds in the course of the discussion,,
both by the hon. member for North 'Warwickshire and
the honourable member for the Tower,liamlets, who bad
taken the committee back one or two generations
into the past— (cheers)—and who had put forward views and
opinions which, it' they were good fel, anything went to the
very root of the coarse of legislation which we had been
pursuing for the lasts years. (Hear, hear.) It might,
indeed, after t4e epeech. which they had just heard, be very
fairly said that the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets
was 'a Protectionist-,(hear, hear)—nay, something more
than a Protectionist, for he seemed to be an advocate of the
Prineiplo -d'setting up State warehouses, such as those which
he had pointed out were established in Lyons, in which by
the providence of Goveni4,ent a supply of the raw material
was provided fon the manufacturer. (Hear, hear.) The
oriqmal tone of fhe debates on free trade had, in fact, been
T9PYOh lie irech et the hen. genthuan, by whom the

hon. member for Warwickshire, who had himself gone
tolerably far in the direction of protection, had been com-
pletely distanced. (Hear, and laughter.) He was quite
sure, if the mind of the hon. member for Warwickshire was
capable of admitting sentiments so ignoble as those of mor-
tification at finding himself outdone in a career which he
believed was especially his own—(a laugh)—he must now
be suffering tortures hardly to be described at seeing him-
self so completely distanced by the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets. (Laughter.) The hon. member for tho
Tower Hamlets had displayed qualities which would have
been invaluable at an earlier day—(laughter)—but he was
afraid that new thoy were completely thrown away, like
flowers wasting their sweetness on the desert air. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The hon. member had caught, he
would not say the slang, but the whole vocabulary which
belonged to the days when the sanctuaries of protection
were assailed by the profane hands of Mr. Huskisson. Free
trade, he said, was all theory, and the views he advanced
were those of a practical man. And then he talked of the
heartlessness of the adherents of free trade. (Hear, hear.)
This was exactly the language used in the debates of 1825,
when Mr. Huskisson, now pointed to with approval as a
model wise legislator, was accused not only of being a hard-
hearted metaphysician, but of having the sentiments of the
devil in his breast. (Laughter.)lWith the exception of the
reference to that particular personage, the, speech of the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets quite came up to anyof
the denunciations previously pronounced. He drew a sad and
deplorable picture of the sufferings of those whose labour
had been displaced, bat naturally forgot to inquire whether
any labour had been hems sl (Hear, hear.) The hex.
member spoke of the difficulties incidental to the trade, as
if when protection existed in that branch of industry it was
a Paradise, and every man was sure of a fair day's wages
for a fair day's work. He seemed to think that the silk
trade and protection had always existed together. Bat what
was the truth of the matter ? The silk manufacture took
root in England centuries before the time of protection.
(Hear.) It flourished in England in the 17th century, and
it was only after it came to be protected, in 1697, that it
began to droop, and to depend on legislative aid. (Hear.
hear.) Was there suffering then—no displaced labour ?
Had the hon. member no compassion for the evil fortune
which attended his favourite system ? In 1765 "the weavers
went down to the Houses of Parliament in a body, to make
personal application to the members, representing their
wretched condition, and praying for the total prohibition of
foreign goods. Parliament reduced the duties on raw and
thrown silk; dealers in foreign goods countermanded their
orders, and the weavers were appeased." In 1766 smug-
gling was carried on to a greater extent than ever, and.,
7,072 looms were out of employment--all this at a time when
the system recommended by the hon. gentleman was in the
fullest vigour. (Hear.) In the same year the import and
sale of foreign silks and velvets was totally prohibited,
with the exception of those brought from India; but, in
1769, in that happy state of things when there ought to
have been nothing but contentment and peace, the weavers
formed combinations to compel their masters to raise their
wages, committed various acts of violence on the property
of their employers, destroying their looms, &c., and in the
riot several soldiers as well as weavers were killed.
" Constant disputes still continuing between employers
and employed, an act was passed in 1773 which enabled the
weavers of Middlesex to demand a fixed price for their
labour, which price was to be fixed by the magistrates ;
masters and men were restricted from giving or receiving
more or less than the fixed price ; the manufacturers were
liable to heavy penalties if they employed weavess out of
the district; the weavers also were restricted, under heavy
penalties, not to employ, at any one time, more apprentices
than two. This law remained in force untillB24. In 1784
additional duties were imposed, and in 1786 the silk trade
was expressly excluded from a treaty with France. In 1793
4,000 Spitalfield looms were quite idle, and at the end of the
war the Spitalfteld weavers were again involved in suffer-
ings far more extensive and severe than at any former
period, two-thirds being out of employment."
That was the system which prevailed when the principles
of the hon, member were in operation. (Cheers.) After
that there came a change, and the men who made it were
exposed to all the charges of heartlessness which the hon.
gentleman thought himself entitled to pronounce on the
vast majority of the House of Commons. (Cheers.) He
had described the effects of the system thehon. member pa-
tronized ; and he asked had there been 7,000 or 8,000 looms
out of work since that period ? Had there been any soldiers
or weavers killed in carrying out that blessed system of
trade regulations he advocated ? (Hear, hear.) Look at the
facts of the case. In 1820 our imports of raw silk amounted
to some 2,000,0001 b., and in 1859 they amounted to
9,920,0001 b. In 1820 the exports of British manufactured
silk goods came to. £371,000, in 1859 they had risen to
nearly £2,500,000. (Cheers.) And in the face of all that
the hon. member came down to the house and claimed for
his statements and principles the name of facts, experience,
prudence, and wisdom, and dared to charge the majority of
the house not only with error, but with heartlessness for-
sooth. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman in commencing his
speech expressed a hope that the committee would listen
with patience to his remarks, and he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was glad they had done so, for he believed it
was the last dissertation of the kind they would ever have
within the walls of the British Parliament. (" Oh, oh 1" and
cheers.) The last of these prohibitive duties was now about
to disappear from the tariff, and the opportunity they had
just enjoyed was a rare one, and he should have been sorry
if any momentary impatience had deprived them of the prac-
tical lessons they had just learned. (A laugh, and " Hear,
hear.") It was not because of the French treaty that the
present vote should be adopted. It was not a small and in-
significant vote, as comparatively speaking many of the
others were—it was a large vote and a large measure, in-
volving a considerable sacrifice of revenue, and affecting the
interests of a great and extensive trade. If the committee
thought it a bad vote on its merits, let them reject it ; but
let them remember that if they did they would repudiate all
the principles on which they had been acting for the last 20
years (" Oh," and cheers), and the adoption of which, in-
stead of displacing labour and bringing classes and indivi-
duals to distress, had multiplied the comforts of the work-
ing man, and increased not only his sense of self-respect,
but his loyalty as a member of society and a subject of the
Queen. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to state that the vote he
was prepared to give on this question did not rest on the
ground of protection, and that he had no spmpathy with
the arguments or views of either the hon. member for Coven-
try or the Tower Hamlets. (Hear.) Those two hon. mem-
bers gave their vota in support of the Budget of the Govern-
ment, and now they found that the Budget pressed upon
their own constituencies (hear, hear) they came forward
and raised their voices in behalf of interests to which he
thought they must feel themselves they had put it out of
their power to render any real service. (Hear.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had invited the committee to dis-
cuss this vote upon its merles, and he had therefore a right
to consider whether there did not exist serious financial ob-
jections to the proposal of the Government. He must, how-
ever, take decided exception to the right hon. gentlemen's
statement that they could not reject the proposal to re-
peal the silk duties without reversing the policy of the
last 20 years. He thought they were perfectly entitled
to pronounce their opinion whether, in the pre-
sent state of cur finances, they ought to repeal
a duty which brought into the Exchequer not less
than £300,000 a year without pressing on any in-
terest in the country, and which was fairly derived from
taxation upon the rich. He should, therefore, oppose the
proposal simply on financial grounds, as most improvident
under existing circumstances. (Hear,)
Mr. BALL amid cries of " Divide I" urged that the
committee should have more time to consider so important
a subject. He felt the more disposed to insist on this as
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had state' that this was
to be the last time when such a question should be dis-
cussed. If it was so, let them linger upon it and compose
themselves for the irretrievable end everlasting ruin pro-
vided for them by the right hon. gentleman. He moved that
the chairman report progress.
Lord PALMERSTON really hoped that, as the hon.
gentleman who moved the adjournment had refreshed him-
self and now seemed in the iull possession of his faculties_
(a laugh)—and able to state at any length he pleased his
objections to the question before the house, he would con-
sent to withdraw his motion. He certainly should oppose
the motion for reporting progress.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For reporting progress ................ 28
Against it 33
Majority 233
Mr VANCE, al'sitahjoerihtoyu; .tir;e; n........ hr. en-
tlemen were anxious to deliver their
sentimentso onthis
question, begged to move that the chairman now leave the
AIrFORD earnestly appealed to the
the suspense which was paralys-
ecehmmaimrr..i
titt(e.:lnOveh.t,cotoßhprolong
ing the silk trade. (Hear.) An urgent memorial, praying
for the speedy settlement of this question, had been in-
trusted to him for presentation by many of those London
firms whom the hon. member for the. Tower Hamlets now
characterised as hard-hearted, but whom that hon. gentle-
man was exceedingly happy to wait upon,' cap- in-hand, at
the time of an election. (" Oh, oh !") -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also
pointed out the evil of protracting the stagna-
tion which had already lasted for three weeks,
and assured honourable gentlemen who whaled tie
pursue that discussion that they should hays
an opportunity of doing so to-morrow (this day), on the
bringing up of the report.
Mr. BALL said he had made his motion entirely upon
the solicitation of those who had helped to return the hon.
member for the city (Mr. Crawford) to that house, and who
apprehended perfect ruin from the measure which their re-
presentative now sought to press on.
Mr. ELLICE, sen., as one who had voted in the Mince.
rity, recommended the hon. member for Dublin to withdraw
his motion.
Mr. AYRTON , in making the same suggestion, ex-
plained, amid thoimpatience of the house, that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in a very "fascinating" vein, had
indulged in repeated misapprehensions of his observations.
He also added, in reply to the hon. member for the eity,
that he had never canvassed a single elector in the city of
London, except to promote the return of that hon. gen-
tleman himself, or that of the noble lord the Foreign Se-
cretary.
Mr. VANCE then withdrew his motion.
The house divided—
For the amendment
Against
190
Majority •• • . • -122
The resolution was agreed to, and the Chairman was
ordered to report it to the house.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE brought in the Scotch Reform
Bill, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on Monday, the 19th inst.
The house adjourned at 25 minutes past one.

BIRTHS.
BLACKER.—On the 29th ult., at Thorpe Parsonage, near
Peterborough, the Wife of the Rev. R. S. C. Blacker, of
a son.

STIMAILT.—On the 29th ult., at Granton House, Edin-
burgh, the wife of Lieutenant Duncan Stewart, R.N., of
a son.

MARRIAGES.
MAUMZ—STERLING.—On the 24th January, at Colombo,
Lieut.-Col. P. C. Maude, Royal Artillery, C. 8., eldest
on of Captain the Hon. P. Maude, R.N., to Pauline S.
Sterling, only daughter of the Hon. Paul Sterling, Acting
Chief Justice, Ceylon.

DEATHS.
BLENCOWE.—On the 28th ult., at Bath, Henry Prescott
Blencowe, Esq., of Thoby Priory, Essex.
RINGSLEY.—On the 29th ult., at Chelsea Rectory, the
Rev. Charles Kingsley, rector of Chelsea, aged 78.
SOUTHWELL.—On the 29th ult., the Lord Viscount South..
well, K.P., aged 83.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MUEDO YOUNG,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oouati of
Middlesex, Friday, March 2, 1860,