The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-01 00:00:00

were restricted to the silk and the glove trade, thaa might
be a plea for inquiry, so far as regarded these branches of
industry t but he regretted to state that in Leeds, Man-
chester, and the seats of various other manufactures, the
profits of capital were low, and the profits of labour lower
still. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had
alluded to the prosperity of American manufactures as
having resulted from the adoption of the restrictive system,
but he b.:ged to remind the Hon. Gentleman that with
us that system was more severe than with the Americans.
England, for example, had her Corn Laws ; America had
none. What was the cause that America was seen
fluurshing in such an astonishing degree, while Britain,
both in agriculture and manufactures, was laaouring un-
der such acknowledged distress ? The cause was the
difference in the amount of taxation paid by the inhabi-
tants of the two countries—the Americans being lightly,
and we heavily taxed. Lrbour in England was without
adequate reward, because we had not real free trade,—be-
cause our regulations commenced at the wrong end, and
because we had done that which must be undone ere pros-
peri•y could arrive. If our taxation were not reduced,
and cheap corn introduced, our capital, would fly to other
countries, and England would be reduced to the abject
condition of Poland. In these chances the landed pro-
prietor was deeply interested, for whatever tended to the
general improvement of the country imparted to the soil
a higher value.
Sir R. V YVYAN believed that the system of free
iiihde had beer, tried, and had entirely failed.—(Hear.)
In answer to the comparison which the Hon. and Gal-
hint Member had" drawn between England and America,
he (Sir R. Vyvyan) would beg to refer to the different
measures of prosperity enieyed by this country when pro-
visions were cheap, and during the late war, when they
were dear. Provisions were much dearer during the
struggle that terminated in 1814 and 1815, and taxes
were heavier by 20,000,000/. or 30,000;0001. Adopt-
ing the Hon. and Gallant Member's line of reasoning, he
would inquire why we were more prosperous then than
now ? This was a question understood by the people of
England—a question, too, which those who real lectures
on political economy, and who were always for legislating
on abstract theories, were there called upon to explain.
He must cenfess his astonishment that Government should
oppose a motion for inquiry. Here was an experiment,
showing, that notwithstanding the principle of free trade,
gloves had been smuggled into the market in enormous
quantities. Was it not just to allow the manufacturers
ofgloves and silks the benefit of a Committee, for the
purpose of trying how the principles of free trade, as this-
play ed with respect to these articles, worked, and of de-
termining whether the allegations concerning the new sys-
tem were true or false.—(Hear )
Lord ALTHORP drought that as the Hon. Member for
Worcester had given notice of his intentian to bring under
the consideration of the House, some time during the session,
the general question of fro e trade, it would be more conve-
nient to enter upon it at that pet iod when all its details
would be before them, than tt, follow the example of Hon.
Members on the present occasion, who had associated it
with the condition of the glove-manufacture. For his own
part he should not feel bound to adopt a course similar to
that pursued by these Hon. Gentlemen. With reference
to the prohibitory system in America, he would remark
that a report of a Committee of Congress had set forth,
that the manufactures of their country, now so very flourish-
ing, had attained prosperity notwithstanding" restric-
tiiin, and not " in consquence" of it.—(Hear.) It was, he
admitted, undoubtedly of importance to investigate the
causes of distress in the state, but before going into Com-
mittee it bee one them to examine whether it was possible
for that Committee to suggest any legislative enactments dint
would remove unquestionable grievances and eft ct amelio-
ration. If such a result could nut possibly be expected, it
was the usual and constant practice of that House riot to
appoint a Committee under the circumstances.—(Hear.)
What were the points to which the attention of the desirtd
Committee would be directed? Was it to examine whether
the revenue laws should undergo a revision ? For all the
si:ks smuggled from France, there was a regular insurance
paid in Paris for their safe deliver)? here. This was not
the case with gloves, as the amount of the insurance would
excel d the duty. Such was the information afforded by
the Board of Customs as regarded the revenue laws, With
relation to the question, whether the distress were occa-
sioned by the admission of foreign gloves, it was clearly
proved, by documents on the table of that House, that
since the change of sy,tern, there had been a great increase
in the importation of the raw material of gloves. There
could be no better evidence than this, that the manufacture
had not declined. On these grounds there appeared to him
to be no case that called for the appointment of a Com-
mittee on this occasion. A cert tin quantity of gloves had
no doubt been imported, but the importation was not to
any considerable extent, while, on the other hand, tho im-
portation of the raw material had greatly increased. Great
distress, he was sorry to admit, did prevail at present,
but he entertained the conviction that when the presen
stock was disposed of the glove manufacture would flourish

Mr. A. BARING said gloves were essentially- a luxury ;
and never doubted that, with respect to articles of luxury,
it was sound policy to give protection to our own manu-
facturers. The only question was regarding the smuggler;
and there he agreed with Mr. Huskisson, who said that he
would give protection to the extent calculated to prevent
the injury sustained through contraband trade.—(Hear.)
30 per cent more would, he aided, drive the business into
the hands of the smuggler, out of those of the fair
trader. When Hon. Gentlemen opposite denied the exis-
tence of smuggling, he (Mr. Baring) was inclined to go
into Committee, to see if a duty of 10 per cent. might not
give a balance in favour of our own manufacturer. Al.lusion had been made to America and its floutish-
ing manufactures ; and while he did not mean to
deny that the subject of the corn laws touched upon
by an Hon. and Gallant Member was worthy of grave con-
sideration, still he would call upon the Hon. Member to
recollect, that in America labour was thirty or forty per
cent. dearer than in this country, and that iu the price of
bread it was the second dearest country in the world.—
( Hear.) Toe Hon. Member was aware that the price of
manufactured articles did not depend upon the price of corn
merely, but upon the price of lab tor and other matters.
The present prosperity of the American manufacturers, he
(Mr. Baring) believed, would not have existed but fur
the protection afforde4 them by prohibition—(Hear)—yet
in the United States prohibitio❑ was least justifiable, for in
their territories ample room could be found for every body ;
and if they took the manufactures of Europe, they had the
means of living in abundance. Though protection was least
applicable to the necessities of America, still there was no
doubt but her manufactures bad originated in it ; and if
we did not look carefully to the tax on raw cotton, amount-
ing to five eighths of -a penny on every pound of the raw
material, we might eventually endanger the superiority of
our Lancashire goods, and might enable the Americans not
only to keep the markets of the other world, but to under-
sell us in coarser articles at Manchester.—(Hear.) He
(Mr. Baring) thought that the position of the glove and

the riband-manufacturers was such, that nothing hut pro_
hibition would do; that thirty, or forty, or fifty per cent.
protection would be none at all, and that was the language
of all sensible men in the trade. But a total prohibition
is impossible, because the smuggler would come in ; and

should any additial protection be given, even ttn per cent.,
the smuggler would then come in.
Lord MILTON, in reply to the Hon. Member for Oke-
hampton (Sir R. Vyvyan), observed, that compared with
. .

;he latter period of the late war, the present war not a

time of distress. Although there was, undoubtedly, some
distress at the present time, distress could not be predicated
of it generally, as compared with former periods. There
was no distress in the woollen and the cotton trades. The
present question resolved itself into this, whether we would
have a restriction on the importation of raw materials.
Mr. WHITMORE said that if be had not been satis-
fied w th the reasons offerel by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. P. Thomson), he should have ♦oted in favour
of the 'notion. The effect of a prohibition would be, that
the temporary distress, which was on the eve of removal,
would be increased nearly to paralysis ; the result of a
prohibition would he a complete stop to improvement in
the glove trade.

Mr. MORRISON observed, that there was no question,
for it was admitted, that distress existed in the glove
trade. The mere question was, whether that distress was
occasioned by the importation of French gloves. He dif •
fered from the petitioners and from some of his Hon.
Friends ; for though lie admitted the distress, he was of
opinion that it was not occasioned by the importation of
Fr, orb gloves, and that it criuld not be remedied by any
measure adopted by that House. The French and English
manufacturer purchased the raw material in the same
market, and nearly at the same price. The French ma-
nufacturer had latterly paid higher wages than the
English. Therefore, the French and English manu-
facturers
were nearly on equal terms ; and it was im-
possible for the French to undersell the English after
paying a duty
in this country of at least 4s. the do-
zen on gloves. Comparing equal periods of time, it ap-
pears teat the importation of skins for gloves had in -
creased fr•na 2,600,000 to 3,600,000, or fifty per cant.
The importation of Frenes gloves would augment the con-
sumption of kid gloves,
and therefore would not only im-
prove their quality but increase the demand. The causes
of distress were these—the manufacture of Worcester con-
sisted of heaver gloves, but the ear of other gloves had
been introduced, and this bad diminished the demand for
Worcester gloves, and there was also the competition of