The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-02 00:00:00

snarly four millions. Those facts he would under-
take to prove to the Committee, if one should be
appointed. The papers which he had read showed
that the distress in the silk trade had annually
increased from the year 1826, when the new regula-
tions were made, and that previous to that year
the trade had been increasing. He thought, therefore,
that to a certain extent he had made out a case, sufficient
to induce the House to take this subject into its considera-
t:on. Under his second head—the practical and histori-
ell authorities bearing on the subject—his Lordship briefly
traced the progress of the silk manufacture in England.
The first mention of it was in the reign of Edward 111. ;
in the reign of Henry VI. it was found to have declined,
as at pre-ent (and the coincidence was remarkable), from
a want of due protection. In 1606, under the auspices
of James 1., the silk throwsters were incorporated, and
nothing material occurred till 1685, and the revocation of
the Edict of Nantz. That event was the origin of the
establishment of the silk manufacture at Coventry and
Spita'fieldd. Nearly a century afterwards, viz, in 1765,
the &stress in this branch of manufacture was so great,
that the Legislature put restrictions upon our intercourse
with foreien countries in ; and in the following year

those restrictions were exchanged for a duty almost amount-
ing to prohihition. In 1509 that duty was made perpe-
tual, and it was continued until 1824, producing to the
Exchequrr more than 700,0001. every year. In 1824
the famous Free Trade Resolutions were passed, and they
were brought into operation in 1826. The Noble Lord
then read an extract from the report of the Committee of
the House of Lords in 1821, appointed to take into con-
sideration the trade in silk with the Bast Indies, and after-
wards noticed the subject of machinery, but in a manner
which preventing our catching any thing distinctly, but
a reference to the case of Messrs. Haines and Atkinson,
who having employed French engineers, and set up looms,
&c., which cost 19,000/., found the experiment fail, and
subsequently sold the whole machinery for 5,050/.,
after having sustained a total loss of not less than 40,000/.
On the third head—the prospects for the future—
he admitted that free trade was attended with many ad-
vantages, and that the repeal of what was called the Spital-
fields Act by Mr. Huskisson, had accomplished an import-
ant benefit to the trade. His (Lord Grosvenor's) expecta-
tions were, however, most gloomy, and be feared, without
a tatel change of system, no hope could be held out to the
unfortunate artiz tn. He did not object to the prosperity
of France at the present moment, but his philanthropy
was not quite so universal as to make him wish that our
neighbours should fl nirish at our expence. His Lordship
also alluded to the proceedings of an envoy from the Board
of Trade, who h id recently been at Macclesfield—who had
witnessed the universal distress, and who (if we heard cor-
rectly) recommended the repeal of the corn-laws, as the
only pknacea. He had that morning received a petition,
to be presented to the House, from the operatives in Man-
chester and Salford, confirming the representations of the
masters, that the silk trade in those towns was in a most
ruinous state. He would ask, then, were the artisans of
this country to be brought to ruin for the sake of a vague
theory ? Not less than 300,000 persons depended upon
that trade for subsistence, and he firmly believed that they
would perish, unless encouragement were given to their
labour by some legislative enactment. The Noble Lord
concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the state of the silk trade.
Mr. E. L. BULWER seconded the motion.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON wished to set out by
stating, that it was not the intention of his Majesty's
Government to oppose the appointment of a Committee to
inquire into the present state of the silk trade ; but lie
should beg to propose an addition to the motion of his
Noble-Friend—not with a view to alter, but rather to ex-

tend its scope and operation ; and also with the view of
uniting it to another question, which would include the
object of further preventives to smuggling. As he thus
agreed with his Noble Friend to the extent of assenting to
his motion, he should net have to trouble the House, by
enterin't at much length into the general question, but
would have shortly stated the views entertained by his
Maj-sty's Government, had not his Noble Friend, and his
Hon. Friend by whom the motion was seconded, entered
into a variety of details, and drawn conclu.ions from them,
with which he (Mr. P. T.) could not concur ; he, there-
fore, found it necessary to go more at length into the
question than would otherwise have been necessary. He
should, as he had already stated, consent to the Com-
mittee, but not on the grounds which the mover and
seconder had stated ; from those he altogether dissented.
No doubt the Noble Lord and Honourable Gentle-
man were actuated by the best motives, and as-
both of them represented places which were the seat
of much distress, they were but obeying the wishes
of their respective constituents in bringing forward
that subject. As to the distress under which those
districts were labouring, he had to assure both the mover
and seconder, that they only did justice to the feelings of
his Majesty's Government, when they gave them credit
fur deeply sympathising with the sufferings which those
individuals unfortunately had to endure. But though he
admitted the existence of distress to a considerable extent,
he by no mem was prepared to admit that the general
state of trade was at all in so distressed a condition as had
been represented. Nothing had occurred to the silk trade
-which had not over and over again taken place in the silk
trade, and which did not, in some degree, appear to be in-

herent in the nature of that trade. In 1793 there were no
fewer than 4,000 men out of employment. In 1801,
20,000/. was voted by Parliament for the relief of the
silk trade. In 1817 the utmost distress prevailed ; and in
1819, such was the distress existing, that a Committee of
that House was appointed to inquire into theatauses of that
distress, and since then there had been several periods of
distress. It bad been frequently complained that a change
of system had taken place sufficient to produce the existing
distress, and that it had produced it. Now he would sub-
mit to the House whether or not any case had been made
out to show that that change of system—supposing it to
have taken place to the extent assumed—had really pro-
duced that effect. So far from any position of that nature
being founded in fact, he would maintain that there did not
exist the slightest connection between the existing distress
and the change which bad taken place in the commercial
system of the country. He should now call the attention
of the House to some of the changes which had actually
taken place in the silk trade, and then the House would
judge how those changes were calculated to produce the
present d fliculties. In 1824 Lord Liverpool's Govern-
ment reduced the duty nn thrown Italian silk from 14s. Bd.
to 7s. 2t1., and, at the sane time, took off the prohibi-
tion on manufactured silk, changing it to a fixed duty.—
The removal of the prohibition, and the establishment of a
fiaeri duty, went upon uone of what were called the ab-
stract principles of political economy; but on this obvious
practical and sound principle, namely, that taking the
minimum i f the cost of smuggling, they fixed that as the
amount of duty, in the well-founded expectation that it
would put an end to the contraband trade. That arrange-
,7ant was not carried into effect for some time after it was
proposCd, for it was held that its operation would be the
ruin of the manufacture, and therefore it was demanded
thr.t time should be given to enable these engaged in the
trade to withdraw their capital and invest it otherwise, be-
fore they were inundated with French goods. Most un-
wisely that proposition was agreed to, for the time was not
taken advantage of for the purpose of accomplishing that
object for which it was asked. The number of manufac.
turers engaged in the trade up to that time was not in the
slightest degree diminished. One would have thought that
the first effort made by them would be to prepare for the
coming danger ; but they did no such thing. In the
most extraordinary and extravagant manner they ex-
tended their operations, and in 1626 they were in a much
worse condition to meet the alteration than they otherwise
could possibly have been. If they had been as prudent as
they were imprudent, a result the direct reverse of that
which Lad taken place would certainly have occurred. The
fact was, that all the distress which had taken place arose
sole!y from undue speculation, and the parties had only to
blame themselves. It would not, of course, he necessary
thr him to trouble the House with a long series of figures
on the present subject, but there were a few details to
which he should just brit fly advert. He shouleLt Ike the
five years previous to 1824 and the five years subsequent
to 1627, for during the intervening period, as the law did
not come into operation, it therefore could have produced
no effect. The quantity of raw silk entered for home
consumption was
In 1819
1820 1,444,0001b5.
1,621,004)
1821
1822 1,993,000
1824 3,442,000
Ile would now call their attention to the state of the trade
subsequently to 1827 :
In 1828 the quantity was 3,559,0001b5.
1829
1830 „ 2,419,000
13:31
And up to die present time In this, the quantity amounted
to 336,000109. The average of those five year. then was
3,739,0001b5., which was ahotit 100 per cent. increase
upon the other five years. Was that a proof that the
change had injured the trade ?—(Hear, hear.) He would
now put it to the House whether his Noble Friend had
made out any case to stand upon? In his opinion, the
great mistake with respect to those duties was, that arty
portion of them should have been allowed to remain. It
had been stated that there was a reduction in the amount
of employment in Macclesfield, and it was thence inferred
that the trade was in a declining state; but no inference
twW be more erroneous; it could not be traced to any