The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-04 00:00:00

labour in the various branches of the silk trade.—
(Cheers.) He did not mean to say they had not
had times of depression, but be fearlessly asserted,
that since protection on thrown silk had been aban-
doned, since Sir Robert Peel removed the last shilling
of protection, they had experienced less fluctuations
than during the palmy days of protection.—(Cheers.)
When it was proposed some years since by the then
Government to take off the duty on foreign thrown
silk, three Derby gentlemen in the trade held a meet-
ing, and they sent two of them as a deputation to
London to expostulate with the Government in the
name of the Derby silk-throwsters, and to show that,
if the odd shilling (it was originally a 15s. duty) per
lb. duty was taken off, they would all be ruined, and
that branch of the silk trade would leave the country,
for that it was impossible from various causes to com-
pete with the foreign throwster. When an account
of this deputation appeared in the papers, a meeting
was called of the merchants and throwsters of Derby,
and the result was that he (Mr. Madeley) was re-
quested to draw up a memorial to the borough and
county Members on the subject, which was signed by
all the firms in Derby, but four, and was sent to Mr.
Strutt. This memorial set forth that although the
taking off the duty might perhaps to some extent,
and for a time, be injurious to them in a pecuniary
point of view, yet they were so satisfied that free
trade would be so beneficial to the people of this
kingdom, • they would willingly risk any loss they
might sustain for the great good to the com-
munity atlarge—(Cheera)—that while they asked for
free trade in the necessaries of life, they should be
ashamed to demand protection for their especial
benefit—(Cheers)—and it requested the Members to
vote for the measure.—(Cheers.) This memorial
was referred to by the then Prime Minister in the
House of Commons. The duty was taken off, but
the predictions of the Protectionists of "ruin to the
trade" had not, been verified, for;that part of the trade
had gone on increasing,- and was never so prosperous
under protection as it had been under free trade.—
(Loud cheers.) He could speak from his own know-
ledge, and gentlemen present could verify it, that of
late, there had been a great demand for English
thrown silk for the continent of Europe, and that he
had had offers some months since of large lots of silk
to throw for export, but could not accept them, and he
knew some throwsters in the west of England, at that
time, had several months work in hand for the foreign
trade.—(Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Madeley) did not
mean to say they had large profits, for competition,
coupled with scarcity of hands, which had raised
wages, had reduced their profits to a minimum, and it
required great perseverance, skill, and industry, to
enable the English throwster to carry on his trade to
advantage, and the same may be said of almost all other
branches of our manufacture. It was true that some
parts of the silk trade had a protection of 15 per
cent., but if the gentleman who spoke at the Derby
meeting had but given the subject a little considera-
don, which be was in duty bound to do, before risk-
ing the statement which be put forth at that meeting,
he would have found that the silk trade of
Derby that had protection was but very
4mall in comparison with that part of the
trade which was free and unprotected; fur they might
fairly put down the quantity of raw silk thrown
weekly in Derby at from 8,000 to 10,000 pounds in
weight. This is the part unprotected, and they might
-stimate the consumption of thrown silk into manu-
factured goods, which was protected, at:abount 2,000
pounds weigt. What, then, becomes of the argu-
ment that the silk trade of Derby required protection
for its support ?—(Cheers.) Why, if the gentleman
himself could purchase foreign thrown silk for less
than he could throw it for himself for his own con-
iumption in manufactures (and foreign thrown is
4uited to his trade), he would long since have ceased
to throw silk altogether ; but he not only has not done
this, but he competes, and that successfully, with the
foreign throwster, by selling about one-half of his
production to other manufacturers.—(Loud cheers.)
As regarded the subject of wages, the labour market,
like all other markets, was regulated as to price by
4upply and demand, and as the supply of skilled
hands in Derby was not equal to the demand, wages
had risen, during the last seven years, 15 to 20 per
cent. for those employed in throwing silk. This was,
he thought, a sufficient answer to the calumny
heaped upon the Free-trade manufacturers of Derby
by their brother manufacturers at the Protectionist
meeting!, namely, that the Free-traders only wanted
free trade to enable them toreduce the wages of their
work-people. This was false and unfounded.—
(Cheers.) Nearly all the silk merchants, tbrowsters,
and manufacturers of Derby were Free-traders, and
.hat from principles founded on a firm conviction that
freedom in e3mmercv, manufactures, and agricul-
ure are the principles of justice—(Cheers)—that,
whilst they ask that the necessaries oflife should bees
tree as air, they,also wished that protection should be
removed from all branches of British industry—
(Loud cheers)—and they also firmly believe that
under free trade this country would; enjoy
greater prosperity and more lasting benefits than
under the banner of protection—(Cheers)—and that
although the trade of this country may receive a
check from the present rise in the raw materials of
cotton and silk, caused partly by a short supply, yet
the prospects of the present year were so cheering,
and so much better than for many years past, it was
hoped that the depression (at one time feared) would
be but slight.—(Cheers.) The manufacturers deplored
the distress of those engaged in agriculture, but they
contend that protection would not relieve them, and
never can again be entertained by any Government.—
(Cheers.) Let the farmers then join the manufac-
turers in demanding from the Government a reduc-
tion of the enormous and extravagant national expen-
diture, and the removal of those burdens which press
so heavily upon the industry of the people of this
kingdom.--(Cheers.) Progression was the order of
the day, and although reforms might not progress as
fast as they could wish, no Government could long
resist the voice of the people, and that it would be
their own faults, if the shameful expenditure of the
nation was not reduced, the people fairly and fully
represented in the House of Commons, and free trade
carried out to its utmost extent.—(Much cheering.)
During these speeches a printed copy of the Queen's
Speech was sent from the Reporter office. It was read,
and;the passage relating to free trade was vociferously
cheered. The concluding paragraph was also loudly
cheered. The healths of the proprietors and the
editor of the Reporter were drank, after a complimen-
tary reference to the services rendered to the cause by
that journal. Mr. Adams returned thanks. At a
later period, a copy of The Sun paper arrived in the
room, and the health of Mr. Young was drank with
great enthusiasm, as will be seen below.]
Mr. TAYLOR, who occupies the original silk mills,
in acknowledging his health, referred to the satisfac-
tory state of the throwing trade under free trade.
For himself he disclaimed protection.—(Cheers.)
The Chairman and himself had been full-bog Free-
traders through life, and he saw no reason to abandon
the opinions they d held for a long series of years.
He contended that wages were 20 per cent. higher
now than at the time a duty of 14s. in the pound
was imposed on silk. When the duty was lowered to
75., they improved their machinery, and successfully
met the foreigner; and now that there was no duty at
all they had still no fear of foreign competition.—
(Cheers.) He should be ashamed of himself if he
were only a partial Free-trader.—(Cheers.)
"Mr. JOHNSON said a toast had just been put into
his hands, of which he most heartily approved, and
had no doubt that the company would respond with
satisfaction. It was " the health of Mr. Murdo
Young, and success to the Liberalarressof England."
—(Loud cheers.) Undoubtly they were under the
deepest obligations to Mr. Young for the spirited
manner he had conducted The Sun newspaper, and
the early intelligence it contained. No expense had
been spared by Mr. Young in expressing the earliest
important intelligence, by whichthe Liberal party had
been benefited, and he hoped Mr. Young had reaped
the just reward of his spirited exertions.—(Loud
cheers.) There was one or two observations con-
nected with the silk trade he would offer to the meet-
ing, as the silk trade illustrated the difference be-
tween monopoly and freedom better than any other.
It had been protected, par; excellence—not only were
foreign silks prohibited, but the weavers of Spital-
fields were further protected by a special Act of Par-
liament, empowering magistrates to regulate wages,
and the manner of conducting the silk business, and
during the halcyon days of a close monopoly, no
trade suffered such alternations of ephemeral, pros-
perity, and deep and prolonged distress.—(llear, hear.)
In 1817 the deplorable state of the Spitalfields weavers
was brought under the consideration of the house of
Lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne ; in reply to
whom Lord Liverpool observed, he thought it was
almost a misfortune that the silk trade was introduced
into England, where it was stationary or retrogressive,
and after quoting some statistics to prove the silk-
trade was making improvements and increasing in
France,
.while it was:diminishing in England, he also
remarked it was not suited either to the climate of thisth
country or the genius of its people. Thiswas
opinion of the Prime Minister of that day
of the silk
e
trade under a close monopoly. Passing onwardsd' to
1824, the Government determined to adopt.a ff erent
policy, and a Bill was introduced into Parliament
foreign
Mr. Huskisson to permit the introduction offoreign
silks (which up to that time had been prohibited) at
ditties varying from SO to 60 per cent. This mea-