The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-20 00:00:00

Lord J. RUSSELL had heard some objections raised
to this discussion ; but he should say that, to him at
least, nothing appeared more reasonable than that dis-
cussion- should have arisen.—(Bear.) For his own
part he would say, that with regard to this, as well as
many other articles, he thought the House and the
country were in a most unsatisfactory state as to the
information they ought to have on them.—(Hear.)
He did not think the Government had given anything
like satisfactory reasons for those alterations.—(Hear,
hear.) Surely if it was expedient for the benefit
of the country to remove the duty en this article
of agricultural produce, why would it not be equally
beneficial to the country to have the duty removed upon
all other articles of agricultural produce?—(Hear, hear.)
surely the Right Hon. Baronet opposite could explain
why and how this distinction between the removal and
the upholding of certain protective duties was made, and
prove to the country that it was for their benefit one class
of articles were admitted free, while others were prohibited
by a duty.—(Hear, hear.) There were many Honour-
able Members opposite who held out for protection, and
if they did, let them be consistent, and stoutly maintain
it all through—(Hear, hear)—not with regard to the
small or trifling article of lard merely, but to any
article hitherto subjected to such prohibition—(Hear)
—let them say, " this is our position, and be it good or
• bad, we will stand to the last."—(Hear.) Let them not
be doing things inch by inch in this way, and advocating
protection in theory.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE--Whatever might have been the
advice of the Noble Lord: who had just sat down, he
(Mr. Gladstone) would say he felt assured that Hon.
Members on that side the House would vote in accordance
with that which they conceived to be consistent with the
national policy, and not render themselves ridiculous by
descending to discussions on such minute and trifling
articles as this. But the Noble Lord's argument was
to maintain the corn-laws, and take 2s. a cwt. off lard.—
(Laughter.) That might be a very good advice for the
Noble Lord to give, but certainly a very odd one for
Hon. Members at his side of the House to take.—
(Laughter.) And the Noble Lord further said,
if the duty on lard was so very light, why
remove it ? But he (Mr. Gladstone) should
say this article of lard should not be regarded now as
an article of food, for if it were it was either too good
or not good enough. But he looked upon it as an ar-
ticle of trade and of raw material, and as such it was of
importance that it should be had with facility and in
abundance. In fact, it was of so much importance to
manufactures that its importance could not be overrated.
It was well known that the supply of sperm oil was be-
coming scarce, and therefore there could be no better
substitute for it than lard-oil, and another reason why they
should have this lard in abundance was, because they
could not have lard-oilin sufficient quantities from America.
But the lard-oil of America, though valuable for manu-
facturers, did not possess that degree of purity which
would render it eligible as an oil for machinery in this
country, and, therefore, the lard-oil of this country would
be preferred. But it was not in machinery alone that
the oil was used. Ile apprehended it was also used in the
manufacture of soap to a considerable extent. He stood
on the general principle that lard was a valuable article
with regard to its application to the raw material of
British manufactures. He regarded it as being an
article to be used in manufactures, and not as an article
of food. He excepted against the doctrine of his Hon.
Friend behind him, that the lard from foreign countries
would displace the home lard, or be substituted for it.
But that was not the question. The question was, whether
they would allow the remission of the duty of 2s. on an
article so important for manufacturing purposes, when it
would have no perceptible influence upon the lard pro-
duced in this country, but, on the contrary, by extending
trade, would increase the production of the article at home?
Sir W. JAMES said that the Hon. Member for Stock-
port having said that his object was abundance, and
asked them what their object was, he merely rose for the
purpose of replying that their object was abundance with
security.—(Hear.)
Mr. GROGAN replied, and said he would not press
his motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
On the remission of the duty on rosin being proposed,
Sir W. JAMES moved that a duty of ls. be retained.
All that he desired was that they should proceed gra-
dually and with caution. He did not mean to say that
the article of rosin was not of importance ; but, in order
to protect the home manufacture, he thought it would be
better to divide the duty.
Sir GEORGE CLERK opposed the motion.
They still had a protective duty of ss. per owt. on the
most valuable product of distillation—the spirit of tur-
pentine ; and, with resgard to rosin, there was not the
slightest apprehension of their being such an importa-
tion as would materially reduce their profits.
Sir W. JAMES contended the reduction would have
an injurious effect. He knew a case in which a person
engaged in this trade had said he should be compelled
to transfer his establishment to New York, if this pro-
position was adopted.
Mr. GLADSTONE said if his Hon. Friend had been
as much accustomed, from almost every class of manu-
facturers, to hear the threat of removing their business to
another country, as he (Mr. Gladstone) was, it would per-
haps lose much of its force on him. But in what his Hon.
Friend had said, he had supplied the point which was
required—if any point was wanted—in the explanation
of his Right Hon. Friend. The largest profits in this
business were made by manufacturing on the largest
scale ; and the Government had enabled them greatly to
extend their business by the reduction of duties made in
1842. The trade had increased 50 per cent. in the two
years following the change in the law, compared with
what it was in the two previous years. So far from the
trade being injured, he believed it was in a fair way of
becoming an export trade. It was certainly perfectly
independent of the effects of any change of duty.
The reduction on rosin was then agreed to.
On the item of thrown silk being proposed,
Mr. TATTON EGERTON said the reduction of the
duty on this article would materially injure the silk-
throwing business, and would not give a corresponding
benefit to the manufacturing interest of this country. In
fact it would only benefit their continental rivals. No
trade had ever been more tampered with than the silk
trade, and he could not tell on what grounds the present
reduction was proposed. Supposing it did benefit the
manufacturers, what right had they to sacrifice the
British throwster ? What right had they to sacrifice
a trade which gave employment to 40,000 persons. Ho
should no doubt be told that the reduction would
make no difference to them, but the House should recol-
lect that it was the last feather that broke the
horse's back. If they passed the present reduction, they
would almost, if not quite, destroy the " throwing "
trade of this country. He knew it was useless to appeal
to Hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their theories of free
trade, on this subject ; but ho did appeal to the Go-
vernment to prevent this injury to a large interest.
Sir G. CLERK said no interest had been more frequently
under the consideration of Parliament than the silk trade, and
for the last 20 years they bad been told that every reduction in
the silk trade would involve great numbers in ruin. But not-
withstanding these reductions, the proportion of foreign
thrown silk had not increased with the quantity of raw silk con.
lamed. He believed the alteration would be fur the benefit of
the silk trade itself.—( Hear.)
Mr. GRIMSDITCH entered into a long history of the silk
trade from the time of the war, and would oppose the reduction.
Mr. STRUTT said that he would point to one example
where private interests had given way to the general good.
About a week or two ago, when the intentions of the Govern-
ment on this subject became known, a memorial was drawn up
and signed by the great majority of the silk throwers in the
borough and county of Derby. He would not add one word,
but at once read the memorial to the House. The first part
merely related to gentlemen whom the memorialists stated did
not represent them in London ; but in another portion of the
memorial they stated that although the abolition of the duty
on thrown silk must be particularly injurious in a
pecuniary point of view, yet, believing that the
country would be benefited by it, they were willing to bear
the loss they felt must accrue to them.—(Cheers.) It was
their opinion that private interests ought to succumb to the
public good, and they trusted that their representatives would
support those measures which would remove restrictions from
commerce—restrictions which they believed to be the main
cause of the distress in commerce and iu agriculture.—(Hear,
bear.) He would only ad], that the example ought to be fol-
lowed.

Mr. BANKES said that the Right Hon. Member seemed
to think it a matter of duty to vote against the interests of his
constituents.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") He understood
that the Hon. Member took credit to himself for that principle.
--(Hear, hear, and No, no.) He (Mr. Banked) thought he
could better discharge his duty by consulting the interests of
those he represented. He agreed with the Vice-President of
the Beard of Trade, that trade bad in many instances degene-
rated from the alterations made from time to time in those
duties. One case in point would show the ruin which had re-
sulted from those alterations.
An Hors. Mamasa—Where ?
Mr. BANKEg—Sherbourne. The Hon. Member had a
perfect right right to ask where. That town had had two
flourishing factories not long ago, but at that time only one of
them was in operation. Perhaps the reason was, that steam
power had usurped the place of water power, and it might be
said that they had no right to complain of this, that
they ought only to struggle against the disadvantage.
To a certain degree the former reductions had ruined the trade
of the county to which he belonged, while in the neighbouring
county of Somerset, still worse results had been produced.
Some time ago, he believed, there was a manufactory esta-
blished in that county at an expense of 20,0001., but, in conse-
quence of the measures taken by the Government in
.1842, it
was not now worth as many hundreds.—( Hear, hear.) It
was said these alterations were merely of an experimental
nature, but surely when they found that the same experimental
alterations which were adopted a few years ago, had only
thrown the people out of employment, they ought to be satisfied
that there experiinents could produce no good.
Sir R. PEEL regretted exceedingly that the former mea-
suresa which
had of the Government should have thrown parishes,
ci previously enjoyed prosperity, into a comparative state of
distress, but his Noble Friend must bear in mind that the rea-
son they had lost their manufacturers in Dorsetshire was, be-
cause steam-power had been so improved as to produce fabrics
at a loss cost than water-power. It was, therefore, not a
want of exertion on their part that had caused this dis-
tress, but it was the introduction of increased
capital and competition into their branches of trade. There
could be no doubt, then, these unfavourable
changes were
liable to take place, whether they reduced the duty or not.
And if by reducing these duties they could stimulate the manu-
facturers of Manchester, and other large towns to compete with
foreigners, he hoped they would not deprive countrythe of
this advantage, because the experiment when tried on
former occasion had failed in one or two instances.—(Hear a
They could only, however, judge of the efficacy of these .
ex-
periments by taking a large and comprehensive view of the ex-
ports and imports extending over a number of years. In 1844,
and since the duty had been reduced, the quantity of raw silk
brought into this country to be wove was not less than
4,303,0001b5. Now, there never was so large a quantity of
silk brought into this country for the purpose of providing em-
ployment for our manufacturers since 1836,fa year of great and
inconsiderate speculation, wlsich had the effect of depressing the
market for some time afterwards. From 1835 to 1844, the quan-
tity of raw silk brought into this country to be wove increased
from 15,214,0001b5., the amount of the former ten years, to
37,954,0001b5.—( Hear, hear.) But what was the case with
thrown silks? Why, in the former period it was 3,680,0001b5.,
whereas in the latter year it was only 2,900,0001b5., clearly
showing the advantage of the reduction which took place in
1842.—( Hear, hear) Was it not worth while then taking steps
to give the British manufacturers an opportunity of entering
into competition with the foreigner, which he believed they