The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-25 00:00:00

years before, this body had petitioned Parliament re-
specting their distresses, and requested that
Parliament should fix their wages at a certain price.
And in accordance with their wish Parliament left
their rate of wages to be defined by the magistrates.
Let it be understood that this law applied to the
county of Middlesex only ; yet, in twenty years af-
terwards, as he had already said, 4,000 weavers were
idle. hat was the consequence ? Why, that these
poor weavers fled from London to Paisley, and Man-
chester, and Glasgow, to establish the silk manu-
facture, and to avoid the evil consequences of the law
which, at their instance, had been created. Now, if
the Post, Herald, and Standard had their will, pre-
cisely the same state of things would be brought
about, and the people of England would be obliged
to seek in a foreign country the means of subsistence.
In 1815 and 1816, when protection to the silk triede
was at its highest, the silk weavers were m ost
depressed. Then what did those who stated that
the principles of free trade, as applied to
silk had been injurious ? In that trade, at
all events, it could be demonstrated beyond a doubt;
that when protection was highest distress was..
greatest. In 1824, Mr. Huskisson determined on
making a change in the silk duties. He reduced the
duty on the importation of thrown silk to Vs. 6d. per
pound, and on raw silk to 3d. per pound, and on manu-
factured silk to 30 per cent. ad valorem duty. In.
1825 there were 780,000 spindles at work in this.
country. There were in 1835, 1,180,000. In 1825,.
when the silk of France was prohibited, there were ten.
weaving establishments in Manchester, employing-
-300 hands each. In 1835, when French silk was
admitted, there were thirty establishments employing
500 hands each. So that, whilst the French silks
were prohibited, there were 3,000 persons employed in
weaving silk, and when French silks were
admitted there were 15,000 persons.—(Cheers.)
With these facts before them, what did the protec-
tionists mean by standing up amongst the Spitalfields
weavers to try to persuade them to join in a cry for
protection to British industry ? British industry
wanted no protection.—(Cheers.) British industry,
from the least skilled and worst paid labourer in agri-
culture, to the best paid maker and inventor of mite
chinery in this country, needed no protection. It
wanted liberty—it wanted room to work en—it
wanted its right to the fair share of the world's pro-
duce to be held sacred—it wanted the protection
which nature had given it when it made men wish to
have in return for all they could make, the best of
everything all the world over. —(Cheers.) But
the case of silk was not yet complete. In 1821, 1822,
and 1823, they used annually in this country
2,399,000 lbs. of silk in all their manufactories ; in
1839, 1840, and 1841, when the protection had been
reduced, they used 8,435,898 lbs. of silk, being an
increase of 100 per cent. There was- another in-
teresting point in relation to this silk question to which
he could not refrain from referring, as it settled the
question of total and immediate repeal. When, in
1824, Mr. Huskinson proposed to admit the manu-
factured silk of France at 30 per cent. duty, the
manufacturers said, " No ; give us time to dispose of
our stock on hand, and let the change begin
in July, 1826. During those two years we
shall be able to dispose of our stock, and then we shall
be prepared for competition with France." Mr. Hus-
kisson agreed to this proposal. Immediately two re-
sulk were produced. Our manufacturers found it.
hard to sell, for both the shopkeeper and the buyer
waited for the French silks to come in at a reduced
price.—(Hear.) The French, looking forward to the
reduction in duty, waited double time, and laid up
large stocks. Six months before Mr. Huskisson's lava'
was to come into operation, our manufacturers went.
to Parliament and said, " The French have large
stocks by them, but they are all of a particular
length; prohibit silks of that, length, and then we
shall be quite ready to compete." Again Mr. Huskise
son agreed. The French silks of this particular length
were prohibited. But they worked harder than ever;
they made silks of short lengths ; and the result wag.
that the English manufacturers had their own stock
on hand, whilst the short lengths were admitted under
the reduced duty.—(Hear.) Now came the conclu-
sion of this question. In 1823, we exported
351,0001. worth of silk goods; in 1837, ten years
after the alteration, we exported 917,0001. worth of
silks; and in 1839, we exported 410,3001. worth t°
the United States. Now, was it not clear that out
silk manufacture had improved ?—(Hear, hear)
that it had nothing to fear from a competition ? Th,,
e
American market was open to the French as INC
as ourselves, and yet we sold there 400,0001•
worth of silk goods annually. The competition gave
us great impetus. We took the French patterns, all
improved upon the French looms. In 1824, and
again in 1826, Mr. Ellice, the Member for Coventry,
stated, in the House of Commons, that the French
looms produced five times as much silk as our own
and he asked for protection. Mr. Huskisson replied;
" We will give you the impetus of competition, and
then your looms will 'be as good as those of the
French." They became not only as good, but better
than those of the French. The Legislature were
asked, not to lower the duty on French silks, lest al.e
trade should become extinct. The Legislature did
listen to the parties who made this
demand, but although they did not make, the trade
entirely free, yet they took a step in the right eli!
rection. In 1824 we sold 75,0001. worth of goodg 111
France ; in 1841 we sold 181,000/. worth in the Mar--
kets of France. Under freedom the silk trade estab-
lished itself. Under protection it declined. Did 01;
protection to British industry benefit the people now'
Did they think chat they could impose on the Spitar
fields weavers ? No honest weaver, either in spitiv
fields, in Manchester, or in Paisley—no roan
who read and thought—no man who had e
long enough to recollect the corn-law of 1815 ,
no man who recollected his feelings of gratitude
to Mr. Huskisson, so great, that when he visited Ole:
clesfield, the weavers, throwers, and spinners, too.;
the horses out of his carriage, and drew him,. ld
triumph through the town ; no man of this kin,
would be found joining them in their cry for protec_
tion to British industry.—(Cheers.) And then as 'ft
their second point, that the working classes were Due
with them, he would answer that statement in a very
few words. There were 500,000 registered members 'le
the League in London. Were they all of the middle
classes ?—(Hear and cheers.) He (Mr. M.) had bees
in nearly every town in England during the last.°s
holdingor six months, meetings to raise contributio.,e
to the 100,0001. fund, and nothing could exceed rho
interest which the working-men had taken in
cause. Twenty thousand copies of the League pad
o
were circulated every week, a very large proportler,
of which were read by the working in
The working men had stood by. them. ~.„a
in Durham, Salisbury, and Hastings. They
stood by his friend General Briggs when he ca of
forward in the cause of free trade in the 6110
.Exeter. They had canvassed for them ; thef,o
carried about the reports of their speeches ; theyei
made incessant efforts to insure their success. de
did not intend to make this movement for free trit.e
a class movement ; they had no wish to organise of
working class separately from any other pertioiLos
the community. They had the best of every Itirl
from the Marquis of 'Westminster and the 1-100
of Radnor, down to the poorest man who made
honest living by his hard toil in this country.—(Cheer'
One more point, and he would conclude. Mr. Bar„ed
o
/
said he was a friend of free discussion,lrr and he
it would never be put down ; but he would to&
shrink from declaring that he considered the 11;1,
ference of the Anti-Corn-Law League at elect!
_h
and its expenditure of vast sums of money on to
occasions, unconstitutional, and fraught with dintre
to the franchises of the people. Nothing could be rte,
unconstitutional, unconstitutional, said a writer in the Exeter 6161:900.
in allusion to the contest in that city, than the a the
duct of the Anti-Corn-law League, and he said
Constitution must surely have given some r,e,/fr of
against it • and he added, that it was a Int;
just complaint, which ought to be laid before x load
meet. The only way in which he could under4o
these men was by supposing that they wished tol'ida
to be carried on in the spirit of the. tb°
times. He supposed that the writer illtitio°
Exeter Gazette and Thomas Baring would P,e„hert°,
Parliament thus :—" Whereas elections have hbilisee°,
been conducted on certain known and esta 0 sir
principles, public-houses being open to all comerelop
the drink being paid for by the agents of the "votes
dates_; and whereas certain poor men having.deee; •
have been in the habit of receivin certain con%eee°
g
tions for them ; and whereas, it has been cortio 13°
that there was no need for a candidate to exg,„i
conduct to his constituents; and whereas cert4'.-priSt"
have come here, having the audacity °Alert°
publish, and circulate information ; and :1.0451
their meetings are attended by great feelj
and there is not a drunken man to '..„,stcheo
among them ; and whereas we are so closely reasons
that we cannot bribe the people ; for theseno'arsbely
we beg your Honourable and Right 1-I°Lesitit;
I-louse that you will put down thiss 0
or provide such other convenient remedlional in
may think best against this unconstitin_ of es;
terference with the rights and privilege_gueorio4.!,
pirants to seats in Parliament."—(Great
Unconstitutional ! What did they do !nun.
b.,. prsw...i
means were their tongues and the pri tic,. to
their money was spent in diffusing inforins_teotion
not
British Baring, one of the advocates of Pr.uhoold
British industry, mean to say that theY:o.rievall.;.
teach the people that the corn-law was e" by Pit;
and that it injured the working n'e'r.ll fru e
To dor
voting him from deriving •'the h.(l . .
of his ii;cle,try ? --(Hear, hear.) .ri'lio'noottlrir,
wit I the protectionists. But, he ,asked
11A
_pot, 41.0
not it, feel disappointed because thP9 Doti ae'llia
tunphed at Hastings and Exeter. Thoeii,_ither
t) coriquer who would not risk defeat.'
tic deserve to triumph if they Itgoecktf4t4hey
otireto toed
hey
their
tach the people:. Let thdfrt tells tho.selr
hh bmeaernabeedatiennwint
the
country Hastings anodf