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

THE SCN, LONDON, TLIRSDAY EVENING, MARCH 2O, 1845.

damaged, he would prevent the importation of the foreign
artiel: by a protecting duty. The Hon. Member then
contended that injury hal been done to the trades of thi;
country by the removal of the duty on raw hides and
bark, and that the same results would follow the present
proposition.
Sir IL PEEL said he could not help expressing his
regret that the discussion he had been listening to-had
arisen on this subject, although no doubt a large and
not unnecessary amount of interest was attached to it.
But he could not help saying that some lion. Members
opposite him, had dune injustice to Hon. Members be-
hind him.—(Bear, hear.) Let him here observe, that
a great deal of forbearance had been exhibited by lion.
Members on his side of the House, while going

through the tariff the other night, until they came
to the item of cotton ; but the moment the
removal of the duty on that article came to be dis-
cussed, although it was then one o'clock in the morning,
it was suggested that this was an item of so much im-
portance that it should be postponed; and he (Sir It
Peel) should say that that was so reasonable a propo-
sition that he at once assented to it, in order that public
attention might be called to it.—(Hear, hear.) How-
ever, that had been now set at rest, and he had no doubt
but that its operation would be found effectual.—(Hear.)
And now he would come to this item of lard; in regard

to this he would say his impression was, that very great
benefits to the people of this country would follow the
removal of the duty on this article. Some observations
had been made against such a proposition; but he felt
so convinced of its ultimate utility that he had deemed
it right to propose its removal, particularly when he re-
coPected the great advantage that would follow the
measure, to the manufacturing portion of the commu-
nity.—(llear, hear.) On these grounds he hoped Hon.
Members at his side of the House would not persevere
in their opposition, while, at the same time, he could not
sit down without congratulating lion. Members opposite
on their having so well avoided the use of personalities.
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.—(hear.) 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 onht to have on them.—(Hear.)
lie did not think the Government had given anything
like satisfactory reasons for those alterations.—(Hear,
hear.) Surely if it was expedient fur the benefit
of the country to remove the duty on 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 lion. Baronet opposite could explain
why- and how this distinction between the removal and
the upholding of certain protective duties was made, ?nd
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 bo it good or
had, 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 crenceived to be consistent with the
national policy, and not render themselves ridiculous by
descending to discussions on suck minute and trilling
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
couldeiot 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 %V. 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. _ .

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 experi..nental
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 thee experiments could produce no good.
Sir It. PEEL regretted exceedingly that the former mea-
sures of the Government should have thrown parishes, which
had previously enjoyed prosperity, into a comparative state of
distress, but his Hon. 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 less 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, theoe unfavourable changes were
liable to take place,. whether they reduced the duty or not.
And if by reducing these duties the.;' could stimulate the manu-
facturers of Manchester, and other larje towns to compete with
foreigners, he hoped they would not deprive the country of
this advantage, because the experiment when tried on a
former occasion had failed in one or two iostances.—( Hear. )
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,'a year of great and
inconsiderate speculation, which had the effect of depressing the
market for sometime afterwards. From 1835 to 1344, 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 tire case with
thrown silks? Why, in the former period it was 3,6130,0001b5.,
whereas in the latter year it was only 2,900,000145., clearly
showing the advantage of the reduction which tc ok 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
would be able to do at some time or other, and perhaps at no
remote period with success.—( Cheers. )
After a few words from Mr. TATTON EGER.TON,
Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that the steps the Govern-
ment were taking would not turn out beneficial to those for
whom they were intended. He had not consulted his con-
stituents, but he believed the measure would cc eate great
alarm among them; but he should be ashamed of himself,
if he resisted a great improvement on that account. He
trusted, however, that in other matters the Government would
recollect what they had done with respect to silk. He believed
the silk trace would improve under a revision of the duties.
He thought the whole of the silk duties ought ;to be revised,
and not those on thrown silk alone. On the whole, he felt
inclined to support the proposition of the Government.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST believed that the reduction of
the duty on thrown silk would not do any good for those it was
intended by the Government to benefit.
Mr. HUME had heard with great surprise the alarm will
which the Hon, Member had viewed this measure. He had
visited the factories of this country, as well as those of Belgium
and oilier countries, but the factory of the Hon- "Member for
Macclesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst) was that which he had found
in the most perfect state of any. He thought the Government
would have done better by removing the duty altogether from
manufactured silk, for by this means they would have prevented
smuggling, and allowed the fair trader to enter into fair com-
petition. He thought the Government deserved every support
the House Gould give them, and he hoped the House would not
refuse to let the reduction pass.
Mr. 'WILLIAMS agreed with the policy of taking the
duties off the raw materials of manufacture ; but if they took
the import duties off the manufactured articles, great distress
would be caused. They should first take the tax off corn, and
give their labouring population cheap food, or they would do
great injustice. He contended that great reduction should be
made on the article of waste silk, for it was of very little value.
Mr. ENTWISLE said that he visited a country district.
and the people told him that, if they had free trade, they would
not mind those duties at all. For this reason, he would lend his
aid to any proposition for the removal of restrictions on
commerce.
Dr. BOWRING—The duty on India silks in France was
not half so high as that levied on French silks imported into
England.
After a few words from Mr. BROCKLEHURST, the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment —59
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. E. BULLER addressing the Committee. He had a
notice of motion on the paper to introduce tallow into the reso-
lutions, but at that late hour of the night he did not wish to
press it. He wished to know whether another opportunity
would be afforded for bringing on the question.
Sir. R. PEEL said the Hon. Member would have an op-
portunity of moving in Committee on the Bill. It would
greatly interfere with the operations of trade if they were not
to report the proceedings of this Committee before the holidays.
A desultory conversation arose as to the propriety of pro-
ceeding with those articles, including butter, cheese, tallow,
and railway sleepers, with regard to which Hon. Members had
motions. And it was finally determined, that an early day
alter the holidays should be set aside in Committee upon the
Customs' Act, to enable those Hon. Members to bring for-
ward their motions, on the understanding, however, that no
discussion should be re-opened with regard to those articles in
the tariff upon which the Committee had already decided.
Sir R. PEEL hoped a discussion would not be re-opened on
those questions of the tariff which had been already before the

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

House.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet,
and hoped the agricultural Members would not re-open ques-
tions already discussed.
Mr. DARBY said he knew nothing which had been of more
service in cultivation than the sowing of tares, and he would
be sorry to see any principle adopted which would cheek their
growth.
Sir IL PEEL said the Hon. Member need have no such
apprehensions.
Colonel SIBTHORP sail, however trifling the question of
taxes might be, yet it showed a disposition on the part of the
Government to injure agriculture, or at least to be very careless
of its interests. The resolution was then agreed to, and the
House resumed.
The CHAIRMAN then reported the resolutions to the House.
SUPPLY.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the house of Commons.)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19.
CUSTOMS ACTS.—(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Motion made, and Question put, " That the words ' hides, tanned,
not otherwise dressed,' stand part of. the Resolution." Tke Commit-
tee divided :

Ainsworth, Peter
Al4lam, William
Colonel
Baring, F. T.

MAJORITY-AYES, 73.

The House then went into a Committee of Supply, Mr.
Greene in the chair, and tw• sums, of 100,000/. and 740,000/.,
were voted on account of the Ordnance Estimates.

Forster, Matthew
Gasket!, J. M.
Gibson, T. M.
Gladstone, Captain

Plumridge, Captain
Polhill, Frederick
Pringle, Alexand&
Scrope, G. I'.

, .
Baring, W. B. Goulburn, henry Smith, T. B. C.
Barnard, E. G. Graham, Sir J. Somerset, Lord G,
Bentinek, Lord G. Grey, Sir George Somerville, Sir W,
Borthwick, Peter Guest, Sir J. Stewart, Jelin
Botfield, Beriah Hawes, Benjamin Stuart, W. V.

Bowles, Admiral Ilindley, Charles Strutt, Edward
Bowring, Dr. Howick, Viscount Sutton, henry

- -
Bright, Jehn Jermyn, Earl Tennent, J. E.
Buller, Edward Johnstone, Sir J. Thornely, Thomas
Busfeild, William Law, C. E. Tunicll, Henry
Cardwell, Edward Legh, G. C.; Villiers, Charles
Clerk, Sir G. Lockhart, William Ward, 11. G.
,_ _ .

Cobden, Richard Lowther, Colonel Wellesley, Lord C.
Colebrook°, Sir T. Marsham, Viscount Williams, William
Collett, W. R. Marsland, Henry Wood, Colonel
Coote, Sir C. H. Martin, C. W. Wortley, John S.
eripps, William Mitchell, T. A. Wyndham, Colonel
Hamer, Colonel Nicholl, John
Entwisle, William Norreys, Sir D. J. TELLERS.
Escott, Bickham Fedi ell, Captain Baring, Henry
Ewart, William Peel, Sir Robert Young, John
Forman, T. S. Peel, Jonathan

Tho motion was accordingly withdrawn.
On the remission of the duty on rosin being proposed,
Sir W. JAMES moved that a duty of Is. 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 cwt. 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 sech 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
requirvl—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, be 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. He
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 he 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 had 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-
sumed. He believed the alteration would be fur the benefit of
the silk trade itself.—( Hear.)
Mr. GRINISDITCH 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 in agriculture.—( Hear,
hear.) He would only eV, that the example ought to be fol-

The House then resumed, and the Chairman reported
accordingly.
Captain PECHELL moved for a return from the clerk of
each petty sessions in England and. Wales, of the description
of the building or place in which the justices of the petty
session district hold their usual sittings, with the amount of
rent, if any, and the parties to whom the same is paid.
The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Five Minutes past One o'clock.

MINORITY-NOES, 27.
Darby, George Neeld, John

lowed.
Mr. IBANKES said that the Honourable Member seemed
to think it a matter of duty to vote against the interests of his
constituents.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") lie understood
that the Hon. Member took credit to himself for that principle.
--( Hear, hear, and No, no.) He (Mr. Bankes) thought he
could better discharge his duty by consulting the interests of
those he represented. He agreed with the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, that trade had 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 Hox. MEMBER—Where ?
Mr. BANKEs'—Sherbourne. The Hon. Member had a
perfect right to ask where. That town had had two flourish..
ing 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 belo7ged, 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 20,0006., but, is; come.