The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-14 00:00:00

' but he'could not help remarking that we bad fellow-sub-
jects a little nearer home, who were exposed to greater
difficulties to procure bread, and laboured under, greater
hardships than those who wore no clothes, and subsisted
upon rice.—(Hear.)—.No distress or difficulty was expe-
rienced in India; and he feared that, with their advan-
tages, the natives of that country would be able to send a
class of goods home which would break up the only branch
of the trade remaining to us. This was a serious question
but the system of other countries in
for the House, though it might be ungracious to raise this
objection to the claims of the people of India. He (Mr.
ju.altsi;:tematic. He had nothing with which
Baring) would not stop the system for any accidental or
ttn;iito isi•eintiraif:laleicilli'i:the Right lion. Gentleman ; he had treated
the question as one of the greatest possible difficulty.. He
(Mr. Bating) did not think that we ought to go back to
the old system ; at the same time, he could not agree to
go into the Committee unless his mind was made up to go
hack to that system which the country would then expect.
But in a Committee of inquiry figures would be against the
petitioners.—(Hear.)—No arguments cord! stand against
the fact of the c instantly increasing importation of the
raw material. The manufacturers could allege the lance
stock of goods on their hands, and other excess; but the
great difficulty of a Committee would be to deal with the
fact of an increased importation of the raw material Yet
the distress of the trade was real ; it was hardly possible
to exaggerate it; one sentiment on this head prevailed
throughout the country.
Mr. SADLER thought that it was but common justice
to the petitioners, who had immense interests at stake, to
grant the motion for a Committee. As to the principle of
free trade, it was, as applicable to this country, compli-
cated and dangerous. To a certain extent he admired the
principle, which was beneficial when it distributed the
bounties of nature to all, and made a mutual exchange of
the products of human industry. But before he would
consent to supplant a portion of British labour, he should
look for a compensation. In the heat of argument and in
the fervour of theoretic enthusiasm, people forgot that we
were at present in a completely artificial state of society ;
and, as respected the thousands and tens of thousands of
persons employed in this manufacture, the price of the
labour would be found to bear too close a, proportion to
the depreciated price of the manufactured silk.—( Hear.)
He could not congratulate the country on the decreased
price of that article. Hitherto silks had been resorted to
for tl:e purpose of distinction in dress and condition in
life : so fir its costliness was a benefit, as it proved a

.
means of disseminating and circulatmg the surplus wealth
of the rich amongst this class of ingenious artisans : but
he certainly should regret that a fine lady or her servant
should be enabled to purchase her silks at half price, when
the reduction of price cost the poor industrious silk-ma-
nufacturer half his comforts, if not half his victuals.—
(Hear, hear.)—The trade was a delicate one,—certainly
not natural to us. It might be considered in the light of
an exotic which we had taken pains to transplant and fa-
miliarize with our climate. A contrary system had of
late been adopted : its protection had been withdrawn, t,
else greatly impaired, and it was greatly to be feared that
the next thing we should do would be to pluck up Alt,
gether the withered decayed trunk from the platform of
British industry. On these grounds he should support the
motion for a Committee.

Mr. HUSKISSON confessed he had deriv.id no small
satisfaction from finding that his Right Hon. Friend anti
his colleagues had, after a careful examination of the sub-
ject, and the various representations of the manufacturers
and others concerned, come to a resolution to persevere in
the measures which he had, when in office, recommended
to the adoption of the House. Nor had this gratification
been much diminished by the discouraging denouncem,nt
of the Hon. Member for Callington. Although that Hon.
Member had predicted in 1824 the downfall of this trade,
and contended the prophecy had been fulfilled, yet he now
felt it necessary to prophecy a second time its reiterated
ruin. In the same way he had seen the ruin of our trade
in cotton and woollen inevitable, because from the high
price of provisions here it was not possible bet foreigners
should supplant us in the market. Now from recollect-
ing what had happened with respect to America, which
was the most enterprising of our competitors in commert:e,
he (Mr. Huskisson) saw no reason to apprehend the
f
fulfil-
ment of this part of the prophecy ; or though, in the
year 1824, America placed a protecting duty of 30/. er
401. per cent. on cottons, which in 1828 was raised to
701. or 801. per cent.," still she felt it impossible to main-
tain to herself the extensive supply of her own market.
The Hon. Member had attempted to treat this motion as
if it were not a prelude to a proposition in the Committee
for adopting prohibitory duties. He argued that prohibi-
tion must be the secret object. It was dear the nature of
the case required either prohibition or protection for this
trade ; the latter was the object avowed and acted on by
his Right Hon. Friend, and so fully explained in his able
reply this evening. There were three parties deeply inte-.
rested in the question before the House; the first, perhaps,
was the throwsters; the second the manufacturers ; and
the third, and not the least, was the public, or great con-
sumers, with whose prodigal indulgence in the use of silk
the Hon. Member for Newark expressed himself so deeply
offended. He would not sanction the pride, self_cna_
ceit, moroseness, or assumption, which led certain classes
of persons to interdict all indulgence to any lout the higher
classes in life.—(llear.)—We were not enthralled by
sumptuary laws, but lived happily under a Government to
which enactments of this kind were unbecoming and
odious. If the throwster was in distress, as it appeared
he was, then the Hon. Member did not hesitate to attri-
bute it to the change which had taken place in 'lB2l.
The duty of 14s. 7d. on all wrought silk implied, which
left a protection to the throwster of 95., was incompetent
for his protection. Government then gave notice that in
two years and a quarter from that date, all prohibitior, 1„
silk articles should cease, and at the expiration of ttiat time
an Act passed to effect this object. The
memba
prophesied at the time that this would tb..ve all the capital
out of the silk trade, and render the' manufacturers wretch-
ed and indigent. Now the far' was, that in 1821, 1822,
and 1823, the quantity hI silk imported for the supply of
our manufacturers was not above 1,947,00015. yearly ;
while since ig24, on an average of the two years following,
titers 'was imported 2,7:39,0001h5., and since this complete
change in the silk trade, no less on an average has been
imported thin 3,960,0001b5. Was the Hon. Member'.;
prophecy fulfilled, or bad so far the throwsters any mason
to complain.—(Hear, hear.)—Although the iir.port bad
been saddled with no greater duty than 55.., 'the import of
thrown silk within the last two years wa`...only 417,0001 b.
The comparative expence of throwity: the silk was in Eng-
land 55., in Italy 3s. The prot":ction required was a pro-
tection against the French Smuggler, nut against the fo.•
reign throwsters, lie thought if the whole duty had
been removed it would have been so much the bet-
ter, He had been unjustly taunted with having
'dd out flattering hopes and inducements to the
English manaletures and throwsters, which have
been deceived, and ended in their ruin. This
he totally denied ; nay, so far from it, he admonished
them and put them on their guard. This they despised,
and went into speculations so extensive, erected mills so
unprecedentedly large, and caused, by this great demand for
raw silk, so great alt increase of price in the article, fmt
they brought down in many instances ruin on themselves
by this egregious folly. With respect to the smuggling
from France, great exaggerations had been made in and out
of that House. France never had exported to this MM..
try 3,000,00 a, but it had been attempted to he argued,
that she smuggled alone not less than from 1,400,000/.
worth to 2,000,000/. per annum. Us begged Hon.
Members who viewed the relaxation of the prohibitive
system with so zealous au eye, tee consider and comp; ~a
the state of our manufactures before and after tho re-
laxation. Before he had undertaken those ehanrsts in our
Commercial laws, which were so cumplainsa of by inte-
rested parties„ wail.), of our articles of ustinufacture—those
of silk, for example--(Heas, hear)--were the laughing-
atoek of Europe. But What was the case since tha re-
' strictive system had been departed from ? Why, we were
now able tO, rival the manufacturers of all other coun-
tries, in those very e'eticles in which we were formerly so
defective, But they
,were advised to return to the pro-
hibitive System, in order to protect the domestic menu-
, focturer against the importation of foreign exotics, and to
ensure the British artisan employment in domestic manu-
factures. Now he would not say au thing about sacrific-
ing existing interests, or the tights of Englishmen, but
would ask Hon. Membern to, consider how far smuggling
was promoted or claecked under the prohibitive or unre-
stricted systensa?, and thence, how far the revenue was
affected by the increase or diminution of smuggling?
What was the fact? Why, that smuggling increased as prohibition was strict—diminished as restriction
was relaxed ; so that ',he advocates of the prohibitive system
would preserve instead of destroying smuggling, with all its
evil consequences. Then, when Hon. Members talked of
silk being an exotic, and, as such, a fit object for a high
prohibitive duty, they forgot that other materials of our
manufactures. were also. exotics, and, its a parity of reason-
ing, Nasally entitled to what was called protection.—(Hear, )
-,-:Were they prepared, then, to raise the duties on cotton ?
Surely it was an exotic. We imported it as we imported
silk ;we mid for one as we paid for the other. The equa-
lization of the capital and industry of the country, so much
insisted upon by the Hon, Member for Newark (Mr. Sad-
ler), was unattainable if the two exotics were not cqualy
prohibited from or equally admissible into the British
market. Neither 70118 the Hon. Member correct in his