The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-15 00:00:00

STATE OF THE SILK MANUFACTURE.

- - -- -
Mr. HUME moved the Order of the Day for re-
suming the adjourned debate on the motio:4 for the
appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the state of the Silk Trade.
The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. HUME rose and said, that when he entered
the House yesterday evening, lie had no intention to
take any part whatever in the discussion of this
question, being determined to give his silent vote
in favour of the views taken by the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. V.Fitzgerald), and against
the motion of the Hon. Member for Coventry. But,
in the course of that discussion, certain statements
were made, and certain positions were laid down,
which appeared to him to be so objectionable in
principle, that, thinking it proper that those points
should be set right before the final settlement of
this question, and not wishing, at so late an hour of
the night, to press on the House the particular ob-
jections which he entertained against what had been
stated by one or two other gentlemen, he had, under
these circumstances, deemed it necessary to move
.the adjournment of the debate, in order that the
House Might have a better opportunity for con-
sidering the subject. He was very sorry that the
,Hon. Member for Callington (Mr. A. B.aring) was
toot in his place, because it was not in his power
to proceed without noticing what fell from him
on the preceding evening, because it was impor-
tant that the opinions of an individual standing so
high tbe did in the winnonciiil Odd blwnid bQ

folly examined, and their correctness or their inac
curacy pointed out. Any thing falling from a man
of so much eminence was of great importance',
since, if it were erroneous, it was calculated to rills- ~
lead those who had not a proper opportunity to con-
skier and to decide on the justness of the arguments
which he might advance on subjects of great intea. •
rest. With regard to the concoctor of this motion,
the Hon. Member for Coventry, he had but little -
to object to the statements which he had made, but
he entirely differed from him as- to the inferences
which lie had drawn from them. He admitted that
the distress which the lion. Member had described
did exist, not only in Spitalficids, but in various
other places where the silk manufacture was carried
on. lie admitted that there was a great stagna-
tion at the present moment in that branch of in-
dustry ; and he admitted, in short, every proposi-
tion which the Hon. Member had advanced in sup-
port of his motion for a Committee, save and
except one. He could not admit that the trial of a
system of free trade which had been made in 18'20,
with reference to this trade, had completely failed,
and that ruin was thus brought on the manufac-
turer, as the nom Member had stated. He was
decidedly at issue with the Hon. Member as to the
cause %% hich he had assigned for the great loss ti'v'
had taken place. He admitted the loss that h d
been experienced and the stagnation of trade whhh
now prevailed, but he denied altogether the concha,
tion which the lion. Member had drawn—hastily,
as he conceived, and in direct opposition to his own
figures and facts—namely, that the silk manufacture
had suffered from the experiment tried in 1826. It
was only necessary for him to prove this fact; and that
he would do by a reference to a number of years; be-
cause the seconder of the motion (Mr. Robinson)
had very justly stated, that it was not fair to take
any one particular year for the purpose of proving
what effect was produced on this or any other trade
by any change or alteration of system. In order to
meet the objection which had been advanced, and
which was urged over and over again yesterday as
the cause of this distress, he had taken a series of ..
fifteen. years, from 1814 to 1828 inclusive, which
ho divided into three portions; and he begged the
Hon. Mover to note the result of the average of
those three periods. The first period was from 1814 .
to 1818 ; the second from 1819 to 1823 ; and
the third from 1824 to 1828; and two curious facts,
would be elicited from the calculation. The ave-
rage quantity of raw and thrown silk imported in the
first five years was 1,526,0001b5.; in the second five
years, 2,185,1291b5.: and in the third five years
3,716,8121b5. Now, if they compared the aggre-
gate amount of the first period with the aggre-
gate amount of the two last periods (as they had
been stated by the Right Honourable Gentleman
opposite), it would appear that there was an in-
creased importation of 3,000,000 lbs. in the five
years ending in 1823 over the five years ending in
1818 ; an increased importation of 7,000,000 lbs. in.
the five years ending in 1828, .over the preceding •
five years ending in 1823; and an increased impori,
tation of 11,000,000 lbs. in the last five years, as ,
compared with the five years ending in 1818. Now,
whichever way the figures were placed, the Hon.
Member for Coventry must admit, and the Hon. •
Member for Callington could not deny, that a great
progressive increase had taken place, and that the
figures were decidedly against them. This, there
fore, he considered as a complete answer to the as-
sertion that the trial of 1826 was a failure. There
was another curious fact, which had been already
mentioned, which as it seemed to him ought to allay.
the apprehensions entertained by the silk-throwster.
He had made a calculation of the importation of
thrown silk for the last 15 years, and it had not
varied mere than to the extent of' 50,000 lbs.,
taking the average, whereas the variation in
the importation of raw silk had been more than ,
doubled in that period. Now, what conclusion did
he draw from this ? Why, that though in 1814
the protecting duty was I4s. 7d., which in 1824 was
reduced to 7s. 6d., and in 1825 to 55., yet that no
alteration had taken place in the amount of foreign
thrown silk imported into this country, notwithstand-
ing the decrease of the duty. He stated this to se'
tisfy those gentlemen who have an interest in throw
ink silk, that they were not injured, nor likely to
be
hawed, by the importation of thrown silk, in conse-
quence of the reduction of duty. With respect to the.
alarm which was expressed-as to the probability of,a
great quantity of thrown silk being sent into this mar- -
ket, he thought it was completely groundless; for be'
was informed that the foreign machinery of the mills.,
for thrown silk was nearly in the same state as it v 015..; •
30 years ago; and any increase which might hoe..
taken place in the demand for thrown silk waS re-
ferable to the northern states of Europe, to. whim
quarter it was sent. In some parts of Poland, RUE' •
sia, and Germany, attempts had been made to itr
troduce the silk-manufacture. In those places.they -
did not use the raw silk, which they.had not the
means of working, but the thrown silk ; and there-,1':
fore, if there were an increase of machinery in Italy,
it was called for by the extended demand for throwni
silk from those northern countries. He therefore-,
held, that if the whole duty were taken off,
,•to4 .
his hope,
mh)ofirto;w,attildie
hseilke-ottliiirdowisiotetr wou bhe_
that the individuals themselves who were interested
in the trade of throwsters would come to the .Go-
vernment and say, " You gave us a protecting
duty of 2s. per lb. on singles, 3s per lb. On tram,
and ss. per lb. on organzine, (averaging about 35e,
per lb.), which may be calculated as a protectionof
60,000/., and we really wish you would remove
those duties altogether." He would ask whether
it was worth while to encounter so much trouble
and inconvenience, for a paltry pittance of _60,0001,.
and that too, carried over se great an extent of
siness. He thought, for one, that the throwstera
would show a disinterested feeling, by coming
ward and requesting that all those duties should be..
taken off. if they did so, he was satisfied that
their loss would be scarcely worth naming.:
would now put the situation of the throwster on &
different footing, and thought the House, would, see
that there was no necessity for the alarm which diet
body of men seemed to feel. In order to airePqt •
the question, he would take the quantity. of.
sillkk
imported in bales instead of pounds. From 1790
to 1828, there were 22,400,000 hales of silk im-
ported into this country, of which 2,171,000 were
bales of thrown silk, leaving 20,371,000 be
of raw silk, every ounce of which was to be .con-
verted into thrown silk by the manufacturers in-this
country. The result of this calculation was, that
instead of affording any ground for alarm or corn-, ,
plaint with respect to foreign silk, it showed that the
balance wax ten to one in. favour,. of the, British
throwster, only one-tenth of the whole .silk.j4F9"
duced being in a thrown state.*—(Hear,
The throwster hid the undoubted manufacture :01
20,000,000 of bales, while only 2,000,000;0f:1)0e
of thrown silk were admitted in the last .40 years.'
Therefore, he contended, the alarm -was ,rnuelv
greater than the, throwster had any right ,to
Before he proceeded further in noticing different
parts of the speech of the Hon. Member for Covert' .
try, and of the speech of the Hon. Member for Cal'
fington, he really wished that be -could come to ao
understanding with them as to the menning.of cer-
tain terms ; and he regretted that the Hon. Member
for Newark (Mr. Sadler) was not in his place, '054.
he had some observations to make on certain posi"
tions which he had advanced. He wished to ariiire
at a clear definition of terms, because he knew it
was very-easy to declaim for years, and yet not to
come to any decided conclusion, if the parties arguing
did not understand the express meaning.of the pook
tions advanced, and the phrases used. He
not tell what the Hon. Member for Newark
meant. That Hon. Member, in his publicatiOns,
said, " the greatest blessing is to allow the produce
of one country to be exchanged freely for the pre;
duce of another." That was the doctrine he bsel
laid down; and yet last night be contended that the
theorists of the present day, who, wished to admit
foreign articles on that principle, where wholly
wrong. The doctrine of free.trade was heard, vv),oh
honor by tire Hen. Member for Worcester: CT!:
Rohnoon); end, in the teeth of his owil:41001;

a
`~

Ilentiments, the Honourable Member for Newark
treed with him in opinion, that every thing Mi-
r Ported into this or any other country displaced ars
iequal quantity of the industry of that country, and,
Pro Canto, created want of employment and idl-
e-1,le". Now did not. the Hon. Member know, that
for every pound valise that came into England, an
equivalent of English manufacture must be exported
to pay for it ?---(llear.)—The utmost that could be
'laid on this o' . -that which he was surprised
, e p int was, as,
to n ar from the Hon. Member for Callington,--
namely, that money must be sent out of the country,
aZuse France, &c. would not accept of our goods,
Go‘',° reciprocity of advantage could follow. Good
. ' • were they now to be told that the exportas
'.1.1" °r gold was a disadvantage? He contended
tnat it was the best thing for the country, provided
they retained enough to carry on the business of the
.odaoy.__ lie. would ask where' this gold came from ?
we raise it from the mine ?—No; but we scud
iwoolles
1 --s, or cottons, or hardware to those countries
where it is
gold ;
of
thpartogdeulederll,,.
des from eiumlaikneeaxcthraainigsfeers,yeenb(riiigsgettintic.
France. This system must go on in spite
of the want of reciprocity on the part of France.
But he contended that in spite of France reciprocity
(lid and must exist,
because no one would give us
their articles for nothing, and we have nothing to
lay for them but our manufactures, whether that
rent be made directly -os• circuitously. Those
Members, therefore, to whom he had alluded,
jbu°lght to explain what their precise views on sub-
ects of this nature were. He admitted that he
1
!vas a political economist and a theorist; and he felt
!t desirable,- when he discussed those subjects, that
iadividuals should know what he meant. Witt that
view he had extrawed the shortest definition he
could find of the science of political economy—and
( be found that that horrid science, with respect to
;tchich some gentlemen got up and exultingly said,
` ti,dt God I we are rho political economists !"
`,? tound that political economy " is the science of
h"umtise la"
P which regulate the production, (Hillis
en, -and consumption of those articles of ex-
'ch"ogeable value that are agreeable, necessary, or
'lreful to man." Now, what constituted wealth ?
~. Wily the possession of all those articles that have an
'elefintlgeable value. What an enviable state it was
to
know nothing of those laws that were of so much
diVTance to the welfare of the country ? And
Y't' tueY every day heard persons, standing in the
"mitioa of legislators, thanking Heaven that they
Nuretrhe ignorant of those laws, the great importance of
reasons
til
°roe
ugh knowledge of which must strike every'
then t mind. If what he had stated were right,
he whole civilized world should be, if he might
use the
~
.ch expression, a seties of commercial states,
;‘);than,ging their various articles of produce the one
.•"' tna other, in the way as the respective
same counties of •
l cell. England did. If the Hon. Member for
, oitagton was of opinion that this or that free trade
Pz.us
full
be prevented, he should push his principle to
1,41'1111 extent, and put an end to any free trade
that t.miglit exist between one part of England and
IP,t,her, as was the case with the Sicilian provinces.
Iv.;nlsprinciple were acted on, then all intercourse
tt:t.t Ireland should be -suspended, as it had been,
yeZe reproach of this country, fol. a great many
ere 0, Looking to the whole question, he could not
the at anY good objection could be raised against
bill_ mem adopted by his Majesty's Government,
up Zs thoSe who opposed it, were ready to follow
couete.principle of exclusion, and to throw each
Pl,lenthY entirely on its own resources. The Hon.
tar !v for Callington had told them that manufac-
Aram: Of this country laboured under many disad-
tage,!es, while the French enjoyed great advan-
olio., and that it was folly, therefore, in us to
strie7.that we could carry on this trade without re-
joie Pls. The Hon. Member for Callington re-
Mitt e.m, too-, at the removal of restrictions by former
Chet'{ ode
and yet, before he sat shown, he told us
silZl if - We did not protect our manufacturers, the
el,: trade would be lost to the country; and that
thell Ils far back as the year 1826, he had
forefortold
lin ruin of this trade. The Hon. Member Cal-
• .gtos t .
. hi_. , too, confessed that figures were against
do'llbi Certainly they were, for the trade had been
teo ed; and if the Hon. Member for Callington
lire Y wished to protect our trade, he ought to-de-
, 4rti ic' qit' our manufacturers should procure the raw
Les at the, same price as the manufacturers of
yons. . This was all our manufacturers waisted, as
• had been .informed.bY several of the most iatelli-
'ltrit among them ; and
he had been told, moreover,
lilt if this were done, our manufacturers would not
Zafraidof competing with the French. The French
ht 119 only in fancy articles. . Give us tinie, and
ralV articre'rit' the same rate at which the French
°cured it, and then we should be able to compete V
tli the French in those articles also. They had
I 'tn told that silk was an exotic, and upon this
r IS both the Hon. Member for Callington and
Ron. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler) had
11gly insisted; but so was cotton also an exotic,
k he should like to know what there was to prevent
csilk manufactures equalling our cotton manufac-
, s:s-----(Hear, hear.)— Why, our manufacturers
c° positively ashamed now of articles they made
ktyears ago, and they looked back with astonish-
s'l upon the progress they bad effected. He should
)414 then, open the door wider, give them the fine
_ sbLika silk, which was what they wanted, at the
1;1 at which the French procured it, and they
Old beat the French in fancy and fuse articles. if
tm,
• Pace beat its in these articles, it was because
tjjZtfee was free, and we were shackled with re-
lisue)l9. By a Lyons paper of the 25th of Fe-
ttin-l'l, he found that the same 'distress prevailed.
es°r.lg
,the. silk-weavers there as existed in this
e,lttttly, , B_
k y a letter, too, which he bad lately re-
[ °lllB*--"-.learnt that of 22,000 looms at Lyons,
of hone-third were in employ, and that the wages
poLie ;vetivers had been reduced to a much lower
ej-rttnan ihey had ever fallen to in this country.
kip,,,hich used to be done at Bid. per yard, was
tV ut one at 5d.. per yard at Lyons. He denied,
eqh-tuemre, that any argument in favour of restriction
tOk be founded upon distress, and that any eon-
fts"44l as to
.the success of the trade could be drawn
Iti the .which prevailed. If the argument,
At!, distress
ti)i'th had, been founded on distress, were worth any
rung, it *Mild prove also that France was unfit to
t7y on the silk trade.—(Hear.)—Our manufac-
h4:ers, being saddled with a large duty at starting,
`lnot yet had 'a fair trial. The Hon. Member for
f tington presented a petition in 1820 in favour of
t4P-e„ trade generally, and vet the same Hon. Member
• last 4• opposed to this trial be-
6, rught,;that he was
1 stade For his own part, however, he must ob-
%tie that h • listened with the greatest
1%2 toat after having
qt2on, to the speech of the Hon. Member for
liCugton last• night, he could not tell, when the
vo;"• Member sat down, which way he meant to
41:' It was quite impossible to promote com-
Vico by a restrictive system. That system had
tie,ttl tried in France, and it had completely failed.
111 h.„hi take an instance. At Terrere, which was
hie paisley of France, the spinners of fine yarn
Ilafrect foi prOtection against English yarns. A veryil
tie duty was imposed 6 upon all English yarns, and
Isj,:,Fonsequenee was, that the manufacturers
the 8" and fine calico, who could not do without
tp;o,Plle yarns, which the French manufacturers
61,71 not produce, were. obliged to have our yarns
47ght in by smuggling, at the rate of between
ls-Y and seventy per cent. Now, when it was
k:°llected in what mode the French guarded
illnst smuggling—that there; were military cor-
e (I,;'s in all parts of the country, through three or
t''t of which, at least, smuggled goods must pass, it
ii:tl/tlbeeasily believed bow difficult it was, nay, how
IOPV.II, ible it was to put a stop to smuggling where,
hot-niceutive was sufficiently great. This place was
tr"-, in a state of complete destitution : not onen English
tir:,_en of their looms were, in employ. E
gthe
sh"tnti: and 'misfit's had been introduced,
ulglers beginning to sell as soon, as .they had
oktfled'one cordon, and .so 4::.n. He 'would give t!ts-
i"Lrinstance .—An ingenious and well-known in-
glij
"maFobtained a patent in this 'country for ma-
tees
.for the manufacture of bobbin-net, whichf
?rae
.change in the manufacture o
' 41,F,t.eda complete:
7` 'Thiii'initiiidUtir Wing- that he had secured

men.

the markets in this country, which he had by the
privilege of his paiciu, re;royed !,) France for the
purpose of makin7-I,oi,i,iu-,et !,ere. Finding, how-
ever, that he coal u,,t ilo xvithout Eng!i,h ptrns,
he obtained them by me ,us of smugg,hag, 411 PI had
them conveyed to ris at the ra eof 10 per cent.
He did this for a time, nu rely to introduce the sr-
tide. Since then the same individual had re•
moved some of these machines to a town on the
frontier,—he %vont(' not mention the name of the
town,—and there, in spite of all the French Go-
vernment could do, he continued the manufac-
ture at the expense of 20 per cent. So it was
with Swiss jewellery. Though Swiss jewellery
was prohibited in France, yet jewellery bought
in Switzerland was actually delivered to the pur-
chasers, if they pleased, without risk, at Paris.
These instances ought to be a lesson to France as
well as this country, and teath them that the re-
strictive system would not do. He believed there
was a disposition on the part of the French Go-
vernment to change their system ; but whether
there was or was not, they must change it at last.
The prejudices of the people were against it, and it
was not to be wondered at that these prejudices
should exist in such a quarter, when they saw intel-
ligent and enlightened men—men who had the
means of information—entertaining them.—(Hear,
and a laugh.)—What did the Hon. Member who
made this motion for inquiry propose to gain by the
inquiry ? What did the Hon. Member ask which
he (Mr. Hnme) did not concede to him ? He con-
ceded to him the distress, and the superior advan-
tages of the French. It must be the remedy, then,
which the Hon. Member had in view. Well, then,

the Hon. Member would continue the distress which
now existed during the prosecution of the inquiry;
nay, he would increase it, by throwing all employed
in the trade out of work, in consequence of the un-
certainty which would prevail respecting the re-
commendations of the committee. This would be
doing a positive evil. Then how would the Hon.
Member come out, of the committee ? The Hon.
Member could conic out of it only in three ways—
N‘ith a recommendation for prohibition, or for
modified, or free trade.—(Hear, hear.)—lie need
hardly tell the Honourable Member that that
House would not agree to the first. It had been
tried, and it had failed. As to raising the duty, that
would be adding new inconvenieneies to the manu-
facturer, by burdening him with an extra duty upon
the raw material. This he thought the House
would never consent to, any more than the Hon.
Member would consent to the third recommenda-
tion. As to the proposition respecting the throws-
ters, (lea would be to give one man employment
by throwing four men out of work. He looked
forward to the silk trade of this country being a
great export trade, which he had no doubt it would
be when the affairs of India were settled. Under
these circumstances, he did not see what good
would result from the appointment of a Committee.
The trade had doubled itself; let the restrictions be
reduced, and the progress of the trade would be in
proportion to that reduction. No doubt also some-
thing must be done to lessen the burden of taxation,
to which the depression in this as well as in other
branches of our wide was in a great measure to be
attributed. The Ministers must do this before long,
and the country gentlemen must join in the cry for
retrenchment.
Mr. DAVENPORT bore testimony to the dis-
tress which prevailed, and urged the necessity of ap-
pointing a Committee.
Mr. FERGUSSON stated that he should vote
against the motion made by the Hon. Member for
Coventry (Mr. Fyler), because he thought that in-
quiry might do harm by causing a further stagnation
in trade, but could not possibly do any good. He
was glad that his Majesty's Ministers did not go the
full length of the theories of political economists,
but proposed to protect the capital invested in the
silk trade by a moderate duty. If, however, he
thought that by prohibition he could preserve the
means of existence to those people, who were now
suffering extreme distress, he would not startle at
the word prohibition, but would consent to any
measure for excluding the French silk from the mar-
kets of this country. But he thought that prohibi-
tion would be far from affording protection to the
silk-manufacturers of this country, and would only
give additional inducement to the crime of smuggling.
He did not see any reason why the manufacture of
silk, under proper and moderate protection, might
not extend itself in the same miraculous manner as
the manufacture of cotton, which during the last 40
years, from 1780, had increased 100 fold. The
Hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), that advo-
cate of exclusion, civil, religious, and commercial,
yesterday stated that Government proposed to give
the preference to the manufactures of slaves, and
not to the manufactures of our countrymen. He
would tell that Honourable Member that the na-
tives of India, to whom the Honourable Member
had, in using that expression, alluded, were his
fellow-subjects, and some of them could reasona s
well as the Hon. Member himself. He (Mr. Fergus-
son) thought that the Right Hon. Gent. opposite,
in giving the boon he intended to our fellow-sub-
jects in India, had conferred a signal benefit on his
country. The House should recollect that the
people of this country had no right to use the in-
habitants of India merely for their own profit ; and,
after inundating India with muslins, to the ruin of
many thousands of Hindoos, deny to that people
any reciprocal advantage.
Mr. SADLER assured the House that he had
not expressed, nor did he entertain, the sentiments
imputed to him by the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down. He never called the inhabitants of
India slaves ; but only regretted that the English
artisan, who was taxed to a higher amount than the
Hindoo, should be subject to a ruinous rivalry with
the native of India. He certainly must confess,
that until these discussions commenced, he never
knew that the people of India were the subjects of
the British Crown. He had always recognised
them as the subjects of the East India Company.
Mr. FERGUSSON informed the Hon. Member,
that if he would look to the Act of Parliament, he
would find that the East Indies were the posses-
sions of: the British Crown, and that the people of
hose countries were the fellow-subjects of 'English-

Mr. EGERTON supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for Coventry, and he did so because
of the great distress existing generally in the silk-
trade, but which he had a particular opportunity of
observing in Macclesfield and Congleton. He re-
gretted much the proposition made by the Right
Hon. Gentleman to reduce the duty on thrown silk,
because he thought it would add to the distress
already experienced by the throwsters.
Mr. P. THOMSON bore testimony to the very
able speech which the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site delivered last night. He had not heard a s►ngle
argument urged in favour of the motion before the
House, except by the Hon. Member who made it.
The Hon. Member for Worcester, who seconded the
motion, had not shown that the distress now exist-
ing among the silk manufacturers was connected with
the law of 1826. The Hon. Member for Callington
had indeed stated that a great increase of consump.
tion had taken place since 1826. 'then came the
Hon. Member for Newark, who told the House that
he had strong reasons for objecting to the principles
of free trade, not only in the particular article of
silk, but in every other article whatsoever, but he
did not produce them. He (Mr. Thomson) must
confess that he had looked, with not a little curio-
sity, to one of those vehicles by which, by some
means or other, what passed in that House was
conveyed to the public, to see if he could find, as he
had on a former occasion, any argument in it not
urged in that House, but lie must confess that he
was disappointed. The Hon. Member for Newark,
besides making use of mere declamation, and warn-
ing the House of the danger of adopting the mea-
sures proposed by Government, ought also to pro-
duce arguments to bear him out in his statements.
The Hon. Gentleman had, however, thought proper
to keep his arguments to himself, and be (Mr.
Thomson) was not disposed to give him credit for
having any, because, in the few speeches which lie

had heard the Hon. Gentletnan deliver, he had not
heard him make use of one ai;:,rutnent. He was op-
posed to the formation of a Committee of Inquiry,
because he thought that inquiry a•onld only add to
the distress already existing., aid make greater the
stagnation in the trade. Though he kne►v that
great distress e \s.ed, he still did not believe

that it was so extensive as the Hon. Member
for Coventry had desciibed. llc 14a.:4 in his
possession a letter from an individual of the
highest respectability in the commercial and manu-
facturing circles, stating that most branches of
the silk trade were in full work at Manchester, and
imputing the stagnation which prevailed in the trade
partly to the unaccountable delay of Ministers in
stating their intention as to the rate of duty to be,
laid on thrown and manufactured silk. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had shown the immense increase
which had taken place in the trade. He was en-

titled, therefore, to say, that there was no connec-
tion between the cause and effect of the Hon. Mem-
ber who had brought forward this question. In ad-
dition to our trading, there were local causes of the
distress which now prevailed. Equal distress had
prevailed in 1765, 1766, 1773, and 1816, when
prohibition existed. But did it never occur to the
Hon. Mover, and those who supported him, that
other great branches of trade were now labouring
under equal depression with tl:e silk-manufacture ?
Although " the book price," as it was called, had
been repealed, some parts of that system were still
retained amongst those deluded men the silk-
weavers. A friend of his, a manufacturer, who had
an order for a quantity of serge about two months
ago, when the distress was most prevalent in Spi-
talfields, sent for two operatives, and told them he
would give them 7d. a yard for manufacturing it.
The men said they would give him an answer in
three days. He agreed to this, and the men pro-
ceeded to the Parliament in Spitalfields, where the
manufacturer's proposition was met, as he trusted
the motion before the House would be, with a de-
cided negative. The manufacturer the► got his
Work done in Es ex for sd. a yard. L► Manchester
the operatives had turned out, and continued with-
out work for four months, during all which time
they supported themselves. He would now consi-
der the case of the throwster. He thought the
Right Honourable Gentleman had done as much
as he could ; but his own opinion was, that it
would be wise to go further. In sacrificing his own
opinion, however, he gave one example of a poli-
tical economist who was not too strongly at-
tached to abstract principles. Unless it could be
shown that the throwster had less to do since 1826
than he had before, he maintained-that it was im-
possible to connect his present distress with
the law passed in the period to which he referred.
In 1821, the proportion of Italian thrown silk to

Italian raw silk, was 561 per cent. ; in 1822, it was
59 per cent.; in 1823, 55 per cent.; in 1827, two
years after the operation of the law, 35 per cent. ;
and in 1828, when the law was in full operation, it
was reduced to 25 per cent. He therefore main-
tained that the throwster had no case to stand upon.
Improvements in machinery, which rendered the old
mills nearly useless, must have had some influence
in producing the present distress. He accused Hon.
Members who had spoken on this subject of not
having inquired into all the circumstances connected
with the question. Another great cause of distress
amongst the throwsters was their want of capital,
which prevented them from purchasing silk them-
selves, and rendered them merely the workmen of
brokers. He would venture to state that no throw-
ster who had adopted the new machinery, and car-
ried on his business economically and industriously,
had suffered. One of the principal throwsters had
informed him that he could not have employed his
capital in any business which would have produced
him a better return for it. The Hon. Member then
proceeded to argue, that if all duty was removed
from thrown silk, the weaver would be materially
benefitted. The Italian thrown silk belonged to the
finer branches of the manufacture. Throwsters in
this country found it less profitable to throw fine
than course silk. The fine silk imported from Italy
could only be thrown in that country, owing to the
peculiarity of the climate. To tax this article could
be of no benefit to the throwster, since he could not
firid a substitute for it, and he would not be able to
throw a single pound more if the duty were in-
creased, nor a single pound less if it were decreased.
In his opinion fashion would be found to have a
most important influence on the state of the silk
trade. If the lady who went to Almack's wore silk,
the lady who lived in St. Giles's would endeavour
to dress in silk also. The lion. Member then pro-
ceeded to condemn the censures which the Hon.
Member for Callington had thrown on the prin-
ciples of free trade. He knew not, however, in
what instance the principle of free trade was carried
into effect. He looked through the Statute-book,
and saw not a single article which was not loaded
with heavy' duties. At the present moment the
House was discussing whether the duty on silk
should be 25 or 35 per cent. It was generally ad-
mitted that consumption afforded the best criterion
of the prosperity of a country. He would therefore
state to the House the results which some returns
on the table presented as to five of the principal ar-
ticles of consumption within the last four years. The
articles to which he referred were sugar, coffee, cot-
ton, flax, and tallow. The amount of those articles
imported was as follows :--
QUA N